Sitting of 8 May 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity Order 1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967 that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

2. Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968.

3. Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1968.

4. Legitimation (Scotland) Act 1968.

5. Rent Act 1968.

6. Commonwealth Telecommunications Act 1968.

7. Scottish Life Assurance Company Act 1968.

8. Saint Mary, Summerstown Act 1968.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  RAILWAYS

    Deficit
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport what revised estimate of the deficit and losses of British Railways he has made following the Budget and devaluation, for the year ending 31st March 1969.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): No revised estimate has been made because I still expect the deficit to be in accordance with the estimate.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to the fact that last year's losses were more than £150 million—quite staggering in character—and that losses this year are proceeding at a higher level, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can confirm or deny that authoritative sources putting losses at £200 million for this year are nearer to the mark?
    Mr. Marsh: No, the hon. Gentleman is committing the mistake of believing all that he reads.
    Mr. Webster: May I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box to answer Questions? Is he aware that we expect him to reduce the deficit, as was done in the years when the Tory Party was in office, without shuffling this on to the P.T.A.s and other bodies?
    Mr. Marsh: It is not unreasonable that we should be able to give the Board some relief from what are totally unrealistic, inherited capital burdens. This is the purpose of the policy.

    London-Newcastle (Motorail Fare)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the recent increase of more than 50 per cent. in the Motorail return fare between London and Newcastle is compatible with the Government's prices and incomes policy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marsh: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon.

    391
    Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on 2nd February, 1968.—[Vol. 757, c. 425.]
    Mr. Goodhart: If an increase in fares from £19 to £29 is consistent with Government policy during a period of price restraint, is the right hon. Gentleman surprised that the travelling public is in despair?
    Mr. Marsh: I do not see why the travelling public should be in despair. This is the first increase since 1960. If the rest of British industry had done as well, the travelling public would have been very happy.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: The travelling public will deplore this fantastic increase. If this service was showing a loss commensurate with this enormous increase in fares, why was it not determined before?
    Mr. Marsh: Firstly, this is the first increase on this line since 1960, which is a very good record. Secondly, the Opposition cannot have it both ways. They want the nationalised industries to conform to market pressures and the evidence here is that the market will bear more.

    Socially Useful Railway Lines (Cost)
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Minister of Transport how the cost of socially useful railway lines in excess of £55 million per annum will be financed.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): The figure of £55 million is an estimate of the likely total cost, not a statutory limit. The whole cost of these grants will be financed from the Exchequer.
    Mr. Galbraith: If the figure of £55 million is only an estimate, does this mean that, if all socially useful lines are to be kept open, the figure means nothing at all and is in fact an open ended subsidy from the Government which may well be in excess of £55 million?
    Mr. Carmichael: No, Sir. We are not in a position to improve on the broad estimate of £55 million made by the Joint Steering Group, but we have no reason to think that the figure is unrealistic.

    British Railways (Annual Report)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport when the Annual Report of British Railways will be published.
    Mr. Marsh: Today week.
    Mr. Taylor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while these Annual Reports are very interesting, the information in them is often out of date? Can he indicate what will be the final revised figure for 1967 and in general whether there has been an improvement or deterioration in the financial position of British Railways in the first three months of this year?
    Mr. Marsh: We have already announced the 1967 deficit as £153 million and the 1968 deficit is estimated at £152 million. The accounts will be in the Annual Report.

    Accident, Hither Green (Inquiry Report)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Transport when the report of the public inquiry into the Hither Green railway disaster will be published.
    Mr. Marsh: The Report by Colonel McMullen, Chief Inspecting Officer, on the Hither Green accident has been delayed by the formal investigation into the accident at Hixon automatic half-barrier level crossing on 6th January. He will complete the Report as soon as possible, but it is unlikely that it can be published before July or August. Colonel McMullen is, however, satisfied that the cause of the Hither Green accident was a broken rail and that the steps taken since the accident by the British Railways Board to improve track testing and maintenance are adequate.
    Mr. Moyle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reassurance. Would he agree that public inquiries, particularly where the question of human life is involved, should be completed as quickly as possible to ensure that any uncertainty that may exist is investigated and cleared up quickly? Is not 10 months too long a time to wait for these matters to be cleared up?
    Mr. Marsh: I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety, which I share. The problem here was, as I say, the subsequent accident at Hixon. It is important, in addition to speed—and I assure my hon. Friend that I accept the need for speed—that accidents of this sort should be thoroughly investigated.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the publication date, since I suggest that July or August is too far ahead for us to wait and since public concern about this matter is really acute? Is he aware that he would be performing a valuable service if he made the Report available long before July?
    Mr. Marsh: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to expedite the publication of the Report as much as we can. However, the Hixon accident is involved and it is important that both of these inquiries should be conducted exhaustively, in terms of avoiding future accidents on the same basis and for the benefit of the people involved.
    Mr. Webster: At this time of financial stringency, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is no cut back in measures designed to achieve safety on the permanent way?
    Mr. Marsh: Yes, Sir.

    Accident (Burnley)
    Sir Frank Pearsonasked the Minister of Transport if, in order to ensure the safety of engine drivers and firemen, he will obtain a report from the Inspector of Accidents into the death of a fireman while the train passed under a bridge near Burnley.
    Mr. Marsh: The Railways Board has sent me a report on this unfortunate accident. I understand that a joint inquiry was made by the Burnley Borough Police and the British Transport Police, Midland Area; the inquest has been adjourned until 21st May, and I cannot anticipate the verdict. In the meantime, I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the bereaved.
    Sir Frank Pearson: While wishing to add my sympathy to that expressed by the right hon. Gentleman to the bereaved and while thanking the Minister for that
    394
    Answer, may I ask him to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to see if something can be done through the schools to inculcate a greater degree of responsibility among young people in regard to this type of accident?
    Mr. Marsh: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The tragedy is that small children do strange things from time to time; but I agree that this is a point that might well be brought home to the schools.

    Liverpool-Gateacre Suburban Railway
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the Liverpool bus strike and the fact that bus services will be much reduced in Liverpool when the strike is over, he will reconsider the proposal that the Liverpool-Gateacre suburban railway line should be closed.
    Mr. Carmichael: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no power to reverse his predecessor's decision. But the closure cannot take place unless and until the additional bus services specified in the conditions of consent set out in the Department's letter of 21st April, 1966, are available.
    Mr. Fortescue: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that every train on this line has been packed by commuters and others for the last nine weeks and the five single-decker buses proposed to replace them will be entirely inadequate? Will the Minister show a little flexibility and admit that the decision made by his predecessor to close this line was shortsighted and wrong?
    Mr. Carmichael: The question of reversal of a decision is of course not possible statutorily, but on the question of the numbers travelling it may of course be necessary to revise the number of buses put on to replace the trains.

  TRANSPORT

    Passenger Fares
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport, having regard to the 3½ per cent. maximum increase to be permitted

    395
    for incomes and prices, what steps he is taking to stabilise railway and omnibus passenger fares during 1968–69.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): Any major increases proposed in rail fares, or in underground or bus fares in London, are referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Other bus fares are controlled by the independent Traffic Commisioners who have a duty to take into account the criteria of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I am aware of all these things. Will the hon. Gentleman now apply himself to the Question? What is to be the influence on the prices and incomes policy of precipitate rises in fares for the millions of commuters in London and elsewhere? Will he resist such rises resolutely, as befits his office?
    Mr. Swingler: There are no precipitate rises in fares in this respect. All these matters are being scrutinised by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Moreover, in the case of London fares, they then have to go before the Transport Tribunal, where they are open to objection. No precipitate changes are being made. London fares have been stable since January, 1966.
    Sir R. Cary: May I ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that a large number of services that are socially desirable but completely uneconomic can be operated only if fares are increased? Is he aware that it may not be possible to imprison that rise within 3½ per cent.?
    Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman may be right, in which case the criteria will have to be applied. In those instances which he is thinking about, they are applied by the Traffic Commissioners, and appeals are possible from them to my right hon. Friend. That is how these matters are judged.

    Goods (Loss in Transit)
    Captain W. Elliotasked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a general directive to the Transport Holding Company to extend beyond 14 days the period within which claims for compensation for goods lost in transit may be submitted.
    Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. The conditions under which traffic is carried are a matter of management for the Holding Company and its subsidiaries.
    Captain Elliot: Would the Minister look into this? A spokesman has made a statement to the effect that claims will not be considered after 14 days. Is he aware that this means inconvenience for customers, as good often take longer than that to arrive?
    Mr. Swingler: I am advised that the statement incorporated in the hon. Gentleman's Question is not correct. If he knows of any hard cases, of which at the moment the British Transport Holding Company is unaware, I shall be glad to go into the matter with the Holding Company.

    Transport Bill
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Transport what recent representations he has received from the farming community about the effects of the Transport Bill on farming.
    Mr. Carmichael: We have received a number of representations, mainly concerned with the goods transport provisions of the Bill, and we, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, have consulted the industry.
    Mr. Marten: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anxieties of the farming community about the increased costs which will fall either on the farmer or the consumer or the taxpayers through the Price Review? As the Minister of Agriculture has said that he cannot calculate what will be the cost to the farming community, is not this a curious way to run the Government?
    Mr. Carmichael: We have no evidence that there will be any marked increase in agricultural costs. Traffic will be diverted to the railways if the rail service concerned is good enough in terms of speed and cost. Where perishable goods are involved, it is likely that the railways will accept that these constitute a special case for road transport and will not even object.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the main fears of the farming community was in relation to the carriage of livestock and that, since these provisions were removed from the Bill, those fears no longer exist?
    Mr. Carmichael: A number of other concessions have been made to the farming community as well—for instance, in relation to drivers' hours—because we recognise that it has certain special difficulties, including seasonal difficulties. These have been met in the Bill as far as possible
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from people or firms in Norfolk against the Transport Bill; and what answer he has given them.
    Mr. Carmichael: We have received a number of representations from individuals and firms in Norfolk about the Transport Bill. They are mostly concerned with the road haulage provisions of the Bill and appropriate replies have been sent.
    Mr. Hill: Is the Minister aware that I can send him plenty more of a severely practical and objective nature? Does he agree that the Bill, unless amended, raises the grave danger of half hamstringing a county's transport merely because of its geographical situation?
    Mr. Carmichael: There is no evidence that any special difficulties will be anticipated in Norfolk. There are arrangements in the Bill whereby rail will only compete for traffic when it will be more economic. The criterion which has been laid down will safeguard Norfolk as well as the rest of the country.
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the availability of hostel or similar accommodation in the London area for those long-distance drivers who will now be unable to return home in one day because of the proposed restriction on drivers' hours in the Transport Bill; and what conclusions he has reached.
    Mr. Carmichael: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 6th November, 1967.—[Vol. 753, c. 67–68.]
    Mr. Hill: Whatever that reply may have been, is it not nonsensical to risk not making the optimum use of expensive equipment, vehicles and skilled operators by preventing their taking a return load in one day and getting home?
    Mr. Carmichael: This is true, except that it must be accepted that the safety factors involved in the return load are also important. It is now 30-odd years since the drivers' hours were fixed at 11 and it is thought that a reduction is needed, particularly considering the very big increase in traffic over the last 35 years.
    Mr. Lane: Would the hon. Gentleman consider coming to visit East Anglia during the recess to hear for himself what some people feel and fear about the Transport Bill?
    Mr. Carmichael: I have travelled a great deal, not perhaps in East Anglia, but in many other areas and in Scotland, where we had many of the same objections. I am glad to say that the more the Bill becomes known by people in areas such as these, the more they realise that the campaign launched against it was badly organised and ill-founded.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the milk distributive trade regarding the effects of the Transport Bill; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Carmichael: We have had several such representations, mainly about quantity licensing and drivers' hours. We are still considering some of the points raised.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that I wrote to him as long ago as 16th February on behalf of an important section of the trade in Scotland and still have not had any reply or comment? Does he not appreciate that there is great concern in this industry, which provides a seven-day service, about working a seven-day week and about the effects of the new provisions for drivers' hours?
    Mr. Carmichael: I must apologise for the delay in answering and I will take it up at the Ministry. There have, of

    399
    course, been many letters and circulars from hon. Members on the Transport Bill and the Ministry is working very hard answering them. We are still concerned, although we want to help in every way possible, that milkmen must be given the same chance to be fit and ready for their work, so as not to cause accidents, as any other driver. The safety aspect is very important.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of vehicles used in milk distribution are exempt from the licensing provisions of the Bill, and that the question of the heavier vehicles, over 16 tons and going over 100 miles, are still being considered?
    Mr. Carmichael: It is true that vehicles under 30 cwt., which are the bulk of the daily delivery vehicles, are completely exempt, not from the drivers' hours provisions but from the other provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. MacArthur: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the Bill's serious impact on milk deliveries in rural areas over long distances, particularly in Scotland? Is he aware of the growing demand in Scotland for the withdrawal of this wretched Bill, and will he try to influence his right hon. Friend to withdraw it?
    Mr. Carmichael: I am sorry, but I am not aware of this growing demand. As I said, I think that the campaign did not really get off the ground. I met as many Scottish hauliers as most hon. Members and I found that, once the Bill had been explained to them, they frequently took a totally different view from the popular image given by hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the various canal and waterway associations on the Transport Bill; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Carmichael: Several associations interested in the various recreational and amenity uses of the nationalised inland waterways have made constructive suggestions. Some of these have led to Government amendments to the Transport Bill which have been welcomed by the Standing Committee. We are considering carefully other points raised by hon. Members in Committee.
    Mr. Costain: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Minister is enthusiastic about the use of waterways for recreation? Will he take further note of the representations made to him to improve these facilities?
    Mr. Carmichael: For the first time, I think, a Government have recognised the greater part which the inland waterways can play in giving amenities in a crowded island like ours. The Bill embodies a realistic appreciation of what can be done with the waterways and how they can be used. It is a very helpful part of the Bill, which should be welcomed by all.

    Accidents (Skidding Cars)
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated proportion of accidents caused by cars skidding.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): In 1966, skidding occurred in 24 per cent. of personal injury accidents, but the skidding was not necessarily the cause of all of them.
    Mr. Marten: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps the greatest contribution to road safety which the Ministry could make is to encourage the four-wheeled drive, which is being developed on a commercial basis for the ordinary motorist?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is doing a number of things for road safety on the question of skidding including the new tyre regulations and continual research into road surfacing. Manufacturers are also continually improving the anti-skid properties of tyres and the Road Research Laboratory is doing research on anti-lock braking systems. Indeed, research is continually going on into the subject.

    Nationalised Industries (Subsidiary Companies)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Transport if he will place in the Library copies of the accounts of all subsidiary companies of nationalised industries under his control.
    Mr. Carmichael: We have agreed with the nationalised transport industries to make available to the House copies of the

    401
    future accounts of their active direct subsidiaries as and when they are required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies.
    Mr. Ridley: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reversing the policy of the previous Minister. Will this include the accounts of subsidiaries of British Railways making and repairing railway wagons?
    Mr. Carmichael: This is not a departure from previous practice. All that has happened is that previous accounts filed with the Registrar will also be put in the Library, and perhaps save hon. Members some trouble. The hon. Gentleman is really asking about Clause 45, which was discussed in great detail in Committee. The accounts of the railway workshops, as a subsidiary, will also be placed in the Library.

    Nationalised Industries (Board Members' Salaries)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Transport if he will raise the salaries of the board members of the nationalised industries under his control to levels commensurate with those paid by the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Websterasked the Minister of Transport whether he will hold a review of the salary structure for board members in the nationalised industries sponsored by his Department.
    Mr. Marsh: As I told the House on 15th March, 1967, the salaries fixed for members of the then new Steel Corporation were related to the special position of the steel industry. It will of course be necessary later this year to determine the salaries of members of the new authorities proposed in the Transport Bill. These salaries will be considered in the light of the need to obtain the best people for the jobs and of the position elsewhere in nationalised transport and in nationalised industries generally.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his position of pretending that the Steel Corporation is in some way special is entirely bogus and without foundation? Will he admit that the Government have made a serious error in underpaying the chairmen and board members of nationalised industries, and will he give an undertaking to put it right
    402
    in the forthcoming review to which he has referred?
    Mr. Marsh: One of the problems that one faces, concerning the salaries of chairmen and board members of nationalised industries, is that it was not faced up to for a very long period previously, and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot deny it.
    Sir G. Nabarro: What about Beeching?
    Mr. Marsh: We are now faced with——
    Sir G. Nabarro: What about Beeching?
    Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman is even more repetitive this afternoon.
    We are now faced with particular problems over the prices and incomes policy. The Government are determined to ensure that the people appointed to boards are the best available.
    Mr. Webster: Does the Minister agree that it is essential to bring in the best people from outside industry and to recruit people from inside nationalised industries, and will he undertake not to be intimidated by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity?
    Mr. Marsh: The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity shares the views which I, as a member of the Government, share on this matter.

    River Mersey (Commuting Traffic)
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Transport what is his estimate of the increase in commuter traffic between south and north Merseyside likely by the late nineteen-seventies; and what proposals he has for providing further river river crossings during the next decade.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Although we have some indications of the future volume of commuter traffic across the Mersey, full and up-to-date information must await completion of the Merseyside Area Land Use Transportation Study. Until then no decisions can be taken on further river crossings, beyond the duplication of the Liverpool-Wallasey Tunnel which is already programmed.
    Mr. Brooks: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the public will have ample opportunity to consider the land use implications of the high-level bridge

    403
    which is now under consideration between Bebington and Liverpool? Further, does he agree that the high costs of commuting across the River Mersey require considerable thought to be given, when future decisions are taken, over the location of new jobs in Liverpool and Wirral respectively.
    Mr. Brown: The public will be consulted by the M.A.L.U.T. study. The decision on the third crossing will depend on the findings of the M.A.L.U.T. study. It is too early to say, as yet, whether it will take the form of a tunnel or a bridge. This will depend on the location, cost, and other factors.
    Mr. Fortescue: Has any consideration been given to the possibility of a hovercraft service across the upper Mersey estuary which, being all water at high tide and nearly all sand at low tide, will be eminently suitable for such a form of transport?
    Mr. Brown: This is another question. In any event, this is surely a question for the Merseyside Area Land Use Transportation Study Group.
    Mr. Ogden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the rapid redevelopment of the city centres of Liverpool and Birkenhead will make it difficult to find a route for a third crossing near the city centres? Will he look into the possibility of a bridge or tunnel on the line of the outer ring road?
    Mr. Brown: As I have said, this is a matter for the Study Group. It is too early to say at this stage. The location will depend entirely on cost and other factors.
    Mr. Tilney: Does the Minister agree that Merseyside, although undergoing a little heart surgery at present in the construction of two tunnels, will in future badly need more bridges if the two sides of the Mersey are to operate as one economic unit?
    Mr. Brown: No. while some forecasts of the future volume of cross-river traffic have been made—for example, in the Merseyside Traffic Survey published in 1962—we consider that the projections to be produced as part of the M.A.L.U.T. study will prove more useful for the long-term transportation planning of the area.

    Coal
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the effect of the contraction of the coal industry upon the ports in Scotland.
    Mr. Swingler: None, Sir. This is, in the first place, a matter for the port authorities concerned, who are in touch with the National Coal Board about future coal shipments.
    Mr. Eadie: Would my hon. Friend not agree that there is a strong feeling that the contractions of the mining industry cannot be considered in isolation, that this augurs badly for other industries and that investigations should be made?
    Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend and the Government have shown that they agree that the matter cannot be taken in isolation, but I am advised that, in 1967, coal amounted to only about 8 per cent. of total port traffic in Scotland and that the total level of port traffic there was maintained, but this is a matter over which, no doubt, the port authorities are keeping a careful watch.
    Sir G. Nabarro: But would not the hon. Gentleman apply himself to advising the Minister of Power to use Scottish coal, transported by Scottish rail, to the new Alcan smelter at Invergordon, thereby using Scottish resources and preventing the electoral debâcle of yesterday in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Paisley?
    Mr. Swingler: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has introduced a number of extraneous matters. We will, nevertheless go into them but they are, of course, the responsibility first of the port authorities.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Transport what losses in revenue are anticipated by the railway industry as a result of contraction of the mining industry.
    Mr. Carmichael: The effect on net revenue will depend on the pattern of the contraction, and the way in which the Board adapts to it.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was no electoral débâcle in my constituency yesterday? Does he not agree, to return to my Question, that

    405
    the figures illustrate the financial problems for the railways of loss of revenue? Would he not agree that this would make it much more difficult for the railways to become more viable?
    Mr. Carmichael: Of course the loss of a very big revenue such as coal has an effect on the railways, but there is close liaison between the railways, the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board to make the best and most economic use of the railways, such as "merry-go-round" trains, to try to keep the net loss of revenue as low as possible.
    Mr. Mapp: Will my hon. Friend, along with the railways and coal industry, face the main problem, which is, in the modern sense, to containerise coal traffic and get rid of the difficulty of loading and unloading? There is a problem in containerising bulk coal, but could this not be looked at carefully?
    Mr. Carmichael: As I said, "merry-go-round" trains have been a big step forward and the real investment of the railways in new types of loading and unloading coal has been very high. The C.E.G.B., the railways and the Coal Board are aware of the necessity to keep up to date in these matters.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to announce the location of the termini of the Channel Tunnel; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marsh: The termini would be in the general area of Folkestone and Calais. My Department is at present consulting local and other interests at official level on the detailed siting of terminal facilities in this country, but there will be more formal consultations before a decision is reached on the proposals to be presented to Parliament.
    Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that until this is settled, it will hold up development in the Folkestone area? Will he do all he can to get an early decision, so that we can get on with our development?
    Mr. Marsh: I appreciate the problem, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise
    406
    that these are important decisions involving consultations. The Bill provides, of course, in Clause 154 for powers to deal with planning blight.
    Mr. Crouch: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, apart from this decision being important from the point of view of the actual termini of the proposed tunnel, the whole question of road strategy in the South-East is held up and that there is a feeling that, in the Ministry's consideration of the volume of road traffic to the Channel ports, Dover and the two new proposed hover ports which are to be built this year are not being given sufficient priority?
    Mr. Marsh: This is precisely why one must embark on very exhaustive consultations. These are major decisions and it would be wrong to rush them without proper consultations.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no final decision has yet been taken about proceeding with the tunnel? Will he publish his latest estimates of traffic and revenue for the type of project which is now likely to proceed?
    Mr. Marsh: As the hon. Gentleman must be aware, we could not proceed with the tunnel until legislation had gone through the House and the approval of the House had been obtained.
    Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very important inter-party group, called the Parliamentary Channel Tunnel Group? In view of its patience over the last 12 months, would he consider meeting the group for an all-party or open meeting so that some of these points can be raised for inter-party discussion?
    Mr. Marsh: I am in favour of anything which involves hon. Gentlemen opposite in an understanding of difficult decisions, and I would be prepared to consider such an invitation.
    Mr. Deedes: Would the right hon. Gentleman avoid the impression of being surreptitious about this project? In view of the great upheaval which will be caused on this side of the Channel, would he appreciate that we have a right to be told more about it?
    Mr. Marsh: I find it difficult to understand what the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about. I have explained where the termini are likely to be. The consultations will take place on this with all the parties involved and there is nothing surreptitious about it. Consultations are going on and as soon as the decisions are reached they will be announced.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government are very keen to give the utmost information about the tunnel—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who told you?"] If hon. Members will only wait, I will inform their ignorance. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a new Clause was put down to the Transport Bill with the idea of this matter being settled, but which is receiving nothing but impediments from hon. Gentlemen opposite to avoid discussion?
    Mr. Marsh: This is a problem: virtue has a habit of being misunderstood.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Would the right hon. Gentleman now answer my previous question—whether or not, apart from Parliamentary approval, the Government have decided definitely to go ahead with the Channel Tunnel? In view of the fact that the figures now available to the House are out-dated, would he publish new ones as soon as possible?
    Mr. Marsh: Certainly, at the first possible opportunity, the up-to-date information will be given. The Government's position over the tunnel remains unchanged. Before any such move can be taken to go ahead, it would involve legislation coming before the House.
    Mr. Costain: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Lorries (High Wind Risks)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Transport how many accidents have occurred in the past 12 months involving lorries being blown over on exposed roads and bridges in high winds; and what steps are being taken by his department, other than closing such bridges as the Severn Bridge during high
    408
    winds, to reduce these high wind risks to large lorries.
    Mr. Bob Brown: No national figures are available, but sample surveys indicate that the number of such accidents is very small. We are prepared to authorise the use of a traffic sign at places where there is persistent danger from high winds.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does not that show that, when other factors are equal, tunnels are preferable to bridges?
    Mr. Brown: That is another question, although expense must be considered.

    Road Accidents
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Transport what factors have caused the decline of road accidents per 1,000 vehicles involving death from 3·2 in 1930 to 0·5 in 1967.
    Mr. Marsh: The fact that road deaths have decreased in comparison with vehicle population may be attributed to a large number of factors, including the decline in the use of two-wheeled vehicles, improved roads and the whole range of road safety measures.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: The figures having been reduced to one-sixth of the previous level, is it not high time that the motorist was for a change given some credit for doing something good instead of always being penalised and threatened?
    Mr. Marsh: I would not want to be in the position of either penalising or threatening motorists, and there is considerable evidence to show that the motorist is well aware of the responsibilities he has to himself and to others. It is, of course, important to put this matter in its right context and I agree that the evidence available at present shows that we are getting a better performance from the point of view of road accidents.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Apart from the standard of driving, which appears to be steadily improving year by year, has the Minister noticed the recent reports of the Metropolitan Police, in which satisfaction is expressed with the increased safety that has been brought about by traffic engineering improvements in the Metropolitan area, which have had the effect

    409
    of bringing about an improvement of perhaps 30 per cent. in terms of road accidents?
    Mr. Marsh: Certainly that is a contributory factor. However, we must remember that the present accident rate is appallingly high in this country. Anything more that we can do to help to bring down the rate it is right for us to do.

    Parking Offences
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Transport whether he will seek to amend the law so that drivers will not have their driving licences endorsed for parking offences.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Purely parking offences, as distinct from leaving a vehicle where it creates danger, are not endorsable under existing law.
    Sir R. Russell: Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that a stationary vehicle, however badly parked, is not as dangerous as a moving vehicle? Is it not unfair that the totting up process for disqualification should be the same for leaving a vehicle parked dangerously as for driving dangerously?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman must have missed the point I was making; that purely parking offences—that is, leaving vehicles stationary—are not endorsable at the present time. The categories in which stationary vehicles commit an endorsable offence are leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position—in other words, causing a dangerous obstruction, and this is not a parking offence, its essential ingredient is the causing of danger—stopping on a special road, except on the hard shoulder—this not only dislocates fast-moving traffic but causes a danger—and leaving a vehicle on or near a pedestrian crossing, and I do not think that anyone would argue about this. All of these offences attract endorsement and the court has discretionary power to disqualify.

    South-East London
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Transport what discussions he has had with London Transport regarding the provision of Underground services in South-East London.
    Mr. Swingler: London Transport plans to extend its rail services in South-East London and elsewhere are regularly discussed between the Ministry and the Board.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have had promises about this for a very long time? Will he consult his right hon. Friend and obtain his confirmation that travelling daily from South-East London to Central London is well-nigh impossible and that, with future population increases, it will become absolutely impossible within the next five years?
    Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend is only too well aware of the seriousness of the situation. My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to bear in mind the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend's predecessor about the extension of the tube line. Discussions are now taking place between London Transport and British Railways about possible improvements and extensions of these services, and I hope to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Galbraith: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is likely that these extensions, if they take place, will be financially self-supporting or carried by subsidy?
    Mr. Swingler: This matter must be investigated. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of, for example, the proposal for the Fleet line. All these proposals must be examined, like those for the Victoria Line and the Brixton extension. They must all be subject to careful scrutiny and we obviously cannot yet say whether they would be profitable.
    Mr. Moyle: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present growth of long-range commuting is squeezing out short-range commuting and overloading the system? Would he agree that supplementing short-range commuting by the underground in South-East London is the only solution?
    Mr. Swingler: All these matters must be the subject of investigation and, as I said, London Transport and British Railways are now looking into them. I have no doubt that they will be considering the question of the system becoming overloaded and what further facilities should be provided. The question is what form

    411
    these facilities should take, and this is a matter for technical investigation.
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received on the building of motorways in South-East London; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Swingler: We have received various representations, including proposals from the G.L.C. for the primary network. We hope to reply shortly.
    Mr. Hamling: Would my hon. Friend confirm that there is a good deal of opposition to these projects in South-East London, perhaps because of inadequate compensation being paid to householders when they are displaced? Will he consult with his colleagues to ensure that house owners receive adequate compensation so that they are able to replace their existing properties with comparable properties?
    Mr. Swingler: The question of compensation is another matter which is under investigation. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that we are programming various sections of these proposals from the point of view of examining those which are particularly urgent. Naturally, the whole question of proposals about, for example, motorway boxes may be challenged when the Greater London Development Plan comes under inquiry.
    Sir E. Bullus: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Greater London Council is really getting on with this work and that, while it was left for many years, it is now making a good job of it and that the G.L.C. deserves all the support he can give it?
    Mr. Swingler: Very substantial progress has been made in the last few years. The reason is, of course, the level of the roads programme. We hope to continue on that course, and that is the approach we will take in considering the proposals of the G.L.C.

    Manchester Ship Canal (Low-Level Bridge)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Transport what investigations he has made into the cost of a low-level bridge from Speke rising to cross the Manchester Ship Canal, so that traffic can flow more
    412
    easily between the south end of Liverpool and the Wirral.
    Mr. Bob Brown: None, Sir. This matter is within the purview of the Merseyside Area Land Use Transportation Study.
    Mr. Tilney: Since traffic needs to flow freely round the periphery of great conurbations and since there is no such means at present for this to happen on Merseyside, will the hon. Gentleman look into the economies to be achieved by, for example, the pre-stressed concrete bridge built by the Tasmanian Government over the Derwent at Hobart and costing about one-third of the price of a tunnel?
    Mr. Brown: I will commend the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend, but at present it is too early to go into detailed consideration of the type and location of such a crossing. It is also too early to comment on the issue of cost.
    Mr. Ogden: When my hon. Friend is considering what type of crossing it should be, will he bear in mind the fact that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board provides the Manchester Ship Canal Company with the use of a crane called "The Mammoth" and that, unless there is consideration of the need for a high-level bridge, Manchester may not be able to rely on this type of assistance from Merseyside in the future?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir.

    Heavy Duty Vehicles (Mud Flaps)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make it compulsory for heavy duty vehicles to have mud flaps fitted to their rear wings.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Mudguarding must be tailored to the many different types of commercial vehicle and could not readily be specified in regulation; nor are we satisfied that the cost of compulsory fitting could be justified by accident savings.
    Manufacturers have been asked to take account, when designing vehicles, of recommendations on spray control made by the Road Research Laboratory.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the hazards and great

    413
    danger of windscreens being obscured by dollops of mud when following heavy duty vehicles, the wheels of which are high off the ground?
    Mr. Brown: I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of this problem. However, only a very small proportion of the total number of accidents is directly due to mud on windscreens, although the number of accidents in which this is a contributory factor is not yet known.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Road Research Laboratory is doubtful whether mud flaps are effective?
    Mr. Brown: The Road Research Laboratory has conducted long-term research into this matter.

  ROADS

    Dovercourt Bypass
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Transport when work on the Dovercourt bypass will now start.
    Mr. Swingler: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 27th March.—[Vol. 761, c. 1523.]
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the road from Parkeston Quay Road to Harwich Quay? I understand from the county council that it has no information of the Minister's intentions and that the reply that he gave me was misleading.
    Mr. Swingler: It was not misleading. There are two stages to the scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the first stage has been put into the preparation list and has been prepared by the Essex County Council, which is responsible for the whole scheme. If it wishes to put further proposals, we shall consider them.

    Controlled Parking Zone Scheme, Enfield
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Transport what has been the result of the operation of the free controlled parking zone scheme in the London Borough of Enfield; and how it com-
    414
    pares with meter parking in other boroughs.
    Mr. Swingler: The scheme is so far working satisfactorily. It differs from meter zones in other London boroughs in that there is generally enough off-street parking space to meet demand.
    Sir R. Russell: Does the Minister agree that in view of the amount of taxation imposed on motorists, the extension of this kind of scheme is more preferable than having meters, particularly from the point of view of street parking?
    Mr. Swingler: This kind of scheme is possible when there is an equation of demand and supply for parking space. We want to do everything to encourage boroughs to create more off-street parking space, but in some places it is not possible to produce this equation. Therefore, it is necessary to resort to other techniques.

    Rock Ferry Bypass
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Transport at what date his Department first held discussions with the Birkenhead County Borough over the proposed Rock Ferry bypass; what subsequent consultations have taken place on the proposal; and what is the present position regarding its completion.
    Mr. Bob Brown: A proposal for a Rock Ferry bypass was first put to the Department in March, 1961. Since then we have been consulted about the route of the bypass and about its detailed design. A completion date cannot be forecast until a planning decision has been given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
    Mr. Brooks: Does my hon. Friend agree that this has dragged on far too long? Has he considered putting a bomb under somebody responsible for the planning process, because this is causing great planning blight and inconvenience to the local authority? Can we be assured that before too long there will be a decision on this long overdue matter?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. The inclusion of the scheme

    415
    in the roads programme is without prejudice to the outcome of the statutory processes. This is a matter for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

    M5-Exeter (Motorway)
    Lieut.-Commander Maydonasked the Minister of Transport what were the recommendations contained in the joint reports of the Somerset County Council and the consulting engineers, appointed in 1964, to investigate a possible route for a new dual-carriageway road between the present proposed M5 terminus and the vicinity of Exeter, on the question whether it should be built as a special road or as an all-purpose road with restricted access.
    Mr. Bob Brown: The joint reports recommended that the road should be built as a motorway.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Is it proposed to accept these recommendations? If not, what is it proposed to do?
    Mr. Brown: Last month's truck road preparation announcement made provision for the Edithmead-Exeter scheme to be built to motorway standards. A final decision on the standard of the road must, of course, await the results of this assessment in the preparation pool, but there must be a strong presumption that it will be built as a motorway.

    Road Developments (Houses)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Transport when he will announce his decision on the recommendations from the chartered land societies and others on the problems of compensation in relation to highways to owners of houses deleteriously affected by new road developments.
    Mr. Swingler: The study of this question is being co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It has implications of great importance for both public and private developers and the timing of any decision cannot be forecast.
    Mr. Tilney: Would the Minister bear in mind, in the meantime, that a blight has fallen over property near to projected urban motorways? Is he aware that many people have put all their savings
    416
    into their homes, many of which have become unsaleable?
    Mr. Swingler: I am aware of this difficult problem. We are doing our best, under the present law, to overcome it by obtaining clear decisions on these schemes as quickly as we can. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, there are complex matters concerning the reform of the compensation laws. We are in possession of information on the subject supplied by various societies and this is being considered as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. Galbraith: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at a time when betterment is taxed where "worsement" is caused by the community, good compensation should be paid?
    Mr. Swingler: We agree that it is fair to say that the position is not satisfactory at present. While this is a difficult problem in the development of the motorway and roads programme, the whole matter is to be reviewed in all its aspects and we will make a statement as soon as possible.

    Motor Vehicles (Night Parking)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the confusion caused by the lack of uniformity of regulations governing the parking of vehicles at night without lights in different areas; and whether he will take the necessary steps to eliminate local variations of parking restrictions.
    Mr. Bob Brown: We are aware that the present regulations are subject to criticism on various grounds and are considering possible ways of amending them.
    Mr. Jeger: Is this matter being considered in consultation with chief constables and officials of the various local authorities to get their co-operation?
    Mr. Brown: This type of consideration always has the ear of chief constables and local authorities.
    Mr. Brooks: Would my hon. Friend consider tightening up the regulations governing single parking lights on vehicles, because in certain circumstances vehicles so parked may be totally invisible to oncoming traffic?
    Mr. Brown: That, too, is a point well worth bearing in mind.

  PORTS

    Nationalisation
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Transport when he now proposes to make a further statement on the nationalisation of the ports.
    Mr. Rossiasked the Minister of Transport what consideration he has given to options, other than nationalisation, for the reorganisation of the ports; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's intentions with regard to the future ownership of the docks.
    Mr. Marsh: As I said yesterday in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), I will make a further statement as soon as I have completed my consideration of the views expressed in the consultations we have had.—[Vol. 764, c. 60.]
    Mr. Ridsdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman now scrap the ridiculous proposals of his predecessor, which are doctrinaire political nonsense and make no business sense?
    Mr. Marsh: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is being objective about this.
    Mr. Rossi: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular regard to the observations of the Rochdale Committee, which seems to propose a formula far less complicated and distracting than nationalisation?
    Mr. Marsh: Certainly, in our consultations all the advice tendered will be considered. Of course the Government are committed to taking steps in relation to our ports which, unfortunately, right hon. Members opposite did not take for such a long time, with such dire consequences.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side are eagerly awaiting the proposals of the Government to implement the undertaking to nationalise the ports, but this is important both as a social reform and as an economic necessity?
    Mr. Marsh: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fear that Wisbech port might be adversely affected is causing local concern? Is he further aware that, with the development of the East Anglia and particularly the Peterborough expansion, the Wisbech port will be put to good use?
    Mr. Marsh: It is our intention to take all these matters into account. I regret the uncertainty which exists, but on the other hand these are very important proposals.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether he is considering the whole future of the basis of organisation of the ports or is considering the form of nationalisation? Presumably he is considering whether or not to nationalise.
    Mr. Marsh: I am considering the views expressed in consultations I am having.
    Sir H. Harrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very great developments by private enterprise at Felixstowe, which have given great pride to all of us in Suffolk? It would be a tragedy if the port were nationalised in view of these developments.
    Mr. Marsh: Certainly I will bear these things in mind.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of compensation for nationalisation of the ports, as set out by his Department on 7th July, 1967; and whether he will apply the test rate of discount laid down in the Government's Review of Economic and Financial Objectives for Nationalised Industries to this proposed investment.
    Mr. Marsh: Proposals for compensation are receiving the detailed consideration to which reference was made in the "working document". It would not be appropriate at this stage to publish any estimate of cost.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that estimates have been widely quoted of not less than £350 million a year and that it could be £400 million? Does not he recognise that to

    419
    issue compensation on this sort of scale at this time in the economic climate would be damaging in the extreme? Will he categorically undertake that this is not what he has in mind?
    Mr. Marsh: It is always distressing the extent to which these rumours gain currency among people on either side of the House.
    Mr. Ridley: What would the right hon. Gentleman expect nationalisation of the docks, as outlined in his predecessor's programme, to cost?
    Mr. Marsh: As I tried to explain earlier, the question of compensation is not determined and it would not be appropriate to publish any estimate at this stage.
    Mr. McNamara: When considering the question of compensation, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the tremendous amount of public money which has gone into the ports for their development and that many people have profited from publicly invested money.
    Mr. Marsh: One of the problems is that hon. Gentlemen opposite—I make no criticism—tend to have a doctrinal blockage on the matter of public ownership. There is a general expressed and agreed need to do something about the ports. It is a pity that they did not do anything previously.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware that we on this side are delighted that, unlike his predecessor, he has no such doctrinal blockage?
    Mr. Marsh: I can only refer, as I did the other day, to the quotation I gave, that philosophers have attempted to interpret the world when what matters is to change it. That is what we, on this side, are concerned to do.

    Civil Dock Facilities, Portsmouth
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Transport whether he will now initiate a survey into the possible extension of civil dock facilities in Portsmouth with special reference to under-utilised naval facilities.
    Mr. Swingler: It is in the first place for the harbour authority and potential users to consider what is required, and
    420
    we know of no demand for further commercial port facilities at Portsmouth in addition to the recently opened quay.
    Mr. Judd: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are considerable capital resources and wharfage in the naval dockyard which are at present grossly underused? The small civil port already in operation is proving highly successful, and there is every reason to believe that we could have a thriving port in Portsmouth, particularly as we extend our economic relations with Europe.
    Mr. Swingler: My hon. Friend may be right, but we have no evidence of the need for further civil port development at Portsmouth. If evidence is put before us by the Harbour Authority we shall be delighted to go into the matter with the Secretary of State for Defence. However, we must have evidence of the need.

    Aberdeen Harbour
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the plans for the improvements in Aberdeen Harbour.
    Mr. Swingler: Planning the improvement of Aberdeen Harbour is the responsibility of the Aberdeen Harbour Board, which I will ask them to write to my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that these harbour improvements have become much more urgent since devaluation, in view of the need to increase exports and the need for better communications with the Continent? Will he give the Harbour Commissioners and other bodies concerned such assistance as he can to enable the work to be completed?
    Mr. Swingler: I am advised that there are no proposals before us at the moment. My right hon. Friend need only deal with proposals costing more than £500,000. I understand that the Aberdeen authorities are considering a number of improvements which would cost less than this amount and which would, therefore, not be the concern of the Minister. However, if my hon. and learned Friend has particular matters in mind, I trust that he will bring them to our attention, and I assure him that they will be looked into.

Post Office (Dispute)
Mr. Bryan(by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether, following this morning's meeting between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and representatives of the Union of Post Office Workers, he will make a statement regarding the threatened strike of Post Office workers.
The Postmaster-General (Mr. Roy Mason): Representatives of the Union of Post Office Workers came to see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and me this morning. They reminded us of the time that had elapsed since negotiations with the Post Office on the pay research survey for postal and telegraph officers had reached an advanced stage, and said that it was difficult for their members to understand why an offer could not now be made.
I told the union on 2nd May that I hoped to be able to make an offer within two weeks or so. My right hon. Friend and I were conscious of the fact that the difficulty was one of timing rather than of the substance of an offer or its relationship to the Government's prices and incomes policy. My right hon. Friend therefore told the representatives of the union that he would use his best endeavours to make it possible for offers to be made by Monday, 13th May on this and other Civil Service pay research surveys currently under negotiation.
The representatives of the union welcomed this statement, which, they said, would enable them to call off the industrial action. The House will, I know, be glad to learn that the matter has thus been brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
Mr. Bryan: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we on this side of the House are extremely pleased that strike action, with all its consequent hardship both to the public and Post Office workers, has been avoided? With a view to avoiding a repetition of the unnecessary—and, I think for him, very humiliating—events of the last week, may I ask him two questions?
First, did not the Chancellor completely undermine the authority of the Postmaster-General by treating him literally as a puppet throughout the talks
422
and by himself coming to an agreement with the union which he could easily have authorised the Postmaster-General to make?
Secondly, why did the Postmaster-General literally provoke the union with such vague statements such as that he would start negotiations in two weeks or so, when, as it now transpires, as we always suspected, it was nothing but bureaucratic rigidity and pig-headedness which prevented an earlier date being given?
Mr. Mason: It is understandable that the hon. Member's lack of experience and naivety in this affair leads him to make such ridiculous statements as that. He is fully aware that 350,000 people are involved, all having to have negotiations flowing through the Civil Service Pay Research Unit surveys.
The talks started in Janaury this year. From the U.P.W. point of view, the initial talks concluded on 8th March. The union's representatives felt a little frustrated that an offer was not forthcoming quicker than hitherto, but on 2nd May I promised that an offer would be forthcoming within two weeks or so, thus giving my right hon. Friend and me the necessary latitude to be able to settle all at once.
We have now been able to do that. I should have thought that this would be entirely satisfactory to the House.
Mr. Randall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House and the public will welcome the reasons being removed for the frustration of the counter clerks and that so far as the reasonable demand that they have made is concerned the House is glad that this has now been met? May I thank my right hon. Friend for the part he has played, and also wish him well in the negotiations which must follow?
Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Of coure, negotiations will have to follow when the offer has been made. I wish to pay my respects to the Union of Post Office Workers' representatives. They have made their representations in a moderate manner both to the Chancellor and me and have been most statesmanlike in making the representations.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the whole question of redefining the responsibility of the Postmaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these matters so as to prevent this kind of problem arising in future?
Mr. Mason: That is not necessary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has overall responsibility for deciding awards to 350,000 civil servants, of whom the postal and telegraph officers are only 22,000. We were both involved, but my right hon. Friend has overall responsibility, as the hon. Member should be aware.
Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend explain, in view of the abysmal ignorance of some hon. Members opposite, that there never has been a case in my experience when public servants have asked for an increase in salary and the Treasury did not intervene?
Mr. Mason: Yes, I suppose that in many instances it is very right that the Treasury should. It had some responsibility in this respect.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in his talks with the Post Office Workers' Union, the question of increased productivity arose, because I understand that the Chancellor's directive was that there should be no wage increases unless they were matched by an increase in productivity?
Mr. Mason: A productivity agreement with U.P.W. is an entirely different matter. It has always proved to be very difficult for the white collar grades and clerks behind counters to increase productivity, but in October last year the U.P.W. decided to start a productivity agreement. It has already proved that it can increase productivity. It has effected savings and it is due for a productivity deal separate from the award that we are now making.
Mr. Alfred Morris: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the important part he has played in this difficult and unfortunate episode affecting one of the most pacific groups of working people, may I ask whether, to prevent this happening in future, he will consider accelerating negotiations on future reports from the Civil Service Pay Research Unit?
Mr. Mason: That is not a responsibility of mine, but no doubt the postal and telegraph officers concerned will be watching with a great deal of interest the progress of the Post Office Status Bill, which will be coming before the House later this year.
Mr. Sharples: May I ask whether or not the offer made falls within the criteria laid down by the Prices and Incomes White Paper?
Mr. Mason: Yes, the offer will not breach the incomes policy at all.

EDUCATION (STUDENT GRANTS)
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): With permission, I wish to make a statement about student grants.
Copies of the Report of the Advisory Panel on Student Maintenance Grants, which has considered the changes necessary to maintain the real value of awards to undergraduate and equivalent students, have been placed in the Library of the House and will be on sale tomorrow.
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland intend to increase the grants to these students from next September. The basic grant will be increased by £25 to £395 in London and at Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and by £20 to £360 elsewhere. For students living at home the increase will be by £15 to £290 and for those resident at colleges of education in England and Wales by £7 to £163.
All the supplementary grants and allowances, paid in respect of dependants and for a variety of different reasons, are, with some slight adjustments, to be increased by the full amounts recommended by the Advisory Panel. There will also be improved grants for certain widows and divorced and separated wives, while the grants for part-time teacher training students will be increased by £90 to £180 for day students and by £70 to £100 for evening students.
Other changes will include a revised scale of parental contributions. The starting point will be raised from £700 to £900. Parents with a residual income

425
of more than £1,100 a year will pay a little more than at present, but the increase in parental contribution will not exceed £6 a year, except for those affected by the following additional change. There will be a reduction from £200 to £100 in the maximum allowance which can be claimed in assessing parental contribution in respect of fees of a child attending school.
I should like to take this opportunity of again paying tribute to the responsible attitude of the student unions throughout our discussions with them.
Full particulars of the changes proposed will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The necessary Regulations will be laid before the House in due course.
Revised rates of grant for postgraduate students, which will also come into effect on 1st September, will be announced later this year.
Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Lady knows, we remain unhappy on this side about, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), this arbitrary and unselective action by the Government. May I ask the hon. Lady three specific questions? First, since hall fees in the London area alone will rise by as much as £39, and the cost of books will almost certainly rise, will she, even now, consider the requests that we have repeated from this side, that a special review of student grants should be undertaken in 12 months time?
Secondly, would she consider, on the parental contributions, the suggestion that we made for a system of information to parents on how the grant is made up, and their part of it, so that they recognise the importance of making a contribution to the student?
Thirdly, will she institute a thorough review of the discretionary grant system? Lastly, would she also not agree on the importance of this whole subject, and that in the students' own interests they should observe reasonable courtesy and some restraint when listening, to Ministers with which they disagree? And would she not equally agree that intimidatory letters to students when grants are paid should also be regarded as a rather retrograde act?
Mrs. Williams: I would say, first, that it is with regret that the Government
426
cannot enter into an absolutely definite statement about when the next review will take place, except to say that it will obviously take place within the period of the next three years. It is bound to depend upon economic circumstances.
With regard to the increased charges in certain hostels, of which as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) will know London is an extreme case, we are at the moment discussing the matter with the University Grants Committee, and we hope that some consideration can be given to ways in which economies might be made.
On the point of informing parents of the need for their contributions to be paid, we are already entering into discussions about this and will do everything possible to bring home to parents the necessity for every attention to be given to this, and to make them realise the extreme importance of their contribution.
On the third point, about the discretionary grants, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, as will the House, that there are strong limitations imposed upon the power of the Secretary of State to intervene in this matter by the terms of the 1962 Education Act. Within the terms of that Act we have gone as far as we possibly can by stressing in circulars to local authorities how much we deplore any great discrepancies in conditions and terms upon which grants are paid. It is difficult for us to go further within the terms of the Act, unless new legislation is brought before the House.
On the last points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I would certainly share, as someone who in a mild way has encountered this, his concern. He may have had in mind the treatment suffered by his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and what can be extreme student action. We accept that there will be some opinions which students find it very difficult to hear peacefully. Nevertheless, they have an obligation, and it is a profound obligation, to do so however difficult it may be. We must ask them to act as adults if we are expected to treat them as such.

427
Finally, as I have already said in a recent debate with the right hon. Gentleman, I certainly deplore any action by local authorities which assumes behaviour on the part of students rather than discovering whether the behaviour has been perpetrated, and whether university authorities feel that action must be taken.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Can the Minister tell us what extra grants are to be paid to widows and separated wives?
Mrs. Williams: It is the intention that all widows, divorced women and separated wives, who do not come under the regulations enabling them to have extra grants, because they are students who have earned in the past, will be entitled, if they have one dependant or more, to claim either £100 extra grant or £100 disregarded income. This, we hope, will be a major contribution to one of the most hard-pressed groups of students in the country at present.
Mr. David Steel: Can the hon. Lady clarify her earlier reply when she said that she would promise no further review within the next three years? Does that apply to the cuts that have been made in the Advisory Panel's recommendations?
Secondly, may I ask whether this statement means that the Government, as a matter of fundamental policy, have abandoned any hope of implementing the recommendations of the Anderson Committee? Are the Government prepared to continue a system of two classes of students in our universities—those dependent on the State and those dependent on their parents?
Mrs. Williams: I do not entirely follow the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, because it was a strong recommendation of the Anderson Committee that these parental contributions should continue. With reference to the Anderson Committee, we have maintained a system of parental contribution. This is not to say, and I think the House would agree with this, that one would not wish to make some modification in parental contribution. The present total of parental contribution is £30 million, and it is difficult to see how at present one would wish to make this
428
the top priority in terms of improving student grants.
I wish to make it clear again that I cannot promise that there will be an early review. This is bound to depend upon the economic situation. Of course, if that situation permits us to bring in an earlier review, we would be very ready to do so. My remarks do apply to the decision that has been made to bring into force half the recommended increases of the Brown Committee, which will replace our decision on the 1968 review, which follows three years after the 1965 review of student grants.
Dr. Gray: While welcoming what my hon. Friend is to do for widows, divorced and separated women, will she also say what she is to do for married women and students who marry while at university?
Mrs. Williams: With regard to married women, my hon. Friend will have noticed that the position is the same as at present, in other words the grant has not been altered. As to married women who are mature students, there will be a substantial increase in the grant, and the same is true of those married women, admittedly mostly separated wives, who have two households to maintain.
With regard to the position of students who marry during the course of their period at university or in other education, we are still following up a recommendation of the Anderson Committee, which was that they should not then be regarded as independent of their parents if they had not reached the age of 25, or if they had not married before their course began.
The reasons for this, I suspect, are that one does not want to put a student in a position when it is a positive incentive to a student to marry during the course of their education, because there is some reason to believe that wastage is higher among married students than among single students.
Mr. Maudling: Can the hon. Lady give us any figure for the costs of the recommendations?
Mrs. Williams: The estimated cost of carrying out the Brown Report recommendations in full was £11 million. Since they are being carried out by half the cost will be £5,500,000.
Mr. Dalyell: What is the reason behind the Government's apparent decision to continue what appears to be favourable treatment for Oxford and Cambridge?
Mrs. Williams: The reasons for giving favourable treatment to Oxford and Cambridge, and it should be said, London, are based simply on the cost of college charges and accommodation in these towns. This is borne out by the studies made by the Brown Committee, which showed that there is still a sharp distinction in the charges between these three universities and other universities in the country.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: Has any further consideration been given to the particularly difficult position of medical students?
Mrs. Williams: While the allowance for medical students in terms of equipment, remains the same, the amount which may be paid in each week over the normal 30-week upon which the grant is based, and which normally applies to medical and veterinary students—and for that matter to any other students whose normal term is longer than 30 weeks—will be added to by the increased attendance allowance beyond 30 weeks.
Mr. Leadbitter: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some considerable hardship for those students who have grants made to them on the basis of a parental contribution calculation, but who do not receive that parental contribution? Although the numbers may be relatively small, the hardship is one requiring further study. Can she tell the House what discussions she might have so as to make that parental contribution obligatory?
Mrs. Williams: We hope that the increase from £700 to £900 of the initial income for parents before they are obliged to pay a parental contribution, and the further concessions to those between £900 and £1,100, in reducing the parental contribution, will do something to remove the hardship to students, many of whose parents are most needy of all. We shall have to see what the effects of this are. There is good reason to think that some hardship is experienced by students whose parents earn considerably more than this minimum.
As I have said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, we are now considering,
430
with the local authorities, how we can best bring to the parents' attention the necessity for this contribution to be paid. I will be glad to answer a further question on this at a later stage.
Mr. Biffen: The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for a special review is that this would lead to a further increase of public expenditure. Could the right hon. Lady say whether she is prepared to consider soon a sympathetic review with a view to deciding whether or not student loans would be a more satisfactory system for financing university education than grants?
Mrs. Williams: Undoubtedly, consideration has been given at various times in the past by Governments of both parties to the question of student loans. I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I have very little sympathy with the concept of student loans. The system we have enables us to have intense first degree courses which are short, and which have one of the lowest wastage rates in Europe. These courses enable a large proportion of children from the homes of manual workers to attend university, and they seem from the point of view of cost efficiency to be outstandingly successful.
Mr. McNamara: I welcome the supplementary benefits which are being given under the new award. Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem of the students is the increase in residence fees? When can we have a statement about her negotiations with the University Grants Committee on this? This is the point which niggles students more than most.
Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend has undoubtedly knowledge of students' problems. It is perfectly true that this is one of the things that niggles students most. It is a matter for each individual university to balance its hostel charges. Therefore, I cannot go as far as he wishes. I can only tell him that we are keeping the matter under review with the University Grants Committee. I would have to consider the question in the light of the fact that universities are ultimately responsible for their own finances.
Following is the information:

1. Following are the particulars of the grants to be paid from 1st September, 1968 to students taking first degree and comparable courses with, for comparison, the present rates of grant:—

(a) Basic Maintenance Grant

Living in College, Hall, or lodgings:—

Now £

From 1st September, 1968 £

At London, Oxford and Cambridge Universities and other further education establishments in the London area

370

395

Elsewhere

340

360

Living at home

275

290

Resident at colleges of education in England and Wales

156

163

(c) Grants to part-time Teacher training students

Now £

From 1st September, 1968 £

Part-time day students

90

180

Part-time evening students

30

100

2. Other adjustments to the grant arrangements will be made as follows from 1st September, 1968:

(a) Parental contribution

The starting point at which a parental contribution is required is to be raised from £700 to £900. At £900 of residual income the contribution will be £20, and this will increase at the rate of £1 for each £10 of additional residual income. Below is an outline of the new and existing scales:—

Residual income £

Parental contribution now £

Parental contribution from 1st September, 1968 £

800

16

0

900

24

20

1,000

32

30

1,100

40

40

1,400

64

70

3,000

224

230

(b) Allowance for child in fee-paying school

In assessing parental contribution the maximum allowance for the fees and other educational expenses paid by the parent in respect of children attending school will be reduced from £200 to £100 for each child.

(c) Widows, divorced women and separated wives who do not make a claim under Regulation 14 of the University and Other Awards Regulations, 1965 and who have at least one dependant will be able to claim either a further £100 disregard of income or an additional grant of £100.

A woman who is widowed or divorced or separated during a course is to be allowed to retain married status for grant purposes if this is to her advantage.

The additional disregards of income at present allowed to widowed mothers attending colleges of education are to be extended to widowed mothers attending universities and establishments of further education.

(d) Mature Students

(i) The calculation to establish claims for mature student's grant under Regulation 14 of the University and Other Awards Regulation 1965 will be based on an assumed personal maintenance grant of £360 for all claimants. Other allowances will be added in the normal way to arrive at the maximum grant to which a student is eligible.

(ii) Claims under Regulation 14 relating to earnings during periods earlier than six years before the 1st September of the academic year in which a course is due to begin will not be accepted for new awards tenable on or after 1st September, 1968.

(e) Non-resident college of education students

Non-resident students at colleges of education in England and Wales (excluding those living in "approved lodgings") will receive grants on the same basis as university students; i.e. they will receive a basic grant related to 30 weeks attendance, and additional payments at the normal rate for periods of attendance in excess of 30 weeks.

(f) Married women students

Married women students who are living in the husband's home will be treated as a separate category of student, and will receive a basic grant of £275 a year. Extra attendance allowance at the normal rate will be paid for periods of attendance in excess of 30 weeks. These arrangements are to apply to all married women students who are receiving awards under the University and Other Awards Regulation 1965, or the "Arrangements for Teacher Training" (Department Circular 18/66).

3. The basic maintenance grants are to be increased by half the amounts recommended by the Advisory Panel. The total cost of the increases in the basic and supplementary grants, when taken with the other adjustments, will be about half the cost of meeting in full all the increases recommended by the Advisory Panel.

QUESTIONS
Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make about Questions.
I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that, in replying yesterday to a point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I may inadvertently have given the impression that the order in which Questions are printed on the Order Paper is determined by chance, and chance alone. This is not the case.
As hon. Members who have visited the Table Office will know, as soon as a Question has been agreed to be in order it is placed in the lowest-numbered of a series of blue pouches, which are sent to the printer at regular intervals, the lowest number going first. The sequence in which the Questions in each pouch are printed depends to some extent on the order in which they are removed from the pouch at the printing works, and it is in this respect only that chance prevails.
Nevertheless, hon. Members may be assured that a Question contained in a later pouch is never printed above one for answer on the same date which was sent over in an earlier pouch. Questions for the Prime Minister are treated in exactly the same way as other Questions.
The system is described in detail in paragraph 3 of the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, of last Session, and in the answers to questions 81 to 83 of the evidence upon which that
434
Report was based. In a later paragraph the Committee recommended that, on balance, the system should not be altered. The House took note of that Report in the debate on Procedure on 14th November last year. I am informed by the Table Office that the practice has not since then been changed in any respect, nor would any such change be permitted without the House having been apprised of the proposal to change it.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. I am grateful for your interest in the matter, Mr. Speaker. May I inform you, Sir, and the House, that my Question was placed on the Order Paper some time before another Question, which was called before mine. How this happened I do not know. I do not know whether it is chance, whether it is a gamble. In any event, it does not matter, because the Written Answer I received from the Prime Minister was thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. Would it not be fair to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to observe that Privy Councillors are always in a position of precedence in the fashion in which they are called on the Floor of the House? Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has nothing whatever to complain about.
Mr. Shinwell: Will you, Mr. Speaker, correct the hon. Gentleman? Is it not the case that hon. Members are called,

435
whether they are Privy Councillors or would-be Privy Councillors, at your discretion, and that we accept your discretion?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I was about to correct the hon. Gentleman if the right hon. Gentleman had allowed me to correct him. There is no precedence for Privy Councillors at Question Time.

QUESTIONS
  BILLS PRESENTED
    GAS AND ELECTRICITY
    Bill to increase the statutory limits on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Gas Council and Area Gas Boards; to provide for the borrowing by the Electricity Council, the Scottish Electricity Boards and the Gas Council of money in foreign currency; to enable the said Councils and Boards and other electricity authorities to furnish overseas aid; to increase the number of members of the Gas Council; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. R. J. Gunter; supported by Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. William Ross, Mr. George Thomas, Mr. Reginald Prentice, Mr. Harold Lever, and Mr. Reginald Freeson; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 148.]
    HOVERCRAFT
    Bill to make further provision with respect of hovercraft presented by Mr. Anthony Crosland; supported by Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Richard Marsh, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu, the Attorney General, and Mr. David Ennals, read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 147.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  3.57 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: I have, as is my wont, posted the list of selected Amendments. It has since occurred to me that we might take Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together, but I do not insist on that. Perhaps both sides will consider the suggestion before we come to them.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance and help, Mr. Speaker? I find myself in a most extraordinary situation. I have to sit at four o'clock this afternoon on the Standing Committee on the Divorce Reform Bill, and I am due to move two Amendments on that Bill during the afternoon. At the same time, I have two Amendments to the Trade Descriptions (No. 2) Bill, which are of some importance and which you have selected.
  I cannot be in two places at once, neither do I know, if I were to be free upstairs, how I could know when to come downstairs when my Amendments are reached. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, can help me? Can a message be sent to me upstairs when my Amendments are about to be reached on the Floor of the House? I could then come down and move them.
  Mr. Speaker: I am in considerable sympathy with the point which the hon. Gentleman raises. It has always been a point of some difficulty when an hon. Member is torn between his duty on the Floor of the House and his duty to the Committee upstairs, especially if the hon. Gentleman is in the difficult position of being responsible for Amendments up there and Amendments down here.
  The difficulty is that we cannot prophesy the length of time that debates will take. Perhaps he could keep in touch with one of his hon. Friend's. The Amendments must come in their proper place on the Notice Paper. I am advised that an hon. Friend can move the Amendment for him, but I do not think that is really what the hon. Gentleman wants.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have been so busy during the last few days in the House, running from one Committee to another, Mr. Speaker, that I have not been able to advise my hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench of the substance behind my Amendments. Nevertheless, I wish to speak shortly about the Amendments, and I think that I ought to be able to do so.
  This will be an increasing difficulty for hon. Members. The Government must recognise that the business of Committees upstairs cannot clash with business on the Floor of the House when back benchers are involved in seeking to put forward Amendments to Bills in Committee or on Report.
  Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order. When you are considering the matter which my hon. Friend has put to you, Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to look at the situation in which some hon. Members are engaged to sit on three Committees at the same time? Would you tell us how an hon. Member can sit on three Committees at the same time? Would you not agree that this is absolutely ridiculous, and contrary to proper Parliamentary procedure?
  Mr. Speaker: There was a great Speaker called Speaker Onslow. I do not think that even he could have answered the last question but one which the hon. Lady has put to me. All that I can offer the hon. Lady is sympathy. The arrangement of the business of the House is a matter for the Government and the Opposition through the usual channels.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Further to the point of order. This has become something of a scandal. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby; (Mr. Michael Shaw) and I are engaged in the Finance Bill Committee upstairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) is engaged in the Divorce Bill Committee. Almost every hon. Member, certainly on the Opposition side, who wishes to be present in the Chamber has had duties imposed on him by the Government, and it is becoming more than flesh and blood can stand.
  May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of our liberties, to make
  438
  representations to the Government, even if at this late hour nothing can be done, to ensure that this sort of situation is not repeated and made even worse?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Further to the point of order. Is it not almost inevitable that if hon. Members are to play a large part in Government business they will have a great deal more to do in Committees and on the Floor of the House? Is not this one way in which Members can keep an eye on the Executive?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is addressing an argument which she must take up with her hon. Friends and the Opposition, not with the Chair.
  Mr. R. H. Turton: Further to the point of order. In the old days, when there were not Committees sitting upstairs and debates taking place on the Floor of the House at the same time, an arrangement was made whereby annunciators were installed in the Library, the Smoking Room and the Tea Room so that hon. Members knew what was going on. Under the present Government, we have the extraordinary difficulty of Committees sitting at the same time as debates are taking place in the Chamber. Would you, Mr. Speaker, consider whether an annunciating system could be installed in those Committee rooms where Government business is being taken at the same time as business is being taken in the House?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Leader of the House, not for Mr. Speaker.

Clause 2.

  TRADE DESCRIPTION.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at the beginning to insert:
  'approval by any person or'.
  This Amendment would alter subsection (1,g) so as to expand the matters which may form the subject of a trade description to include indications as to the approval of goods by any person. The Bill as drafted covers indications as to the conformity of goods with a type approved by any person, and, although

  439
  the distinction between these two sorts of indication may appear a little subtle, we think that there is one and that the Clause could usefully be widened to cover both of them.
  The sort of case which we have in mind is where a salesman of some sort of educational book falsely claims that it is approved by a reputable body—for instance, a local education authority. I am advised that this could scarcely be regarded as an indication that the book conforms with a type approved, but that it is rather an indication that the literary content of the book, and thus every book having that literary content, was approved.
  Since we are seeking by paragraph (g) to deal as far as possible with false claims about approval of any goods, it seems sensible to make this extension to cover the special case of books.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: We agree with the Amendment. It is pleasant that we should start our proceedings with an agreement.
  I must draw attention to the change on the Government Front Bench since we last considered the Bill. Without wishing to interfere with the arrangements of the Government. I should like to say how much we regret parting with the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), for whom we have very great regard and affection. We wish him well in his new position and express the hope that, since he is present today, he will give us the real "lowdown" on the Bill and will feel in no way inhibited from criticising whatever he may have said during earlier stages.
  I have only one point to raise. Suppose that there is a description to the effect that Mr. X always uses "Blippo". I hope that there is no such product; I do not know of one. By inference, that may be taken to mean that Mr. X gives approval to "Blippo". It may mean that only that product is sold at his local village shop. Would such a description, improperly used, be caught by the Amendment? It would be misleading if it were, but does the fact that somebody is said always to use a certain product indicate approval?
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I join the hon. Gentleman in his remarks about our sadness at losing my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) as Minister of State. His great efficiency and wide knowledge of this subject was not only of great help to the House, but a great asset to me. I pay tribute to him for the kindness and warmth which he showed to me personally.
  The Amendment is specifically intended to cover a particular case, namely, books. The sort of case to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not be caught in this instance.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Tony Gardner: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 18, at end insert:
  (k) former or usual price.
  Mr. Speaker: We are taking at the same time Amendment No. 33, in page 6, line 26, leave out Clause 11.
  Mr. Gardner: The effect of the Amendment would be to include the question of price within the general definitions of "trade description" in this Clause. The purpose is obvious—to apply the general provisions in the Bill to false or misleading statements about price and thus obviate the need for Clause 11.
  When I came to the House this morning, and picked up the Amendments from the Vote Office, I was surprised, if not overwhelmed, to see the support which it had gained from the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and his colleagues. I assure them and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary whom I am very pleased to see leading for us on the Front Bench, that the purpose of the Amendment is to give the Government and all of us one more chance to reconsider the very difficult issues which we discussed at great length in Committee.
  There is no doubt that price and statements about price constitute the one issue which disturbs consumers most. Every day consumers are confronted with advertisements and blandishments to buy articles which they may think are a good buy. They may be told that there is 2d. off, that an article is cheaper than elsewhere or cheaper than it was yesterday. In this age of hustle and bustle, the consumer is subject to one-shop shopping in

  441
  a supermarket as distinct from shopping around.
  I wish that more consumers had time to shop around. If they did so, they would get much better bargains. The housewife tends to do most of her shopping perhaps on a Friday, or some other late shopping night, and rushes round the supermarket counters and picks up what she thinks is the best bargain. This is impulse buying. She has no means of telling whether she is getting a bargain, or what the normal price is, because, following the abolition of resale price maintenance, "normal price" is virtually a meaningless phrase. Therefore, she has to take the word of the advertiser, manufacturer or retailer.
  I do not wish to rehearse the long arguments which we had in Committee. One thing we are all clear about is that it is very difficult to draw up any legislation to cover effectively this problem of misleading descriptions as to price. None of us in this House can claim that he has found the solution. I am sure that my hon. Friend will admit that the solution which the Government have now found—and I welcome the Amendment which has been put down to Clause 11—is still not the best possible solution, because we are dealing with very difficult matters. So when we come to look at this problem following the abolition of resale price maintenance we have to face the fact that it will be very difficult to enforce any solution.
  My personal view is that Clause 11 will be very difficult to enforce and will give grounds for considerable legal argument. That is the last thing we want in an Act of Parliament which is protecting the consumer by setting standards of trading which are obvious and simple. We should ask ourselves whom we want to catch. We are not concerned here with a trader who makes a mistake about price. We are not concerned at all with that kind of action. What we are concerned about is the trader, advertiser or manufacturer who blatantly sets out to deceive by making a false statement about what the price usually or formerly was.
  We cannot really employ the words "usually was" for the reasons I suggested earlier, but we can compare the
  442
  price offered today with the price offered yesterday or some time ago. I do not think that it is our intention that there should be a great deal of prosecution. We have said many times on Second Reading and in Committee that our intention is to establish a code which the vast majority of people will readily honour, and to back it up with the necessary sanctions.
  I believe that if we could amend Clause 2 in the way suggested in this Amendment what would happen would be that if there were one or two manufacturers, advertisers or traders who blatantly set out to deceive the consumer in matters of price they would be prosecuted, and that would be the end of the matter. The general provisions of the Bill would be there as a safety net, as it were, but the warning would have been given and the standard set, and most people would accept it.
  It is extremely difficult. One thinks of the trader, manufacturer or advertiser suggesting that the previous price was 2s. 6d. and the present price 2s. 1d. and that, therefore, the housewife is getting a bargain; or of the case referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine), of the parcel, hamper or special offer coming in a bundle advertised at the unusual price of 36s. and when one prices the individual articles one finds they can be bought today for 30s. These are the kinds of cases, for they are blatant, which I think would be subject to prosecution. Therefore, I believe that this can be achieved by this simple Amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill.
  I do not know what the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen and his hon. Friends is. I can only say that our intention was to give the Government this little extra opportunity for us all to get together in considering what the final solution might be. I certainly do not intend, on a Bill which I support wholeheartedly, to oppose the Minister, but I hope that after the dicussion we are having this afternoon she will find it possible to take the matter back again and use the opportunities in another place to consider whether Clause 11 or Clause 2 would be the best way of tackling this problem.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), who contributed greatly to our discussions upstairs. We are discussing with Amendment 3, which, in practice, does what the Molony Committee recommended should be done in this difficult and complicated matter, Amendment 33, which seeks to delete the long, complicated and admittedly unsatisfactory Clause 11 and thus restore the Bill to what it should be.
  I rather gathered from the hon. Member that he was not very much inclined to press his Amendment. We shall press it as hard as we are able, but without his assistance we doubt somehow that we shall be able to carry the day, alas. Therefore, I would ask that we might also have a Division on Amendment 33, because it is our view that it is better that the Bill should contain nothing about pricing and prices, than that it should contain something which we think will damage the chances of price reduction. We hope, therefore, that when the time comes for Amendment 33 to be put to the voice you will permit us a vote, also, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman had already made this request to me privately. I have given some consideration to the matter and although it is a starred Amendment I am willing to allow a Division on Amendment 33 when we come to it.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am very much obliged, Sir. I think that we are all grateful for that opportunity.
  I said that we were afraid that there was a great danger, if Clause 11 remained in the Bill, even in the amended form which the hon. Lady proposes, that price reductions that might have been made would not be made. I will summarise my reason for thinking this. Clause 11, which we seek to delete, makes it an offence and a false description for a retailer to claim that the price at which he is offering goods now is less than either the recommended price or the price at which the goods or goods of the same description were previously offered by him.
  It is the interaction of these two bases which presents the danger because any retailer will be nervous about reducing
  444
  his own price—something which we all wish him to do and hope he will be encouraged to do—if by so doing he sets too low a base figure, so that when there is a manufacturer's reduction of price he dare not put it on the market because he will have to sell at a lower price still. I gave an instance of that in the Committee, which I will repeat. Supposing the normal price of an article, whether recommended or not, were 2s. and the retailer chose, nevertheless, to cut it—which we all encourage him to do—to 1s. 10d. Then the manufacturer came along with a production campaign or a sales campaign and produced a pack with the legend "Threepence off".
  In those circumstances, the retailer would be in danger if he sold it at 1s. 9d. because that would be only 1d. off his previous cut price. He would have to sell it at 1s. 7d., unless he made it very clear in the form of a rather elaborate statement on the counter of the difference between his price and the manufacturer's or recommended price, and he might not be disposed to do that. That being so, he would be disinclined to knock the 2d. off the 2s., making it 1s. 10d., lest he establish too low a basis for future price reductions.
  There are many alternative examples which I could give, and have given. Where there is an increase, in Purchase Tax the base may have been established too low, thus putting the ordinary retailer in some danger unless he goes into elaborate explanations of what he is doing—the sort of explanations which it would be too much to expect him to do.
  We are happy to see the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) here, if only one the third row of benches. We hope that he will give us his mature considerations. In Committee, he said:
  "We have tried to meet that problem, but I am not going to say at this stage that we have succeeded in doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th March, 1968; c. 231.]
  That has been the burden of the speeches of Government spokesmen both here and in another place. At every stage we have been promised something which recognises the difficulty to which I have referred as well as the other difficulties facing retailers and manufacturers,

  445
  but all that we have had are further elaborations of the Clause instead of a clean sweep of it.
  The Government continue to adhere to the exploded phrase "a recommended price". Everybody knows that recommended prices are on their way out. The Government continue to pile complication upon complication, and although the latest example is not so bad, the piling of complication upon complication will so frighten the trade that reductions will not be made when they should be.
  Furthermore, as was explained by one hon. Gentleman opposite in Committee, the provision on recommended prices will not hit the bogus recommended price when it is one which nobody adopts. The hon. Gentleman instanced the case of a well-known drill for use in the home. It is known that the recommended price is pitched far too high, and it is never sold at that price. It is always reduced.
  The public get a completely false impression. Many people are deceived by that, yet the retailer will continue to get away with it, even after the various elaborations of Clause 11, whereas he will be caught if the Amendment is accepted, because, instead of the Bill trying to spell out in many Clauses and subsections the exact way in which deception may be practised, the decision will be left to the courts.
  As so often happens, when one seeks perfection one grasps nothing. I fear that that is what has happened here. The case can be elaborated almost ad infinitum, but I do not wish to do that. It is a pity that, on reflection, the Government have not gone back to the Molony approach. That is what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is seeking to do. That is what we wish to do, and I hope that that is what the House will do.
  Mr. George Darling: I am grateful to hon. Members for the kind references which they have made to me. I am pleased to acknowledge my share of the parentage of this excellent Bill. I am sorry that the need to lighten the load of my duties compels me to ask for some relief for the time being. However, I am happy to know that the Bill is in the very capable hands of my hon. Friend the Parliamen-
  446
  tary Secretary, who, I am sure, will prove to be an excellent foster parent.
  I agree with a great deal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), and by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), about the difficult problem of stopping traders and manufacturers from misleading the public on prices. It is suggested that because the Clause is so clear the reference to misleading statements on prices should appear in it. I invite hon. Member to consider the shape of the Bill as a whole.
  Clause 1 says:
  "Any person who, in the course of a trade or business,—
  (a) applies a false trade description to any goods…shall…be guilty of an offence."
  Clause 2 says:
  "A trade description is an indication…of any of the following matters"
  and it then sets them out—quantity, method of manufacture, composition, fitness for purpose, and so on. I think that it would be inappropriate to include the difficult question of misleading statements on prices in this part of the Bill.
  I agree that the way in which Clause 11 proposes to tackle the problem gives cause for some concern. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen quoted my remarks in Committee when I said that I was not sure whether, even with the Clause in its amended form, we had satisfactorily solved the problem. But whether we allow Clause 11 to go through, or whether we delete it—and I hope that it will go through in its present form—I still think that it would be inappropriate to tackle the problem under Clause 2.
  The hon. and learned Member for Darwen said that we could confidently leave the matter to the courts. I shall not embarrass him by quoting what he said in Committee about magistrates' and other courts. He is not consistent. He was suggesting then—and I think rightly—that we must give guidance to the courts on the more difficult matters dealt with in the Bill. I can see all sorts of complications arising if we say to the courts that an aggrieved customer has suggested that he has been misled by a statement on prices, and leave it to them to decide the issue.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman tabled an Amendment to try to assist the court

  447
  by suggesting that they should have regard to what would be a reasonable price. I shall not go over the arguments that were advanced. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that the criticism of his approach was that it would be difficult for the courts to decide what was a reasonable price. They would have to investigate all kinds of arrangements that retailers make. I do not think that an action in respect of a misleading statement on prices will succeed in the courts if all that we do is make the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the example that he gave in Committee. He said that if the retail price of something was 2s. and the retailer was selling it at 1s. 10d., and the manufacturer, because he was running an advertising campaign, then printed on the packet "3d. off", the retailer would find himself in a difficult position because, to carry out the terms of the offer, he would have to reduce his price from 1s. 10d. to 1s. 7d. I think that we disposed of that argument in Committee.
  4.30 p.m.
  We want the manufacturers to state the price on which the reduction is made. What is he reducing? We know very well how advertising campaigns are launched and how they are carried through, and unless there is some fixed retail price the 3d. off has nothing to do with the retail price except that there is the usual retailers margin. It is 3d. off the manufacturers' price, and there is no reason why the manufacturers of mass-produced articles who have used this feature for sales promotion should not tell the public it is 3d. off the manufacturers' price. Why not be honest and say so? Why do they give a rather misleading indication that this is 3d. off every retailer's price. As the hon. and learned Member says, it may not be 3d. off every retailer's price.
  There would be nothing I suggest, if Clause 11 stands as it is and we do not accept the suggested addition to Clause 2, to stop the retailer selling goods marked 1s. 10d. at 1s. 9d. and it is still 3d. off the manufacturer's price. He has not committed an offence under the Bill. The arguments which have been put forward fall down unless—and this is what we
  448
  want to see happen—the manufacturer indicates that the 3d. off is 3d. off the manufacturer's price and not the retailer's price.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: Surely there is very considerable difficulty here. In the first place, the public do not know what the manufacturer's price is. Now that resale price maintenance has been abolished the manufacturer cannot instruct the retailer at what price to sell. If it is 3d. off the manufacturer's price how are the public to know the original manufacturer's price? Unless they know that, or there is a fixed price for retail sale, there is no way of determining it.
  Mr. Darling: If the manufacturer wants to see that the retailer is getting the product at 3d. less than the price he paid for it this is something the manufacturer can indicate. The retailer can sell at any price he likes. We have got rid of resale price maintenance.
  The hon. and learned Member suggested that recommended prices are on the way out. I do not think they are. The Restrictive Practices Court is now coming to the last round of consideration of resale price maintenance and I think that we have a shrewd idea what the court will decide. Among the last range of goods to be considered by the court we will probably find, if the court's action is what we contemplate, that these goods will have recommended prices attached to them. This means that retailers can sell at any price they like, but for the purpose of national advertising I am convinced that recommended prices will continue.
  The practice may grow, but at any rate we have to look at the situation as it is. There are recommended prices for a vast range of goods. If we are to have traders misleading the public about price reductions, and going in for "phoney" price reductions, we have to take note of the fact that there are recommended prices. If the retailer is suggesting that his goods are being sold below a recommended price, and that price is a phoney recommended price, this is something that has to be covered in our legislation.
  I do not know whether we are discussing Clause 11 in detail. I assume that we are not, so I will not go into detail, as my hon. Friend will deal with the arguments on Clause 11. I repeat that

  449
  the addition my hon. Friend proposes to Clause 2 is quite inappropriate and I do not think that we should try to tackle this problem of misleading prices in Clause 2.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I am privileged to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) in this brief discussion. For more years than I care to remember he has been the party spokesman on consumer protection and has put his party's case with clarity and courtesy, but I find myself in some disagreement with him this afternoon, particularly on the question of 3d. off.
  Like the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), I find this a particular irritant as a consumer. My own toothpaste for some time has appeared in a little box stamped "3d. off", although it is plain that the toothpaste manufacturer has no idea at what price it is being sold by the chemist. As a protest, although I like the taste, I have given up using this particular toothpaste and shall do so as long as this highly irrelevant information is stamped on the package.
  But it seems to me there are a number of weaknesses and defects in Clause 11 as it stands. For instance, it fails to deal with such things as "worth" and "value" which may increase in number unless the Board of Trade uses its powers to define these terms. It is alarming, after the years of discussion that have gone on about this particular Clause, to find the Retail Trading Standards Association, which is, after all, a leading legal watchdog in this field, saying that the inclusion in this Clause, which deals with recommended price, will, in fact, encourage the "wide boys" to make even wider use of "phoney" recommended prices so that at the end of the discussion these people, who have as much experience of bringing prosecutions in this field as any, advise that the whole Clause should be left out. I hope that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe will be accepted by the Government.
  Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I want to address myself to the omission of Clause 11 and to the question of recommended prices, together with one other matter, which I raised in
  450
  Committee and which, in all humility, seems no less valid now than then. In Committee, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling)—and I echo the personal tributes paid to him—said that this was a rather difficult Clause. He said that the Government would take into consideration any doubts expressed and, if need be, would bring in Amendments on Report.
  It is, therefore, disappointing, in view of the doubts expressed on both sides of the Committee, that, after a fairly lengthy period of reflection, the Board of Trade has put down only two minor Amendments to Clause 11. That is not a proof that the Clause was adequately drafted and will serve the purpose for which it was introduced. It is not a vote of confidence in the Clause but an indication of the failure of the Government to grasp the fundamental points with which the Clause was intended to deal. It would be a bold decision by the Government if they would delete the Clause and reintroduce it in a thoroughly amended form in another place.
  We must be clear that the "so much off" offer can be and often is of great assistance to shoppers and to efficient manufacture and marketing. Because we are trying to safeguard the consumers against abuse of this practice is no reason for blurring the fact that these offers are of great help to many housewives operating on a keen budget and that, by pursuing around the town the temporary reductions, they can make a sizeable reduction in their housekeeping bills.
  I think and hope that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that these offers help to expand the market and enable productive plant to reach maximum efficiency and stocks to be cleared. They are a thoroughly useful element in what I described in Committee as sophisticated marketing practice. I believe that the Government have failed to take their courage in their hands by leaving "recommended price" in the vague form in which it is still embodied in the Bill as one of the criteria in judging whether a genuine reduction has been made.
  In Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said that, in another

  451
  place, three factors were taken into consideration when the Bill was before it. The first was the recommended price, the second the price at which the retailer sold, and the third the price at which other people in the same street or town sold the goods. No doubt with the best of intentions, the Government have omitted the wrong one when reducing these three factors to two.
  I am sure that what the consumer really wants to know is what price the goods were available at in her district in the recent past and whether she is being offered a reduction on that price. I do not believe that it is any satisfaction to a consumer to be told that there is 3d. or 6d. off a recommended price when no retailer in her district has been charging that recommended price for weeks or months. By failing to recognise this, the Government have lined themselves up with the doves rather than the hawks in this aspect of consumer protection.
  We should have a clear statement that, if the retailer has been offering these goods at a higher price in the recent past and has now reduced it, or happens to have been making his own reductions within the normal practice of his trade and then the goods come into his shop marked with an across-the-board offer by the manufacturer, he will have the protection of being able to say, "This is the price in general use in the vicinity, as I can prove, and therefore I am making a reduction on the general price at which the goods are charged to the consumer in the district in the recent past."
  4.45 p.m.
  By putting in the recommended price provision in these terms, the Government are perpetuating an out-of-date attitude towards consumer protection, marketing and retailing. This is a dinosaur in the Bill and does not reflect the facts of shopping life. The Government would be doing the consumer a service if they omitted the reference to the recommended price as being a reason for a shopkeeper to be able to defend a ticket which could mean something to the consumer but which would, in fact, mean nothing if the Bill goes through in its present form.
  There is another small point which is of significance in retail operation and
  452
  which I am sure could be met by some ingenuity on the part of the Government. There appears to be no provision in the Bill to protect a retailer from prosecution if he continues to mark goods as having 3d. or 6d. off in the period immediately following a Budget in which there has been an increase in prices. The right hon. Gentleman, in Committee, gave me an assurance that he would look at this point and said that if he thought it was worth anything the Government would take some action. I believe that this point is worth consideration. Let us take a few practical examples. Let us consider the days immediately following the joyous Budget of last March.
  In that Budget, whisky, gin and rum went up by 2s. 6d. a bottle, wines by 6d. or 1s. a bottle, petrol by 4d. a gallon, cigarettes by 2d. a packet and tobacco by 3d. or 4d. an ounce. In addition, the Purchase Tax on furniture, clothing and household utensils went up to 12½ per cent., while confectionery and soft drinks and other things so often subject to price offers went up from 16½ per cent. to 20 per cent. Purchase Tax. I will also quote the case of cosmetics, in deference to the hon. Lady—to use a corny expression, the ladies always have to take it on the chin. The Purchase Tax on cosmetics went up to 50 per cent.
  As I read the Bill—and I should be happy to be told I am making an ado about nothing—it would be wrong for a retailer to put up a price by 2s. 6d. to what was perhaps the recommended price before the Budget still marked as a "2/6 off" offer. Yet, in all logic, to the consumer he is as much below the recommended price then as before the tax increase.
  I hope that the Government will either give an explicit assurance that they will stamp on any prosecutions in these circumstances or will insert a proviso stating that, in the 28 days after the Budget, any price rises directly resulting from Exchequer decisions are to be disregarded. That would be a simple provision which the public would understand. It would be ridiculous if the "so much off" offers had to cease at the moment when the long-suffering public most need retailers to make some reductions in order to offset the ever-increasing appetite of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Norman Haseldine: I support the Amendment, although I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) in his remarks. While I agree with a great deal of what he has to say about the problem of reduced prices, I felt that I was back in Committee on the Finance Bill, becoming involved in more detailed matters.
  The tenor of the Committee on this Bill was one of unanimity, and not necessarily linked with the sort of discussions we had on the Finance Bill. I am in the difficult position of not being able to agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who has been my tutor and mentor for many years. Having to put down an Amendment to Clause 2 makes me a little sad.
  We had hoped, and I can quote from the column in Committee, when my right hon. Friend was leading for the Government, to produce a sensible Clause 11. We want to see that the public have an opportunity to receive price reductions, and we do not think that it would do any harm to honest traders, but we are concerned to ensure that people are not being misled. In spite of all the attempts that have been made, there is no satisfaction whatever with Clause 11. In this dilemma one has to ask whether it would not be better to do without the Clause and achieve our objective in another way.
  This is a difficult problem, going back even to Molony. Paragraph 636 of Molony says, about the possibility of legislating:
  "We foresee difficulty in phrasing and the prohibition and in its enforcement. The practice is sufficiently widespread and deceptive to call for repression."
  This is what we want to do. It is well known that, quite apart from those of us discussing this here, we have had to take account of the many interests outside, particularly those of the Consumer Council which, along with other bodies such as R.T.S.A., carry a good deal of authority. The view of the Council, despite the view expressed by my right hon. Friend, is that Clause 11 will not achieve the desired result.
  The Council says of the Clause:
  "It does not take the definition of recommended prices any further.
  454
  It leaves untouched false reductions from a price alleged to have been charged by 'others' (as distinct from reductions from the seller's own previous price)."
  It adds that its proposed Clause
  "…presents the issue more concisely to the courts while the present Clause 11 tries to determine discretionary matters in advance (such as defining a recommended price), without in fact doing so."
  It confidently felt that its proposed Clause would catch blatant cases and went on:
  "…we do not think that the complexities of Clause 11 could do any more than this."
  In this respect, I take the point of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), when he said that he considered that it would be more effective in practice to leave the question of dishonesty to the judgment of the courts.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, in whom we have a great deal of trust, and whom we have regarded with a great deal of affection in Committee, will realise the help that she can give if she will give us some assurance that, if we cannot settle things amicably here this afternoon, we shall be able to see some Amendments tabled in another place, making sense of this. We have seen a great deal of understanding on both sides. We are not concerned about politics, but getting things right by the consumer. I hope that she will find an opportunity to do this, so that we shall be able to give support to the Amendments, in the knowledge that we are to get what we want.
  I look forward to hearing something that will be pleasing to us and that will preserve the general tone that existed in Committee.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: I agree very much with the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) and I must apologise to the House for not having contributed to the debate before, but I had not then returned to the House. I have been following the progress of the Bill, both in this House and another place, with a considerable amount of interest. I must declare a personal interest here, because I am connected with a large industrial concern very active in the consumer goods sphere.
  Naturally, one has tended to pay a great deal of attention to the actual provisions of this Measure. In discussing these

  455
  Amendments, my association with the industry concerned with consumer goods has taught me, over the past two years, that the majority in commerce and industry is honest and honourable, seeking to do a good job in very competitive circumstances. As has been said, retailing and marketing is a very fine art, very well practised in this country. We would all agree that the idea behind the Bill is to catch dishonest traders, and it is a very good one.
  I am also worried that it may discourage others, operating honourably. From outside the House, one has seen, during the progress of the Bill, that Clause 11 has always been a serious flaw. I believe that if it operates, it will lead to an upward trend in prices which is very undesirable. The Government should think again and accept the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), and this Clause should be withdrawn.
  I want to say a few words on the question of the "3d. or 6d. off" business. I do not think that it really does very much harm. If this Clause becomes operative, most manufacturers will practise this type of commercialism. Many people may say that it is misleading, that it will encourage prices to go up, and also create extra difficulties for people marketing in highly competitive circumstances. I am sure that genuine and honest shopkeepers will be frightened by these provisions and led into a state of hopeless confusion. This will curb their own natural marketing abilities, and they will not go in for promotion schemes, but instead take the line of least resistance each time. This means greater uniformity of prices—but prices which are going upwards.
  The question of recommended prices is an important one. I listened with great interest and respect to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), and I read many of his valuable contributions in Committee. With great respect, I would suggest that he is wrong in saying that recommended prices will remain with us. They are on the way out, and we have to take due account of this. The form of promotion which the 3d. and 6d. off leads to does not do any real harm to anyone. It could be left alone without any harm being caused to the public.
  456
  Even at this late stage I would ask the hon. Lady whether she could not look at this again and smarten up Clause 11. I am possibly a little rusty on procedure, having been away for two years, but I feel—perhaps she could advise me—that it is impossible for the Government to make a suitable Amendment in another place unless we actually alter this Clause this afternoon. I would ask her to take Clause 11 back and bring forward another Amendment, so that the Bill can be far more workable than it will otherwise be.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Lady stated that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who accompanied her through the Committee stage of the Bill, on which I had the pleasure of sitting, has been her guide and mentor. If the hon. Lady refers to what he said in Committee, she will find that he was a little unhappy about the Clause.
  I am also encouraged by the fact that this afternoon she apparently has two hawks behind her who have obviously given the matter very serious thought. I hope that she will take into account the careful and considered view that they have expressed. Indeed, there was a great degree of unanimity in Committee in general and about the problems that the Clause would create.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) and the hon. Member for Bradford. West (Mr. Haseldine) will be hawks when the time comes to go into the Lobby. It would appear, although they hold their views extremely strongly, that after having given the matter very serious consideration they will be a couple of fluttering doves that the hon. Lady will be able to lead through the Lobby in her support if she disagrees with the Amendment and the views that they have expressed.
  I also draw attention to some of the comments made in Committee by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough. We all agree that we have one aim: that the public, wherever possible, shall be able to get lower prices and that there should be no restriction imposed by legislation on shopkeepers reducing their prices. In

  457
  Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "…we must not stop genuine price reductions. We should encourage them. If, as the hon. and learned Member said, we do anything to spare traders and to make them fear that they will be in trouble with the law if they cut prices to sell old stock, or for some other good and honest purpose, we shall be making a grave mistake in the Bill."
  The right hon. Gentleman showed that in his view there was still cause for concern. Hon. Gentlemen opposite this afternoon also made this clear. It is essential that retailers should be able to sell goods at a lower price than they have offered them before and declare that that is so.
  I put a hypothetical, but nevertheless realistic, case to the right hon. Gentleman in Committee. I gave the illustration of a retailer who might buy a whole stock of merchandise which he had not before sold and offer it for sale at 50 per cent. below the price at which it had been sold in the general market. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that if a retailer did that, because he had not sold that article before he could not publicise the fact that it was being sold at 50 per cent. lower than its proper price.
  Mr. Darling: No.
  Mr. Burden: I will quote what the right hon. Gentleman said, because this is the implication. This concerns garments sold at £7 10s. whereas the original price was 15s. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "However, there is nothing to stop him from saying that the garments are genuine bargains. Obviously, he is going to be in trouble if he starts making misleading price comparisons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th March, 1968; c. 231–4.]
  The implication is clear. I will be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could make it clear to the Parliamentary Secretary that this reading of what he said is incorrect. I am happy to give way.
  Mr. Darling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The point I was trying to make—and I thought at the time it was a satisfactory answer to the question raised—was that if the garments had not been sold by that person before he could not say, "This is a price reduction from my previous price", because it obviously was not as he had not sold them before.
  458
  If he said, "These garments are 50 per cent. below the price for the same kind of things in other shops", and that is taken as true, there is no reason why he should not make that statement. He could not be prosecuted if he made a statement in that way.
  Mr. Burden: I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman make that clear, but this was not what he said in Committee.
  Mr. Darling indicated assent.
  Mr. Burden: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman nodding. It is here in HANSARD. He said:
  "However, there is nothing to stop him from saying that the garments are genuine bargains."
  The right hon. Gentleman certainly did not refer in Committee to the fact that that person would be in order in declaring that the garments were 50 per cent. lower than the price at which they had regularly been sold to the public. He made no mention of it then. The fact that he did not merely illustrates the problems that are created. It emphasises the force of the logic of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe and the hon. Member for Bradford, West and of my hon. Friends. In persuading those two hon. Gentlemen to be hawks this afternoon and not doves, what has emerged in the debate should help to encourage them.
  The hon. Lady was very generous in Committee in listening to all points of view—she has a little steel in her as well, if necessary—but I suggest that this is a time when she might give very serious consideration to what has been suggested not only from behind her, but from this side of the House. It is far better she does this, if she has the slightest doubt, than that she pushes through the Bill as it is and sees it run into considerable difficulties in application after it gets on to the Statute Book.
  Mr. David Crouch: The purpose of the debate today is no different from our purpose on Second Reading, namely, to make this a good Bill. There is agreement on both sides that this must be our aim.
  We are pressing at some length two Amendments which must be and are being considered together. The hon.

  459
  Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) has spoken with a background of expertise and experience, and he has been ably supported by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine). I ask the hon. Lady not to ignore this heartfelt expertise from many years of experience in retail trade and marketing which has come from behind her. She has had similar expressions of authority and experience from this side, too. I hope that she will not be intractable in her approach to the problem.
  We on this side want to see a good Bill to protect consumers and to protect vigorous and fair marketing and retailing. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) said that we live in a sophisticated marketing period. Buying and selling is a sophisticated operation. Everyone has to be on his toes. If the Board of Trade insists on many provisos about prices and price reductions, as in Clause 11, it will emasculate the opportunity for fair, vigorous and responsible trading and for fair buying. The opportunity for the consumers to benefit from price reductions may be lost if the Clause is allowed through.
  The general view has been expressed that there is an irritant in products constantly being offered at reduced prices. This is so, but manufacturers and retailers are in competition and the irritation gives the housewife the opportunity of a lower price if she also shops with vigour. It is not to deceive her. We want to remove any element of deceit and to make a good Bill.
  I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the remarks in another place of another Board of Trade Minister, Lord Brown, on the difficult question of how best the Clause could be phrased to catch unreliable retailers while still permitting fair marketing:
  "We in the Board of Trade have not given up trying to tackle this matter."
  I hope that the hon. Lady will share that sentiment. He went on:
  "All sorts of ideas have been put forward and discussed, and we do not see our way through it; but we have not yet stopped thinking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 29th January, 1968; Vol. 288, c. 665]
  This is a salutary thought and I ask the hon. Lady to consider whether the
  460
  Amendments do not offer a solution. At least, there seems to be agreement across the House, and we are being constructive.
  The speeches of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) are always helpful, and are based on wide experience of legislation at the Board of Trade and the facts of life in the market place. But he did not accept today that we are trying to be constructive by dropping Clause 11 and strengthening Clause 2.
  The Molony Committee was very careful in considering misleading price claims. In paragraph 588, it said:
  "The next call for amendment related to claims that merchandise is on otter at bargain price It was submitted that there is widespread misrepresentation in this respect.…"
  This is what we are debating. We are concerned to put right this misrepresentation, but by better drafting. Lord Brown expressed concern at the inadequacy of the drafting of Clause 11 some months ago.
  In the same paragraph, Molony said:
  "…in a competitive economy, the consumer might reasonably expect the normal price of goods to provide a fair indication of their quality, particularly if that quality could not be readily assessed by superficial examination or by reference to any description supplied with the goods; and therefore that a false or misleading statement of the original price or real value of the goods materially deceived the consumer as to the merits of the merchandise on offer."
  This is why Clause 2 defines a trade description, so why do we leave out reference to price only to make a complicated and misleading provision in Clause 11?
  The Amendments would add these price references to Clause 2 and would drop Clause 11. Although the latter recommendation comes only from this side it seemed to be agreed, judging from the nodding of hon. Members opposite. I have tried to persuade the hon. Lady to accept my point of view in Committee and I hope that I have succeeded today.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.The debate has ranged wide. It has been interesting to hear that I am surrounded by both doves and hawks. I have never regarded my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) or Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) as birds, but one learns something every day. Several hon.

  461
  Gentlemen have raised detailed points, but perhaps I may take a little time in explanation.
  It is suggested that Amendment No. 3 would deal more satisfactorily with false price comparisons than does Clause 11 by providing that an indication of the former or usual price of any goods shall be a trade description. We are sure that this is not so. The effect of the Amendments would merely be that the offences stated in Clause 1—of applying a false trade description, or of supplying or offering to supply goods to which a false trade description is applied—would arise where someone applied to a particular article a false indication of the former or usual price of that particular article. I stress the words, "of that particular article".
  That might cover the case of the trader who has formerly offered the particular article at £2, and now purports to offer it at a marked-down price. But that case is already clearly covered by Clause 11—and covered a great deal more satisfactorily, because we have there spelled out precisely for the benefit of the courts and of traders who have to comply with the law what an indication of former price is to be taken to mean.
  But the Amendment would not deal with the many cases in which comparison is made with the price at which, not these particular goods, but goods of the same description have been offered. This is a very frequent type of comparison and, as long as it is truthful, a perfectly fair one. The trader says, in effect, "Previously, I have been selling goods just like this for £2; now I am going to offer the same line at 35s.". If he makes such a comparison falsely he is caught, as he should be, by Clause 11 because we there refer to "the goods or goods of the same description". But he could not possibly be caught for a false trade description offence by this Amendment of Clause 2.
  The answer to that is not simply a further Amendment to Clause 2 to relate it to indications "with respect to any goods or to goods of the same description". That would completely distort the whole carefully designed effect of Clause 2 with regard to the various other kinds of indications about goods it now covers, and distort it in so far-reaching a manner that I doubt whether any of us could foresee all the remarkable and undesirable consequences.
  462
  It is, of course, true that the Molony Committee suggested that the "former or usual price" of any goods should be included in the definition of a trade description. The Committee did not discuss this concept in any detail; but it noted that such a provision would be difficult both to draft and to enforce. This was in paragraph 636. When we came to examine this suggestion, we found that the difficulties of that approach were very great.
  This is a point on which the Clause has been exhaustively examined. I know that my noble Friend in another place said that he still had an open mind, but the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) will realise that, since that date, there has been a great deal of discussion and consultation. This Clause has been backwards and forwards not only between the Opposition and the Government and between hon. Members opposite and the Board of Trade, but also between this House and another place, like a pea in a baby's rattle.
  The stated Molony objective of dealing with
  "false comparative price claims meant to convey that goods have been genuinely marked down in the particular retail establishment"
  could be achieved far more satisfactorily by a separate Clause 11. Price claims are, in general, of so different a character from descriptions directly related to particular goods that the provisions needed to deal with them are just not congruous with the scheme of the first six Clauses of the Bill——
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Lady said that considerable discussion and examination of the Clause has taken place since the Committee stage. Considerable discussion took place in another place and up to the Committee and in Committee What further discussion has made her more certain today than she was after those considerable discussions?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the Clause has been amended—perhaps not so widely as some hon. Gentlemen would want, but where we disagree is that he thinks that, because we cannot do absolutely everything, we should do nothing at all. Perhaps he will allow me to develop the argument on the points raised.

  463
  The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) raised the question of leaving decisions like this to the courts. We cannot agree that it would be right to leave it to the courts to decide what amounts to a false indication of comparative price. It has emerged very clearly from the lengthy debates on this question that it is a very complicated matter. In resolving the tangle, there must be two main objectives. One is that the consumer should know what meaning to attach to a trader's claim to have reduced his price. The second is that honest traders should know what claims they can properly and safely make, and that those who have to enforce the law—whether the courts or the local weights and measures authorities—should know as clearly as possible what constitutes an offence.
  To leave the issue to the mercy of this vague and unelaborated Amendment would be merely to create doubts and conflicting decisions all round, whereas the carefully worked out approach of Clause 11 offers as clear and sound a basis for shoppers, shopkeepers, and enforcers as we think can be devised.
  The Amendment would certainly not catch false comparisons with other people's prices. Even if other people's prices were regarded as a "former or usual price"—and it is not the happiest way of referring to them—they would not be the price of the goods to which the shopkeeper was applying the indication, but the price of goods of the same description, which, as I have already explained, would not be covered by the Amendment.
  The other Amendment would delete Clause 11 and would also mean that there would be no prohibition of false comparisons with recommended prices. I know that some people think, for varying reasons, that this would be a change for the better, but I do not agree. The proposal seems to disregard the fact that there are two separate and distinct kinds of malpractice in relation to such prices. The first is practised by the trader who deliberately over-states the amount by which his price is lower than a genuine recommended price or, with the same object of claiming a false price cut, quotes a recommended price when none exists. Clause 11 would prohibit these false
  464
  claims and I see no reason why it should not. There are still plenty of recommended prices—despite the remarks of some hon. Gentlemen opposite—which are genuine in the sense that they are observed by a proportion of retailers.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: Would not the hon. Lady agree that the trend is towards the abolition of recommended prices?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: There was enormous strength in the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) that there is some indication that that is not necessarily so.
  As I was saying, there are still plenty of recommended prices which are genuine, in the sense that they are observed by at least some proportion of retailers. It is perfectly legitimate for those who are selling at less than the recommended figure to draw attention to the fact, and it is quite wrong that unscrupulous traders should be free to misrepresent the recommended price and so deceive the public as to the amount of the bargain they purport to offer.
  We know only too well that it is not practicable to deal with all the forms of misrepresentation which occur in comparative pricing. But this malpractice is one which is quite easily controllable—it presents no serious problem of enforcement—and it seems only sensible that the Bill should prohibit it.
  The second kind of malpractice—the quotation of "phoney" recommended prices—is another matter. We are told that there are two main forms of these misleading recommendations. The price may be recommended by a manufacturer to all retailers, but at a level which he knows is higher than the price at which any of them are likely to retail the goods. This he does so that every seller may claim to be offering a bargain at less than the "recommended price". This, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said in Committee, is something which we see no way of preventing in the present legislation.
  The other type of "phoney" recommended price is the one which is not generally promulgated but which is made to a limited range of retailers. It may even be recommended by a wholesaler to a retailer at the retailer's request, at a

  465
  quite ridiculous figure so that the retailer can pretend to be offering an enormous bargain when his price is, in fact, normal—or above normal—for such goods. The comparison made is utterly meaningless, and serves only to deceive. This abuse would to some extent be curbed by the provisions of Clause 11(3,b), which would ensure that an indication of a recommended price, unless expressly qualified, is treated as a price generally recommended by the manufacturer or producer of the goods.
  I do not pretend that this is anything like a complete answer to the problem of "phoney" recommendations—this will give some comfort to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)—but it is as far as we think it reasonable and practicable to go in the Bill.
  5.30 p.m.
  The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) was worried about the question of fiscal changes, although I thought that his argument was a little transmuted. He suggested that retailers should be entitled to disregard price increases due to tax changes when making claims of the so much "off" variety. He was worried lest they be caught it there had been a fiscal change overnight. I do not feel that this is a practical problem that would arise. I cannot imagine that there would be an immediate series of prosecutions of retailers who had not changed their prices immediately after a tax change.
  I appreciate, however, in regard to the question of whether or not they should be allowed to disregard price increases and keep their prices unchanged after allowing for tax increases, that that is another matter. We feel that there are various ways open to a retailer to draw attention to the fact without making the false suggestion that he has reduced his price below its former level.
  Other considerations have concerned hon. Members, such as the whole question of promotional interference—this business of "2d. off". We have reviewed the provisions of Clause 11 in the light of the points raised in Committee about its effect on certain existing promotional practices. We are clear that, with the further Amendments which we propose to subsection 3(a,ii), it would contain nothing to prevent manufacturers and retailers
  466
  from continuing to make price cuts whenever they wish.
  The consequence of the provisions dealing with previous prices is that when a supplier claims to have reduced his price, any previous price to which he refers must—unless he expressly qualifies the claim—be a price at which he has, in fact, offered the goods recently and for long enough to make it a genuine price. This is, we think, the natural inference for customers to draw an indication such as "6d. off", and a retailer who offers goods marked in this way when he has not taken 6d. off his previous price is giving a false impression.
  It has been said that these provisions will entail some changes in the ways in which manuacturers and distributors at present handle such special offers. If so, it will only be because, under the present system, the customer has not always received the benefit of the reduction implied by the marking on the packet.
  Mr. Burden: The question is whether the Clause would catch the person who, for example, produced a packaged article and the price of the package was reduced by 3d. but not the contents because the contents were fewer than had previously been advertised at the higher price.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not think that that would be caught under the Clause, but it would probably be caught under Clause 2.
  At the risk of mortally offending some of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have addressed gentle remarks to me—they have urged me not to be intransigent and difficult—I must be considerably hawk-like and resist the Amendment. I am having rather a traumatic week. Yesterday, I was referred to as a well-built yacht. At the risk of offending hon. Members, I must urge them not to press the Amendment.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I hesitate to intervene, because so far I have taken no part in the proceedings on the Bill. I rise only because my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) would have wished to be here to intervene at this stage. I assure the hon. Lady that I do not intend to call her anything. I have great respect for her and it is because I believe that she is a fair-minded person, with an open mind,

  467
  that I make a final plea on behalf of not only my hon. Friends but a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  I urge the hon. Lady to take the Clause back and make one further attempt to put it into the sort of shape which will achieve what we want to see. All hon. Members appreciate who we want to catch and the evils we wish to prevent. I do not see how anybody who has listened to today's debate and has read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, as I have, can feel that we can send the Bill back to another place with the Clause in its present state. If it is sent back unchanged the provision will create many difficulties and do the harm which hon. Members have mentioned. Grave difficulties will be caused to retailers in many walks of life.
  The right hon. Member Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who was then speaking for the Government, said in Committee:
  "If…we do anything to spare"—
  I believe that a misprint occurred at that point—
  "traders and to make them fear that they will be in trouble with the law if they cut prices to sell old stock, or for some other good and honest purpose, we shall be making a grave mistake in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th March, 1968; c. 231.]
  Considering the good will that has gone into the efforts of hon. Members generally in trying to find a solution to this problem, I do not feel that anybody who has listened to the debates on the subject can say that a solution has been found. For this reason, I urge the hon. Lady to take the Clause back for further consideration.
  I remind her that although she is only the Parliamentary Secretary—I use the word "only" not in a disparaging way—she is in charge of the Bill. It behoves her, having listened to the debate, to appreciate the strength of the case that has been made. If she accepts Amendment No. 33 it will be open to the Government at a later stage to reverse that decision. I appreciate the difficulties inherent in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), but that should not prevent the hon. Lady from withdrawing the Clause for further consideration.
  468
  I am sure that a solution can be found if the Government give further thought to the matter. We would be making a grave mistake if we sent the Bill back to another place with the Clause remaining as it stands. I urge the hon. Lady to have an open mind on the issue. The Bill has had the broad agreement of both sides on many of its aspects. It would be a pity if, at this late stage, we disagreed on such a vital matter.
  Mr. Darling: I intervene to put the record straight. Hon. Members have rightly quoted the remarks I made in Committee, but I must point out that the remarks quoted by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) in the reference to scaring traders—it was a misprint, of course—and making them fear that if they made price reductions they would be caught by the law, were introductory remarks to Amendments which were then accepted by the Committee.
  It is only fair to point out to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who quoted what was said by my noble Friend Lord Brown in another place, that this is not the same Clause as that to which my noble Friend referred. The Bill has been amended in the way in which my noble Friend wanted it to be amended and he now supports this Clause in the Bill. It is necessary to make that perfectly clear. My remarks were introductory to improvements which have been made and the amendment Clause is not the Clause to which my noble Friend referred.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I emphasise that the remarks, although they were quoted at the stage in the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman as referred, were equally relevant after the debate in which points were made by hon. Members from both sides of the House about the difficulties which this Clause will get us into.
  Mr. Darling: I would not accept that.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has been most beguiling this afternoon and my heart would be delighted to give into those gentle words were it not that my head tells me that that would be wrong. I do not know whether it is possible to be immersed in a Clause, but as Parliamentary Secretary I

  469
  have been living with this Clause for some time. It has been very carefully examined many times and it has been amended. We are now convinced that this is the final form in which we should like to see it in the Bill. Therefore, at the risk of losing the affection of the hon. Member, I must say quite firmly
  that we shall resist both these Amendments as we do not think they would contribute to the Bill in any constructive form.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 185.

  Division No. 132.]

  AYES

  [5.42 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gurden, Harold

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Astor, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Balniel, Lord

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Percival, Ian

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hawkins, Paul

  Peyton, John

  Bell, Ronald

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hiley, Joseph

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Biffen, John

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pym, Francis

  Blaker, Peter

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Boardman, Tom

  Holland, Philip

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hordern, Peter

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hornby, Richard

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hunt, John

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Silvester, Frederick

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Jopling, Michael

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Burden, F. A.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Stainton, Keith

  Campbell, Gordon

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Kitson, Timothy

  Stodart, Anthony

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Clegg, Walter

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Costain, A. P.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Crouch, David

  Loveys, W. H.

  Temple, John M.

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Eden, Sir John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maddan, Martin

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Walters, Dennis

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maude, Angus

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Farr, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Webster, David

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Foster, Sir John

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Monro, Hector

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  More, Jasper

  Wright, Esmond

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Younger, Hn. George

  Goodhew, Victor

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Gower, Raymond

  Murton, Oscar

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grant, Anthony

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Mr. Anthony Royle and

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Neave, Airey

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

  NOES

  Alldritt, Walter

  Blackburn, F.

  Cant, R. B.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Anderson, Donald

  Booth, Albert

  Coe, Denis

  Archer, Peter

  Boyden, James

  Concannon, J. D.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Barnett, Joel

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Baxter, William

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Binns, John

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Dempsey, James

  Bishop, E. S.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Dewar, Donald

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Dickens, James

  Judd, Frank

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Dobson, Ray

  Kelley, Richard

  Palmer, Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth Central)

  Park, Trevor

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Ellis, John

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Pentland, Norman

  English, Michael

  Loughlin, Charles

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  McBride, Neil

  Randall, Harry

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  MacColl, James

  Rees, Merlyn

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Richard, Ivor

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Forrester, John

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mackie, John

  Sheldon, Robert

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Slater, Joseph

  Gregory, Arnold

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Small, William

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Manuel, Archie

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mapp, Charles

  Thornton, Ernest

  Hamling, William

  Marquand, David

  Tomney, Frank

  Hannan, William

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Millan, Bruce

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Moonman, Eric

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hoy, James

  Moyle, Roland

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Neal, Harold

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Newens, Stan

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hunter, Adam

  Oakes, Gordon

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Hynd, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Woof, Robert

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Sp'nb'gh)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Yates, Victor

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Orbach, Maurice

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Orme, Stanley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Clause 4.

  APPLYING A TRADE DESCRIPTION TO GOODS.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 38, leave out 'An oral statement' and insert:
  False or misleading oral statements if made—

  (a) persistently, and

  (b) knowingly or recklessly.

  I understand that it is for the convenience of the House if we take with it Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 38, after 'statement', insert 'if corroborated'.
  That was what Mr. Speaker told me before you took the chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the understanding that we might vote separately on the Amendments. Mr. Speaker suggested that since they deal with the same problem, though in different ways, it would perhaps be a good idea to take them together.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes. At the same time we can discuss Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 39, at end insert:
  'no prosecution shall be brought unless the evidence has been corroborated by the prosecuting authority'.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The Amendment deals with the question rather publicly aired by the President of the National Chamber of Trade since our Committee meetings of the extent to which, if at all, oral statements should be capable of founding a prosecution under the Act. I make no apology for reading out what the Molony Committee said on this point. For the sake of brevity I shall omit paragraph 658 of its Report, but we cannot repeat too often what the Committee said in paragraph 659, namely:
  "If oral misdescription became a criminal offence, we would expect a marked increase

  473
  in prosecutions and the outcome would depend, in a high proportion, on whether the customer or the shopkeeper was believed. We are doubtful whether, in the long run, the consumer would, benefit from such invidious conflicts. On the other side of the balance, there must be recognised the danger that the shopkeeper might be taken to court out of spite; or threatened with prosecution if he failed to submit to some extortionate demand in relation to the goods."
  The hon. Lady rather pooh-poohed this fear in Committee. I had to repeat it then, and I repeat it now as it was set out by the very high-powered Molony Committee, which inquired into the matter most carefully. The paragraph continues:
  "We also heed the consideration that to alter the present law might tend to impose restraint on what was said about the goods by the more responsible retailers. The result might be to deprive the customer of such information and advice as a helpful shopkeeper is able to give. In practice, the misdescription would usually emanate from a shop assistant or outside salesman, and with the rapid turnover in these occupations the owner of the business might be wholly unable to provide any answer to a charge. On balance, our conclusion is that extension of the law in this respect would not be justified. But better understanding of the law may lead consumers to ask for written confirmation of material points in the information given about the goods."
  Paragraph 660 says:
  "It will readily be appreciated that we have not found our decision as to whether the law should be altered to strike at oral misdescription an easy one to make. As indicated in paragraph 658 above there is a real problem here which is not likely to abate. A substantial safeguard exists, in practice, in the capacity of inspectors to obtatin written confirmation of the oral misdescription on a test purchase made after the shopper's complaint. The scope for oral misdescription will be limited, we trust, by adoption of our recommendations for informative labelling. If these protective factors do not fulfil our expectations in the future, our decision might require to be reviewed."
  One of our first questions in Committee and now is why the Government have not given the time for which the Molony Committee asked to see whether, with the various other suggestions and the provisions of the Bill, it is necessary to legislate in the case of oral misdescription in the absolute way that the Government have plunged into. We have always recognised that there are bad cases of oral misdescription, not so much in shops as by the doorstep salesmen, of whom a minority—no doubt a small minority—persistently and knowingly or recklessly
  474
  have from time to time given false descriptions of the goods they are peddling to housewives. That is why we have not sought the extreme view of banishing oral misdescription from the Bill altogether but have sought a compromise by which only that wicked minority should be caught.
  Instead of any oral statement being capable of being a misdescription, we say by Amendment 4 that it must be a false or misleading oral statement being made persistently, knowingly or recklessly. In other words, the Amendment imports into the Bill the concept of a guilty mind, about which we had a great discussion in Committee. It is the concept which the Government themselves introduced in later Clauses concerning misdescriptions in the case of provision of services. In the Clauses dealing with services, the offender must be guilty either of knowing what he is saying is wrong or doing it recklessly, not caring whether it be right or wrong. We say that that is a very appropriate test in the case of oral statement.
  We have seen in another branch of the law since the Committee stage, in the case of the poor, unfortunate Miss Sweet, what can happen if we make too many absolute criminal offences. If we make too many offences absolute we shall cause the most grievous injustice and are liable to bring to a silent, if not grinding, halt the service provided by the retail trade, particularly the small retailer in giving advice and answering questions. There is a very great turnover in shop assistants. Seventy-five per cent. of them are school leavers and it is almost impossible to expect the employer, who will be absolutely liable for what these girls may say, to exercise the sort of care and control over them which the Bill now requires. The only consequence will be that the customer will not get the information he gets now.
  6.0 p.m.
  A wise retailer will in future instruct his staff not to help. By doing so, they may give a false description, unknowingly and unwittingly; certainly not recklessly; but perhaps negligently or even innocently, and the shopkeeper will be in grave danger of being prosecuted. Even if he eventually escapes under one of the defences provided by a subsequent Clause,

  475
  he will still run the risk of a prosecution, and prosecution, even if innocence is found eventually under one of the special defences, is a very serious thing for him to face.
  Therefore, we say that it is wrong to make an absolute liability, as the Bill does, for oral misdescriptions and oral statements by employees and others. It is a breach of faith to the small keeper. Hon. Members will remember that the small shopkeeper was very suspicious of the Resale Prices Act, and he was assured that he retained a place in the community and provided a service to the community which could not be provided by the supermarket. He and his assistants were free, in a way that supermarkets were not free, to give advice and to recommend one article rather than another.
  If oral misdescriptions, innocent though they may be, are to be held to expose him to prosecution under the Act, he will, if he is wise, shut up like a clam, which will mean that he will not have the edge over the supermarkets which he has had hitherto and which he is entitled to expect.
  Whatever the hon. Lady and others may have said in Committee, it is not difficult to import the test of "knowingly or recklessly". It is not difficult to import the test of persistence either. There are in our law many examples of that. It is very important, if a prosecution is to be launched purely for an oral misdescription, that it should be necessary to prove that it was made either knowingly or recklessly and persistently. Otherwise, we shall find ourselves in the danger that the shopkeeper might be taken to court out of spite, or threatened with prosecution, if he failed to submit to an extortionate demand in relation to the goods. The Molony Committee thought that this was a danger which was very likely to arise.
  Hon. Members must realise that prosecutions, quite rightly, can be launched by private persons. But one of the consequences of that is that there is in the Bill no barrier against any private person instituting a private prosecution out of spite in the way that the Molony Committee fear.
  Amendment No. 5 tackles the problem in a slightly different way. It leaves the
  476
  absolute offence. That is to say, it is not necessary to prove mens rea, or guilty mind, but provides that no conviction shall be secured unless the statement is corroborated by someone other than the complainant. The Amendment would go some way to meet the fears of the Molony Committee that a high proportion of the cases would depend on whether the customer or the shopkeeper was believed. It is always dangerous to trust an account of a conversation between two parties when there is no corroborative third party present. Therefore, if Amendment No. 4 is not accepted, at least Amendment No. 5 should be. There are many offences in law where corroboration is required. I could elaborate on this, but I do not wish to do so, as we are anxious to get on.
  We will not accept the approach of the Government, that for these economic crimes it is necessary to have a standard of absolute reliability, irrespective of a guilty mind, irrespective of whether the person charged is a rogue or not, because otherwise the law cannot be enforced. We utterly reject this approach.
  Indeed, the opposite is the case. It is true that a lay bench is not likely to convict, and is likely to regard the law as wrong. A lay bench, like a jury, believes that the criminal law is there to deal with rogues, and not with innocent persons. Therefore, if you put upon the lay bench the task of deciding whether innocent people are guilty, even although they did all that they could reasonably be expected to do to stop the offence being committed, the Bill will become just such a dead letter as did the Merchandise Marks Act. In that case the standard of proof in the event, after the judicial glosses were put upon it, was even more stringent, in the sense that an innocent person might be found guilty. It became a dead letter for that reason, and lay benches thought very little of the Act.
  We do not want that to happen here. We want to make sure that the rogues are caught, but we do not want the retail trade to be embarrassed, hustled and frightened. The President of the National Chamber of Trade, who is the spokesman for the retail trade, has recently stigmatised this portion of the Billl as being an appalling prospect for the retail trade.

  477
  I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady, having failed to give us anything on the previous Amendment, may feel that she can give us the substance either of Amendment No. 4 or of Amendment No. 5, and I leave to her which of those two approaches she prefers.
  Mr. Goodhart: We are very lucky in that the acoustics in this debating chamber are splendid and, even if we lower our voices, there are microphones to pick up and amplify what we say. Our words are recorded, and we then have an opportunity to correct them. Such conditions do not apply in the shops and on the doorsteps to which the Clause refers.
  Together with a number of my colleagues, I have had the experience in the last few days of trying to do some doorstep selling. I have been going round to the houses in my constituency holding out election addresses to the householders, when they answer, and suggesting that they might like to give their support—or make a purchase, as it were—to the eminently desirable Conservative candidates standing for election in the area. By and large, I have had a very friendly reception.
  However, on one occasion I went to the door and went through my little set speech and the woman of the house looked at me and said, "The picture keeps shaking". It was plain to me that, despite the fact that I was covered with party labels, she thought that I was from the television rental company and had come about the line hold in her set. I tried to put the matter right. However, as I was going through my little speech again, a lorry went roaring past and drowned the conversation. She took out her purse and offered me a £1 note, which put me in a very difficult position, because I was not sure whether she thought that she was offering it to me as representing the Conservative Party or as representing Radio Rentals. I gently restrained her enthusiasm and said that people would call for the money later.
  That merely goes to show the total confusion which can arise in what was, after all, a perfectly normal conversation on a doorstep.
  I had another example of people being totally at cross-purposes at lunch-time today. I had the very good fortune of being invited to a rather formal occa-
  478
  sion. I am happy to say that a wine waiter appeared and said to me: "Will you have the hock or burgundy?". I said, "I will have the burgundy", to which the waiter said, "A very wise choice, sir", and proceeded to pour out the hock. On this occasion, no noise of any sort intruded, but the two parties to the conversation were totally at cross-purposes.
  It may well be that the wine waiter could say, "I have an impediment in hearing". I have a slight impediment in my hearing as a result of diving too deeply and breaking an eardrum. I find it very difficult to hear what is said on the telephone if I hold the telephone in my left hand and against my left ear. Difficulty in hearing is not unusual. Thirty per cent. of the population are said to suffer from some impediment in hearing. One wonders whether deafness will be an offence under this Clause. Certainly one would imagine that in any prosecution the defence would wish to test the hearing of all concerned. Very few successful prosecutions will be brought under the Clause because of the difficulty, for one reason or another, of establishing the true facts.
  6.15 p.m.
  Do people outside understand the real position, which was satisfactorily outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee? She said:
  "I hope that we do not get too bogged down in the arguments…that prosecutions in respect of oral misdescription will be brought solely on the strength of what a customer claims that a shop assistant said. It is unjust that the trade should be open to conviction as a result of such evidence. That argument shows little faith in our courts."
  The hon. Lady went on to say:
  "I have no doubt whatever that if the courts are faced with the uncorroborated evidence of an aggrieved customer about what a shop assistant said, they will treat it with appropriate circumspection".—[OFFCIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th March, 1968; c. 84–5.]
  The hon. Lady gave a fair and accurate description of the efficiency and fairness of our courts. But the fact that we have good courts is no excuse for passing bad laws. Acceptance of these Amendments can do no harm, because, as the hon. Lady will acknowledge, they merely ensure court procedure at its best.
  However, rejection of all the Amendments would do positive harm. It is my

  479
  view that the real danger to shoppers is not deliberate misdescription of goods but imprecision in the description of goods by shop assistants. If we allow this part of the Bill to go through without Amendment, the danger is that a shop assistant will give an inaccurate description of the goods rather than say, "I do not know".
  Like all hon. Members, I want to see the real rogues caught. Therefore, I am not opposed to oral misdescription playing some part in the Bill. But I fear that if all the Amendments are rejected the decision to make oral misdescription an offence will, on balance, do more harm than good to the consumer.
  Mr. Crouch: I say again that our object is to make better a good Bill, which we welcome. I merely wish to support the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that the danger of the Bill concerning oral misdescription is that it will tend to take away from our lives the helpful salesman and saleswoman. Let us produce a good Bill to help the consumer and, by so doing, help the helpful retailer to go on being helpful.
  This Bill, if it has this Clause regarding the oral description, without this valuable Amendment containing the categorisation of such an oral misdescription as being made persistently and knowingly or recklessly, will not take account of the way shopping is done. This Amendment constitutes a recognition of the contribution of the retailer, whose salesmen want to help the shopper. If the hon. Lady feels that she cannot accept the Amendment and must leave this bald statement in the Bill as it now stands, I am afraid that we shall see a deterioration in the relations between the customer and the retailer, which is just what we do not want to happen.
  The whole object of the Bill is to improve and perfect those relations, to take us on to a new plane and level of fair trading. Maybe we shall still get fair trading, but the Bill will take out some of the oil that is put in to help the customer, the housewife or any other person shopping to find what they want and be satisfied with their purchase.
  I support absolutely what my hon. and learned Friend has said are his misgivings
  480
  about the Bill as it stands. It will also put some sand into the workings of the relationship between the proprietor of a shop and his employees. His employees will be afraid of his breathing down their, necks with this Bill in his hands, throwing the book at them too, and saying, "Do not tell the customers anything in the future; for goodness sake do not get me into the courts." This will mean a very unsaisfactory way of shopping.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said that he had the misfortune to have to drink the wrong wine at lunch. He should have pointed to the label on the bottle and said, "No, I mean that one", because, as hon. and right hon. Members know, I am a very strong supporter of informative labelling at the point of sale and correct information in all forms of advertising where it is applicable and where it is possible, but particularly at the point of sale. Good and helpful salesmen or saleswomen can point to the label even if they cannot find the words to give the reasons why the customer should be persuaded to buy a certain article. I mention this because it is a way out of the hon. Lady's difficulty in exercising, as an hon. Lady, a Member and a women herself, the woman's privilege of changing her mind on this subject.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: I strongly support what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that all reasonable people are very anxious to clamp down on the unscrupulous doorstep salesman and run him out of business, but what worries me about this is that as the Bill is drafted large numbers of innocent people could quite inadvertently get on the wrong side of the law and be prosecuted. They might get away because the evidence was not corroborated, but there is a certain stigma even in being taken before a court and being exposed to this kind of thing. As my hon. Friend has just said, there is the difficulty that the shopkeeper, manager or owner may take the line of least resistance and tell his staff not to take any chances but just to give the stuff to the customer over the counter and refuse to answer any queries. How can the manager or owner of a big shop or store keep proper supervision over all his staff, many of whom are young, a staff which, as has been said,

  481
  is constantly changing? Surely this part of the Bill must be qualified.
  I was amazed to read this particular statement in the Bill. There would seem to be a certain amount of slipshod drafting. Surely, if this provision is to be in the Bill it must include the words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend—
  "persistently, and…knowlingly or recklessly".
  This would be a clear indication of an intent on the part of the individual to mislead.
  I am thinking also of young girls who serve in chemist shops. The chemist is not always available and customers often ask for elementary advice about medicines which are sold. These young girls, quite sincerely and honestly, give their own impression of what the stuff is. Many such people would expose themselves to prosecution under the Bill as drafted at present, and this would lead to a deterioration in the relationship between members of the public and shopkeepers. People definitely look for guidance and are prepared to accept reasonable guidance. I do not believe that the public is as gullible as some people think. It understands that it is being misled. We know the dangers of the doorstep operator and the fact that he can get away with quite serious offences, but the vast majority of people who serve behind counters in shops try to do their job honourably, and this is accepted by individuals
  There is a great danger that, if we let this go through unamended, there will be malicious prosecutions. There are large numbers of busybodies around who are only too pleased to take legal action Whenever they can find the opportunity. I am extremely worried, particularly with this Government, that more and more regulations and restrictions are being brought forward and that, as a result, people who are otherwise completely innocent are finding it extremely difficult to keep within the letter of the law.
  Mr. Burden: I should like to draw the attention of the House once again to the fact that this is a Bill that has criminal sanctions, and very serious ones. It cannot be spelled out too often that a person found guilty of an offence under this Bill might be liable on summary conviction to
  482
  a fine not exceeding £400 and, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding two years, or both. This is a very serious matter.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made the point in his speech that if lay magistrates were to have brought before them a Bill that had criminal sanctions, particularly sanctions of this type, they would be extremely reluctant to convict because of the weight of the sanctions. If this is so, it is all the more reason for the hon. Lady to give very serious consideration to these Amendments, because surely the last thing in the world that the hon. Lady would like to see is a situation in which, owing to the harshness of the sanctions, the lay courts would be reluctant to convict, if indeed they found there was a good case.
  If this argument has any validity at all it must be strengthened by the fact that the courts are going to be asked also to convict on uncorroborated evidence. That is a very serious matter and, again, something that should give the hon. Lady cause for very serious thought. In view of the harsh character of the sanctions that could be imposed by the courts, I should be extremely careful about convicting if I were a lay magistrate, and I should want the charge to be backed up by other evidence to make sure that the statements were persistent, reckless and had been knowingly made. I hope that the hon. Lady will consider that.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Bill could well prove to be an incentive to unscrupulous shoppers who want to gain their own ends. Just as there are unscrupulous shopkeepers, so, alas, there are unscrupulous shoppers who will often do all that they can to avoid keeping an article after they have bought it.
  Let us suppose that Mrs. Jones is going to an important function. She buys an expensive dress, she wears it and her husband says, "You looked lovely this evening, but how much did the dress cost?". On being told he says, "I am not paying for that. You can take it back to the shop." Mrs. Jones then takes the dress back to the shop and says that she bought it because of the information which she was given, but she has brought it back because she has discovered that

  483
  what she was told is not true. She might well decide to take the case to court if the shop refuses to accept the dress. Many reputable stores take back items even if they have been sold to unscrupulous people because they know that if they are involved in a court case that might damage their reputation.
  Mr. Gardner: Is it not true that Mrs. Jones' legal advisers would advise her that the shopkeeper has a good defence under Clause 23 and that she should not pursue the matter any further?
  Mr. Burden: That sounds wonderful, but we cannot rely on her receiving that advice, and even if she did the shop's reputation could still be damaged. An implied threat is often sufficient to get a store or shop to settle a case.
  The hon. Lady referred to firms not being convicted. Surely we want to avoid innocent shopkeepers being brought before the courts, with all the odium that would result? In Committee the hon. Lady said:
  "I would hesitate to comment on all cases in which a particular phrase could or could not be considered as a mis-statement. There would be an onus on the shopkeeper to make sure that his assistants were instructed in the correct facts about the goods they were selling. This is an important point. In reply to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) I would say that one should not underestimate the question of whether or not people would hesitate to prosecute. I do not think that there will be cases where shopkeepers are subjected to malicious prosecutions because, after all, this is a major undertaking and involves some expense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 14th March, 1968, col. 86.]
  That is one side of the coin. What will happen if people undertake malicious prosecutions and they are successful? The poor unfortunate shopkeeper will have severe penal sanctions imposed on him. Just as we want to provide protection for the honest member of the public, so we must ensure that we protect the shopkeeper from the dishonest member of the public who might want to use the Bill to achieve some personal gain or to bring a malicious prosecution against a shopkeeper.
  Mr. Darling: Hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed that the Bill must cover oral misdescriptions. It is right that concern should be expressed for the trader who accidentally or
  484
  innocently offends against the terms of the Bill, but I wish that hon. Members would express as much concern for the customer who might be misled, who might suffer financial damage as a result of being misled, and who, because the trader concerned does not give him the redress to which he is entitled, takes the case to the weights and measures inspector. No doubt the inspector will have a new title when the Bill reaches the Statute Book. Whatever his title, he will decide whether to approach the trader to see whether the grievance alleged by Mrs. Jones can be put right, or to prosecute.
  I am concerned about the customer. It is true that there are traders—and not all of them are doorstep salesmen—who swindle their customers. The Bill is concerned primarily with looking after the interests of the aggrieved customer. I agree that it will provide protection for the honest trader. If we weaken the Bill so that people acting on behalf of aggrieved customers cannot stamp out practices which we know ought to be eradicated, we will fail in our purpose. We therefore look carefully at any suggestions which might weaken the Bill.
  With due respect to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) I suggest that he has not read the Bill properly, because according to him the trader will have an adequate defence under Clause 23. When hon. Members talk about the possibility of malicious prosecutions, they should remember that the courts can, and do, deal with these. Let us assume that the Mrs. Jones referred to by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) decided to bring a malicious prosecution. She would not, of course, do it under this Measure. No weights and measures inspector would act on her behalf. She would have to bring the action herself, and stand the costs involved. The trader would resist the action, and he would be backed by his trade association. I am convinced that the courts would deal with such a malicious prosecution and that Mrs. Jones would have to bear the costs of her action. That would deter anybody else from bringing malicious prosecutions.
  Mrs. Jones would be trying to get her money back, and she would therefore start a civil action, because, as the hon. Gentleman said, this Measure does not provide for civil damages. It is concerned

  485
  with criminal offences. Mrs. Jones would have to bring her action for civil damages under the Misrepresentation Act. The hon. Member, as he did in Committee, referred to the heavy penalties quite rightly provided in this Bill, but they are maximum penalties, and if a prosecution is successful the court will inflict the kind of penalty that fits the crime. I would agree with the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that this is a matter which we can leave to the discretion and good judgment of the courts.
  I am concerned with the argument which hon. Members have repeatedly used that if we leave all the discretion and restriction in the Bill in the form it is in now this will deter shopkeepers and shop assistants from giving information. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) had what I think is the real answer to this, and we are in perfect agreement about it. We need more and more information to be given with goods. By leaving his reference to oral misdescription in the Bill in the way it is now it will encourage manufacturers to provide the printed information on the label or in some other way. To provide an informative label is something we all want.
  Let us look at this in practice. I do not want to take any of the examples given by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) who has the most curious experiences when drinking, or shopping or even canvassing on behalf of his political party. The revelations we have had from him in Committee have surprised me.
  It is true that the Molony Committee was worried about the possibility of malicious prosecutions, and in my view the Committee did not take sufficient note of the actions which the court could take against people who bring malicious prosecutions. Recommendations were made which in fact have gone into the Bill in the way the Molony Committee, by and large, required that create criminal offences. At the time the Molony Committee was reporting the Misrepresentations Act under which civil damages could be ordered if individuals with a grievance cared to take action was not on the Statute Book. As I mentioned in Committee, fortunately some local
  486
  authorities have given their experiences of what is likely to happen when the Bill goes on the Statute Book. In a sense they have anticipated the Bill even though they have had no sanctions behind what they do. The experience of the consumer protection advisory officer in Sheffield is that in 90 per cent. of the cases where a customer has a legitimate grievance against a shopkeeper, usually for an oral misdescription, by informing the shopkeeper that the customer has a grievance the shopkeeper puts the matter right. This is going to happen repeatedly. The shopkeeper not only wishes to avoid a prosecution, but also values his goodwill and if it is known among the community that if one trades at Mr. So-and-so's and something goes wrong he always puts it right to the satisfaction of the customer, that kind of advertisement, if you will, by word of mouth building up the goodwill of the trader, is tremendously important.
  6.45 p.m.
  I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite keep on pressing the case that the shopkeeper is not going to give information, that shop assistants will be told they must keep silent when trying to sell things to the customer. If the customer asks, "Will this garment wash?" and there is no informative label, as there should be, the shop assistant has to say something otherwise the customer will walk out of the shop. Therefore, I would rather take the experience I am quoting where the aggrieved customer goes to the appropriate officer of the weights and measures authority and he takes up the phone and says that Mrs. Jones has come in and is complaining about a carpet and seems to have a genuine case and asks that it be looked into. In 90 per cent. of cases the matter is put right without delay. If not, action can be taken under the Misrepresentations Act to get civil damages, which is the most likely thing to happen in these cases. But if action is taken by the weights and measures inspector, or he contemplates taking proceedings, he has to look at Clause 23 of this Bill which says—
  "In any proceedings for an offence under this Act it shall…be a defence for the person charged to prove—

  (a) that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake or to reliance on information supplied to him or to the act or default

  487
  of another person, an accident or some other cause beyond his control; and

  (b) that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control."

  In most cases this is a perfect defence if the trader is innocent. No weights and measures inspector is going to contemplate spending public money on a prosecution unless he is certain that the defence will not stand.
  Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If I may take up the case he gave us of going into a shop and asking the assistant "Will this garment wash?" the right hon. Gentleman says that the salesman will say something. He may well say the wrong thing. He may say it will wash but will not say at what temperature, or that it should be hand washed and not washed in the machine, although information to this effect has been given to him by the supplier. He could make a mistake.
  Mr. Darling: I was trying to follow up the argument of the hon. Member for Canterbury. The label should be attached to the garment, but if it is not there, instead of making an off-the-cuff reply, the shop assistant, if this Clause goes through, will have to take care. This is important. The shop assistant will have to say, "I do not know, but I will find out".
  If the Amendment is added this plea that we are making that the shop assistant should take care is weakened. That is why I do not want to see the Amendment accepted and I hope my hon. Friends will not accept it. I am convinced that the experiences I have quoted will be the common experiences. The decent honest shopkeeper is going to put complaints right, but if by some chance an innocent shopkeeper is threatened with a prosecution those who are threatening the prosecution have to look very carefully at Clause 23, because that provides an adequate defence, and the weights and measure inspector has to make sure he has a prosecution that will not be knocked down by that defence.
  I cannot see the possibility of honest shopkeepers suffering under this Bill, but I can see the decent honest customer being defrauded and misled and suffering finan-
  488
  cial damages if we weaken this Clause in the way suggested by the Amendments put forward.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made great play with their fears—I think, legitimate fears, although perhaps greater than the difficulties which will be encountered would warrant. I was not quite clear whether the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) was suggesting that he had to use oral misdescriptions to get people to vote for the Conservative candidate, but I understand that life seems very complex for him.
  Amendment No. 4 raises two issues, whether the Bill should distinguish between oral and other forms of misdescription by making oral misdescription an offence only where there is fraud or recklessness, and whether persistence should also be part of the offence. We discussed these points at great length in Committee, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has said, when a similar Amendment was rejected, and I am afraid that I still regard the principle as completely unacceptable. I disagree strongly with the view that the consumer would be adequately protected if the law were concerned only with acts which could be shown to be fraudulent or reckless.
  It is equally wrong to suggest that the Bill would create hardship and injustice for traders and manufacturers by requiring them to be convicted in cases where most people would think the circumstances did not warrant such a result. I would emphasise that Clause 1 does not create a truly absolute offence in the same way as does some legislation which has attracted criticism recently. This was a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen. The defences provided in Clauses 23 and 24 are very wide and see to that. No one will be convicted if he can satisfy one of those defences, which are designed to protect the honest traders who have taken proper care to ensure that the public are not deceived, and if a trader has a clear defence he is unlikely to be prosecuted at all.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has clearly stated that we do not believe that there will be a series of private prosecutions with malicious intent, because it is a

  489
  major undertaking and it involves penalties even for the person who undertakes the prosecution and so I think it would be unwise to make too much of this possibility.
  If a person is prosecuted and is unable to establish one of the defences I really cannot think he deserves much sympathy. The offender may have misdescribed his goods deliberately or recklessly or he may have done so through carelessness or negligence, which are also culpable. It would certainly be standing consumer protection on its head to weaken the misdescription provisions of the Bill in order to protect him.
  The additional requirement proposed in paragraph (a) of the Amendment, that the offending act should have been committed persistently, still seems to me to be very strange. I cannot see why a man who is proved to have deliberately or recklessly misdescribed his goods—to have lied about them, in fact—should escape conviction unless he is also proved to have lied repeatedly. Even as an alternative I think it might present difficult problems of interpretation. For instance, I am not clear whether the oral trade descriptions would have to be identical in every respect for persistence to be shown. Since Clause 1 is concerned with applying a trade description to goods, rather than trade descriptions—in the plural—I think it probably would. This would mean that the deliberate rogue would easily evade the Bill by varying his false descriptions each time. Again, I am not clear whether a person who repeated a trade description seven times in a conversation would have displayed persistence. It would seem odd to make the commission of an offence depend upon a person's talkativeness.
  In any event, it is quite inappropriate to seek to achieve the purpose of the Amendment by altering Clause 4(2). Clause 4 does not relate to the offence of applying a false trade description, which is what the Amendment seeks to qualify. It is concerned only with methods of applying a trade description, and the truth or falsity of the description is irrelevant in this context. The Amend-
  ment is, therefore, misconceived in form as well as objectionable in principle, and I must ask the House to reject it.
  On Amendment No. 5 I can only repeat, on the question of uncorroborated evidence, that this also was very fully debated. No court is going to convict a trader or a shop assistant of the oral application of a false trade description unless the evidence produced is sufficient to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that the trade description was applied and that it was false. I hope the House will share this view.
  I must in any case point out that the Amendment would not produce the intended result. The effect would be that a false trade description could be applied by means of an oral statement only if the statement itself were corroborated, not the fact that the statement was made. There would be no offence if only one shop assistant said, "This garment is made of wool" when it is not, even though there were plenty of witnesses to testify that she said it, but if her colleague backed her up by assuring the customer, "The garment is indeed made of wool", then an offence is committed. I cannot think that this is the result hon. Members opposite intend, and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  On the other points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I do not think it would be possible for a shopkeeper to continue in business if he persistently refused to give his assistants selling the goods any information because he was frightened that action might be taken against him. I think that what he would do would be, before the goods were put on sale, to insist that they were either very clearly and informatively labelled or else ensure that the assistants acting on his behalf would have a very clear indication of exactly what was involved before they started their day's work, and this seems to me to be all to the good, not just for the consumer but for the country as a whole. I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 135. Noes 182

  Division No. 133.]

  AYES

  [6.57 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Astor, John

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Biffen, John

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Blaker, Peter

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pounder, Rafton

  Boardman, Tom

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Pym, Francis

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Holland, Philip

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hordern, Peter

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Hornby, Richard

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hunt, John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Royle, Anthony

  Burden, F. A.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Sharples, Richard

  Campbell, Gordon

  Jopling, Michael

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Clegg, Walter

  Lancaster, Col, C. G.

  Stainton, Keith

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stodart, Anthony

  Crouch, David

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Loveys, W. H.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Eden, Sir John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Temple, John M.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maginnis, John E.

  Tilney, John

  Farr, John

  Maude, Angus

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Walters, Dennis

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  More, Jasper

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Webster, David

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Gower, Raymond

  Murton, Oscar

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Grant, Anthony

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Neave, Airey

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Gurden, Harold

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wright, Esmond

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins and

  Hawkins, Paul

  Peyton, John

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  NOES

  Allen, Scholefield

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Anderson, Donald

  Dickens, James

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Archer, Peter

  Dobson, Ray

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Doig, Peter

  Hoy, James

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Barnett, Joel

  Eadie, Alex

  Hunter, Adam

  Baxter, William

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hynd, John

  Bessell, Peter

  Ellis, John

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Bishop, E. S.

  English, Michael

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Blackburn, F.

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Booth, Albert

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Boyden, James

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Bradley, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Forrester, John

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Gardner, Tony

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Buchan, Norman

  Garrett, W. E.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Cant, R. B.

  Gregory, Arnold

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Coe, Denis

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  McBride, Neil

  Concannon, J. D.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  MacColl, James

  Cronin, John

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hamling, William

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hannan, William

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Harper, Joseph

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Mackie, John

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Maclennan, Robert

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Horner, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Dewar, Donald

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  492

  493

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Stonehouse, John

  Manuel, Archie

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Swingler, Stephen

  Mapp, Charles

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Taverne, Dick

  Marquand, David

  Pentland, Norman

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mason, Roy

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Tomney, Frank

  Millan, Bruce

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Randall, Harry

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Moyle, Roland

  Richard, Ivor

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Neal, Harold

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Newens, Stan

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Norwood, Christopher

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Ogden, Eric

  Ryan, John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Orbach, Maurice

  Sheldon, Robert

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Orme, Stanley

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Oswald, Thomas

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Woof, Robert

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Yates, Victor

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Slater, Joseph

  Palmer, Arthur

  Small, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Park, Trevor

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Mr. Harry Gourlay and

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 3, line 38, after 'statement', insert 'if corroborated'.—[Mr. Fletcher-Cooke.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 174.

  Division No. 134.]

  AYES

  [7.7 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Percival, Ian

  Astor, John

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Peyton, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Biffen, John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Boardman, Tom

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Francis

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hordern, Peter

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hornby, Richard

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hunt, John

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Royle, Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Sharples, Richard

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Jopling, Michael

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Burden, F. A.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Campbell, Gordon

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Stainton, Keith

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stodart, Anthony

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Clegg, Walter

  Loveys, W. H.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Crouch, David

  MacArthur, Ian

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Dance, James

  Maddan, Martin

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Maginnis, John E.

  Temple, John M.

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Maude, Angus

  Tilney, John

  Eden, Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Farr, John

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Gibson-Watt, David

  More, Jasper

  Webster, David

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gower, Raymond

  Murton, Oscar

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Grant, Anthony

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wright, Esmond

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Neave, Airey

  Wylie, N. R.

  Gurden, Harold

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Mr. Anthony Royle.

  NOES

  Allen, Scholefield

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Anderson, Donald

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Archer, Peter

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Baxter, William

  Bessell, Peter

  Hannan, William

  O'Malley, Brian

  Binns, John

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bishop, E. S.

  Haseldine, Norman

  Orme, Stanley

  Blackburn, F.

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Oswald, Thomas

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Booth, Albert

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Boyden, James

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Park, Trevor

  Bradley, Tom

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hoy, James

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Hunter, Adam

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hynd, John

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Coe, Denis

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Randall, Harry

  Cronin, John

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Richard, Ivor

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Ryan, John

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lubbock, Eric

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Slater, Joseph

  Dickens, James

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Small, William

  Dobson, Ray

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Doig, Peter

  McBride, Neil

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacColl, James

  Stonehouse, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Taverne, Dick

  Eadie, Alex

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Tomney, Frank

  Ellis, John

  Mackie, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  English, Michael

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)

  Faulds, Andrew

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Manuel, Archie

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mapp, Charles

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Marquand, David

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Forrester, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Millan, Bruce

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Gardner, Tony

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Woof, Robert

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Yates, Victor

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Moyle, Roland

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Neal, Harold

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Newens, Stan

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Mr. Neil McBride.

  Hamling, William

  Ogden, Eric

Clause 9.

  INFORMATION, ETC. TO BE GIVEN IN ADVERTISEMENTS.
  Amendment proposed: No. 33, in page 6, line 26, leave out Clause 11.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 175.

  Division No. 135.]

  AYES

  [7.16 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Eden, Sir John

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Astor, John

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Farr, John

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Awdry, Daniel

  Burden, F. A.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Campbell, Gordon

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Biffen, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Gower, Raymond

  Boardman, Tom

  Crouch, David

  Grant, Anthony

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Dance, James

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Gurden, Harold

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Sharples, Richard

  Harrison, Brian (Malden)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Monro, Hector

  Stainton, Keith

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  More, Jasper

  Stodart, Anthony

  Hiley, Joseph

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stocklart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Murton, Oscar

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Holland, Philip

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hordern, Peter

  Neave, Airey

  Temple, John M.

  Hornby, Richard

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Tilney, John

  Hunt, John

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Jopling, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kitson, Timothy

  Percival, Ian

  Webster, David

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Peyton, John

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wills, Sir Geraid (Bridgwater)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wright, Esmond

  MacArthur, Ian

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Wylie, N. R.

  Maddan, Martin

  Pym, Francis

  Younger, Hn. George

  Maginnis, John E.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Maude, Angus

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Timothy Kitson and

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  NOES

  Allen, Scholefield

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackie, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Archer, Peter

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Forrester, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Gardner, Tony

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Garrett, W. E.

  Manuel, Archie

  Barnett, Joel

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mapp, Charles

  Baxter, William

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Marquand, David

  Bessell, Peter

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mason, Roy

  Binns, John

  Gregory, Arnold

  Millan, Bruce

  Bishop, E. S.

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Blackburn, F.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Boardman, H, (Leigh)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Booth, Albert

  Hamling, William

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Boyden, James

  Hannan, William

  Moyle, Roland

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Neal, Harold

  Bradley, Tom

  Haseldine, Norman

  Newens, Stan

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Norwood, Christopher

  Brown, Bob (N'C'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ogden, Eric

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  O'Malley, Brian

  Buchan, Norman

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hoy, James

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Coe, Denis

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cronin, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Park, Trevor

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hunter, Adam

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hynd, John

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Dewar, Donald

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dickens, James

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Randall, Harry

  Dobson, Ray

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Richard, Ivor

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Ryan, John

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Ellis, John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  English, Michael

  MacColl, James

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Slater, Joseph

  Faulds, Andrew

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Small, William

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  498

  499

  Stonehouse, John

  Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Woof, Robert

  Taverne, Dick

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Yates, Victor

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Wellbeloved, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Tomney, Frank

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mr. Harry Gourlay and

  Varley, Eric G.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Clause 11.

  FALSE OR MISLEADING INDICATIONS AS TO PRICE OF GOODS.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 7, line 6, leave out 'for a substantial period'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, as they are connected, we could take Amendment No. 9.
  Mrs. DunwoodyThe hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) put forward an Amendment in Committee which would have replaced the words "a substantial period" in subsection (3,a,ii) by the words "at least 14 days". My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) agreed that there was much to be said for specifying a definite period here and undertook to consider the matter further before Report. This we have done and have concluded that a change would be desirable in this provision.
  As it stands, it provides that an indication of the previous price of any goods shall as a general rule—that is, in the absence of an express statement to the contrary—be taken as an indication that the goods were offered at the previous price for a substantial period within the preceding six months. We have recognised that the imprecision of the words "a substantial period" could create uncertainties for traders, and for enforcement authorities. A retailer would not be sure for how long he must have been offering goods at a higher price before he is entitled to draw attention to a price reduction, or for how long thereafter he could legitimately continue to make the claim.
  We accept, therefore, that it would be preferable to specify a definite minimum
  500
  period here. We feel that, for the generality of goods, the period of 14 days proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen is too short a time to establish a genuine price from which it would be fair to claim a reduction without any qualification. In our view, an appropriate basis for such claims would be that the goods have been offered at the higher price for at least 28 days continuously in the preceding six months. This is what our Amendments propose.
  The House will appreciate that, whatever form of words is used, a general rule will not be appropriate to every case. The special case, such as perishable articles whose price fluctuates rapidly, can be taken care of by the provision which enables the seller to indicate expressly that he is not claiming to have made the sort of reduction to which the general rule applies. He could always say something like, "Last week's price 5s". But for the general run of trades we believe that 28 days is a reasonably substantial, and readily workable minimum period. I hope that the House will agree.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: We naturally welcome the Amendments. As the hon. Lady rightly said, we suggested the period of 14 days. This is rather longer, but obviously we will not quibble about it, because the principle has been accepted on both sides.
  I must say—and this is probably the last time we shall refer to Clause 11—that we have got considerably less than we hoped for in changes in the Clause.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Report. There is no provision for a debate on the Clause stand part.
  Mr. Shaw: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. At any rate, we have got something. I feel that our words in Committee have been carefully thought over. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) did not manage to succeeed by

  501
  his persuasive words in carrying our thoughts and desires even further. But, as far as it goes——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address himself to these Amendments.
  Mr. Shaw: I will deal, first, with the words "for a substantial period". I agree that 28 days is a substantial period, but it does not cover the case of someone who received a newly packaged product at a price perhaps twopence less than he had previously been selling it only three months after the sale of the old articles, thus leaving only three months for the newly priced articles to be sold. This loophole would allow the shopkeeper to reprice all his stock or get rid of it at even more disadvantageous prices. This is a serious weakness, but I cannot develop it any more. We give the Amendment our limited blessing.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 9, in page 7, line 7, at end insert:
  'for a continuous period of not less than twenty-eight days'—[Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.]

Clause 12.

  FALSE REPRESENTATIONS AS TO ROYAL APPROVAL OR AWARD, ETC.
  7.30 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 25, after are 'insert or are of a kind'.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Government Amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 38.
  Mr. Mallalieu: Both Amendments are part of the tidying up operation suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) in Committee. At present, subsections (1) and (2) deal only with false indications of royal patronage, approval or award. Subsection (3) deals with false indications that goods or services are of a kind supplied to any person, which includes members of the royal family. Amendment No. 10 would extend subsection (1) to cover this latter kind of indication in so far as it concerned
  502
  members of the royal family. The division of the Clause as proposed in the Motion would then make the present subsection (3) into a separate Clause. As a result, all the offences concerning royalty would be together in one clause.
  The fact that the legislation contains provisions about false representations about goods supplied to other persons would become evident from the reference to the new Clause in the "Arrangement of Sections" index to the Bill. Otherwise, there would be no such indication in the index, to which lawyers and others will naturally turn when considering whether there is anything in the statute relevant to a particular case, and the omission could be confusing.
  An incidental effect of the change would be some narrowing of Clause 20(3) which provides that it shall be an offence for anyone in this country to assist or induce the commission in another country of an act which, if committed here, would be an offence under Clause 12. Clause 20 does not deal with everything which in this country would be an offence under the Bill: we are not trying to write a law of misdescription for other countries. It is intended to bite only on certain acts which are likely to be particularly harmful to British export interests. False representations of royal approval or award are certainly of this kind, but there is no strong reason why Clause 20 should extend to false claims that goods are of a kind supplied to any private person.
  I hope that the House will agree that this rearrangement will improve the Bill.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: We fully support the Amendment. I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that this omission would be confusing, although I have not checked it. It is particularly important that the Clause should apply to goods sold abroad, where these designations are at least as important as at home because of the high regard for royalty in many countries abroad. I fully accept the need for the Amendment which I assume will be made in another place to Clause 20——
  Mr. Mallalieu: As I understand, no Amendment is necessary to Clause 20, since these Amendments would achieve the desired result.
  Mr. Shaw: Yes, I see the point, because the other pertains to Clause 13. We support the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 11, in page 7, line 38:
  That Clause 12 be divided; and that subsections (1) and (2) do constitute Clause 12 and that subsection (3) be another Clause.—[Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu.]

Clause 13.

  FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS AS TO SERVICES, ETC.
  Mr. Goodhart: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 1, after 'nature', add 'or location'.
  Clause 13, dealing with the provision of services and facilities, covers when, how, what and by whom services are to be provided, but there is no mention of where they will be provided, except, in subsection (1,v), in respect of accommodation. Location can also be important. For example, coloured television sets, which often go wrong, might be sold under the wholly inaccurate statement that service and repair were available in a certain place, when they were available only at some much less convenient place.
  It could be argued that Clause 13 would already catch that, under subsection (1,ii) but a lawyer in my locality with considerable experience of prosecuting in similar cases has told me that the courts rightly take a very narrow interpretation of such words as "nature" in a criminal offence. The defence could argue that, if the time at which the service is provided and those providing it are specificially mentioned, the omission of reference to location must be deliberate and therefore that it was not intended that this sort of case should be caught.
  I suggest that location is as important as time and that the Amendment could do no harm.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but Clause 13 already covers all the examples of false statements about the place where a service is to be performed which he has in mind. We cannot think of any which would not be covered without the Amendment. He argued that,
  504
  since paragraph (iii) of subsection (1) refers specifically to the time and manner of the service, it might be contended that the omission of location was deliberate. I cannot agree. Time and manner were expressly mentioned because there was a doubt whether all such statements would otherwise be covered. I am advised that there is no such doubt in respect of the place where a service is to be performed.
  I know that the House will not want unnecessary words included in the Bill and I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: Do I understand that, if a visitor were attracted to a hotel in Scarborough by an advertisement that it was within two minutes of the sand when it was a quarter of an hour away, such representations would be caught?
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The sort of statement described by the hon. Gentleman as to the nature of the services or facilities provided would be caught under the Bill as drafted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 26, at end insert
  'and fundamental to any contract that there may be'.
  The words of this Amendment might appear at first sight to apply to the Divorce Reform Bill, from the discussion of which I have just come. It deals, however, with a quite different form of contract. "False" is defined in the Clause as meaning
  …false to a material degree…"
  That, I suppose, means false to a substantial degree. In other words, it is not a trivial matter.
  I am advised that this may not be adequate for the foundation of a prosecution. Although I am not an expert in these matters, the legal advice I have received has led me to table the Amendment, since it seems desirable, in the circumstances of that advice, to discover what the Department considers to be the position. One could state all sorts of falsities which would be
  "…false to a material degree…"
  but which are not fundamental to a contract. This seems a relevant point and one must consider the side effects that might flow in respect of a contract.

  505
  I suggest, therefore, that the Amendment would strengthen the Clause and assist the courts in this respect.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) for his explanation of the Amendment. Clause 13(4) defines the word "false". The Amendment seeks to provide that one of the ingredients in the definition shall be
  "…fundamental to any contract that there may be".
  This concept is meaningless in relation to a definition of the adjective "false", though it could have some meaning in relation to a false statement and, as I understand it, this is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
  I am advised that the question of what is fundamental to a contract is not always easy to decide and, indeed, has on a number of occasions exercised the best legal brains in the country. It can only be determined by taking into account all the factors relevant to a particular contract. As the Clause stands, it creates the straightforward offence of knowingly or recklessly making a statement about the specified matters which is false to a material degree. The courts are perfectly well able to determine what degree of falsity is material in a particular case. I am sure that nothing but disadvantages would result from complicating the interpretation of the provisions by importing difficult concepts from the law of contract.
  I am also advised that the Amendment would narrow the scope of the Clause severely. Not every statement made prior to the formation of a contract becomes a term of the contract, however much it may influence one of the parties to enter into it; and not every term of a contract is fundamental in the legal sense, even though it may be very important to one of the parties. I can see no justification for limiting the Clause to those statements which would be fundamental to any contract that might exist for the performance of the service in question.
  As it is, we have restricted the Clause to cases where a person makes a false statement knowingly or recklessly, and it is hard to see why the commission of an offence by such a person should de-
  506
  pend upon the legal analysis of the terms of any contract that he may have with persons whom he has deceived.
  There are other anomalous aspects to the Amendment. The possibility of a rogue drafting his contract so as to narrow the scope of the fundamental terms to the smallest possible area is one example. We are familiar with the ingenuity which is shown in the framing of exemption Clauses, and the Amendment would give rise to further efforts in this field. Another effect might be that a false statement would be an offence only if the person who made the statement knowing it to be false also knew that it would be a fundamental term of any contract that resulted.
  All the arguments seem to be against making the Amendment, and I must ask the House to reject it.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In view of the hon. Lady's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16.

  RESTRICTION ON IMPORTATION OF GOODS BEARING INFRINGING TRADE MARKS.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 9, line 4, after 'proprietor', insert 'or registered user'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to consider, at the same time, Amendment No. 15, in page 9, line 7, after 'proprietor', insert 'or registered user'.
  Mr. Mallalieu: When we discussed the Clause in Committee the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) proposed three Amendments referring to registered users of a trade mark, two of which were identical to those which I am now moving. At the time, an undertaking was given that we would look into the matter further. This we have done, and we agree that the Amendments are both desirable and feasible.
  They would extend to registered users of a trade mark the right which the Clause at present confers solely on the

  507
  proprietor of the mark, to require Customs to prevent the import of specified consignments of goods bearing an infringing trade mark. There may well be cases where the registered user wants prompt action to be taken and cannot get the proprietor to act in time.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman also put forward an Amendment to subsection (1)(c) to refer to the registered user's "exclusive right" to use of the trade mark. I am advised that this would be incorrect, since only the proprietor has that "exclusive right", and that no Amendment to this provision is needed.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am grateful to the Minister of State for accepting two of my three suggestions, and I will not quarrel about the third. It would have fulfilled a long felt want on my part had he been able to accede to the substance of my third and large Amendment, which would have put certain duties on the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to protect the trader, proprietor and the registered user—duties which are now unfortunately to be entirely lifted. However, so far as it goes, I am grateful for the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 15, in page 9, line 7, after 'proprietor', insert 'or registered user'.—[Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu.]

Clause 23.

  DEFENCE OF MISTAKE, ACCIDENT, ETC.
  Mr. Gardner: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 13, line 17, leave out from 'mistake' to end of the line.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendments: Nos. 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24.
  Mr. Gardner: That is indeed acceptable to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has returned to the Chamber after his brief absence, I hope refreshed, because at an earlier stage we had a considerable ornithology and I wanted to
  508
  reassure him that, on whatever side we were some time ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) and I are on this occasion on the side of the hawks. A little while ago we were somewhat overwhelmed—indeed embarrassed—at the support of the official Opposition for one of our Amendments. I am therefore convinced that we are now on the side of the angels because, with the notable exception of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) my hon. Friend and I now sit on the back benches in lonely isolation.
  We come to one of the most important Clauses, because it provides the defences which a person can use to avoid a successful prosecution under the Bill. The defence with which we are most concerned is
  "…that the commission of the offence was due to a…reliance on information supplied…"
  This is a reasonably new concept and one which will provide an almost unlimited defence for almost anyone coming within the provisions of the Bill.
  As we had a long discussion of this in Committee, I will not go over the ground again. We were obliged to withdraw a similar Amendment in Committee after some assurances from my right hon. Friend. The outcome is that the Government have tabled an Amendment which would have the effect of identifying the informant should the defendant in a case brought under the Bill claim that he relied on information received. This is to be welcomed, but I am afraid that it goes nowhere near enough to meeting the requirements which we sought. I therefore hope that the Minister will seriously reconsider the position which the Government have taken on this matter.
  This concern is still shared by all responsible bodies with experience of consumer protection—the Consumer Council, the Retail Trading Standards Association and, I believe, the Consumers' Association. They advise that the Clause as at present drafted would allow far too many people to escape its provisions.
  We understand that the Amendments which were made to the original Bill in another place were tabled to meet some important and, I believe, understandable representations made by the advertising profession. It is true that, without the

  509
  phrase "reliance on information supplied", a creative advertising agency relying on, say, a specification relating to a product provided by a manufacturer, would have little defence. Advertising agencies, as we discussed earlier, are not scientific experts and we accept that the most reputable agency must rely on information provided by the manufacturer. I have no desire to not afford genuine advertising agencies this protection. If this is the problem, it can be met by the group of Amendments relating to Clause 24, which would have the effect of writing into the Bill the much broader defences written into the Medicines Bill.
  8.0 p.m.
  This would mean that the creative advertising agency, as distinct from the advertising manager putting advertisements in the local newspaper, would be able to rely, not merely on the advertisement but on the specifications received from the manufacturer. If these were wrong and the advertiser had no means of checking them, he should have that claim. This would be a far better way of meeting a genuine claim. If these words remain in the Clause they will not merely cover the problem of the advertiser, but will let through almost any unscrupulous trader who has good legal advice.
  As I tried to suggest on Second Reading, this would allow a dishonest and unscrupulous trader to drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the Bill. This view is shared by the Consumer Council, and we should take note of what it says. It was set up by the Government to advise on consumer matters and the Council has adequate legal services available to it. Referring to whether a prosecution would follow, it says:
  "Unless it is certain that either the defendant or his informant can be charged with the offence, we fear that the dishonest trader will be free to rig his sources so that proceedings will founder on the defendant's plea that he relied innocently on false information."
  The hon. Member for Beckenham amused us in Committee with his story of the weeping secretary. If a subsequent Government Amendment is accepted this evening, a defendant pleading reliance on information would have to identify the sources of his information, but suppose the source turned out to be a junior official or the weeping secretary. Does
  510
  anyone seriously suggest that further proceedings would be taken against those informants?
  Take the case where the informant is beyond the jurisdiction—our old friend the Belgian carpet manufacturer. We have had difficulties with such people in the past because of false descriptions about carpets being given to British traders. Suppose the trader claims that the description says that the carpet is made of one material yet it is made of another. We would lose the prosecution against the really guilty person and have no means of getting at the informant.
  I am grateful for the advice of the one organisation which has real experience in prosecuting—the Retail Trading Standards Association. It suggested what might happen in a case should this Clause go unamended. Take the case of a trader who obtained a stock of very good blue shirts which looked rather like R.A.F. officers' shirts. He might think it a good advertising ploy to get rid of them by advertising them as "R.A.F. officer-type shirts". If a prosecution were brought saying that this was a false trade description, he could bring in evidence his advertising adviser and perhaps his secretary.
  They could say that a telephone call had been made to the Ministry of Defence and someone at the other end of the line said, "That sounds O.K." Then the issue would go before the court and the Ministry of Defence, in its wisdom, may say that it had never heard of that telephone call, but before the court there would be three witnesses and lots of things can go wrong over the telephone. The court would never convict when faced with those witnesses and the rather doubtful evidence which the prosecution might be able to bring.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this sort of case arises every day in magistrates' courts? A defendant says that he was on such and-such premises because someone invited him there, but it is up to the magistrates to decide whether the defendant is telling the truth. This sort of decision has to be taken by magistrates every day of the week.
  Mr. Gardner: Earlier during this Report stage powerful arguments were put forward that this is a Bill with

  511
  criminal sanctions in it and that lay magistrates are very wary about convicting on oral descriptions. Equally, lay magistrates would be wary of convicting in these cases and some people would get away with it. For these reasons the Clause offers too great a defence to the unscrupulous individual.
  I make a plea to my hon. Friend to see that something should be done, even at this late hour, to meet our request. In effect, we are replacing the Merchandise Marks Act and bringing in a defence which was never available to a defendant under those Acts. I ask—in the nicest possible way, for my hon. Friend has been very charming to us—that she should consider her attitude towards this Clause and see if she can make the Amendments we suggest.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) has put forward a fairly plausible case, but does he not think that in the kind of situation he illustrated the witnesses would be running a very severe risk of being prosecuted for perjury? My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) explained that magistrates every day have to deal with this kind of case and to use their judgment.
  We must have adequate defences for the innocent. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) challenged me in a previous debate and referred me to Clause 23, saying that this was a very adequate defence as drafted for the innocent person who had nothing whatever to fear if he came before the courts. I feel strongly that if we carried this Amendment and deleted the phrase,
  "or to reliance on information supplied to him"
  many innocent people would be put in serious difficulty if a combination of circumstances conspired to bring them before the courts.
  The hon. Member gave an illustration about R.A.F. shirts, but suppose an ordinary trader was selling blankets and was told by a reputable company that if a certain kind of blanket was washed in a certain way it would be perfectly all right and he passed on the information in good faith but it turned out to be wholly untrue. Suppose there was
  512
  some mistake and subsequently the company withdrew the product from the market. Should the retailer then be prosecuted because be knowingly put forward a false description? In the obscure and unlikely case, we must have this phrase in the Bill in the interests of the retailer.
  Mr. Gardner: Surely the man selling the blankets would have a further defence in the default of another person provided he used due diligence and rang up the suppliers.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Member speaks of "due diligence". We are dealing not with experts, but with human beings who may have very little connection with the law and perhaps this may be the first time they have come within the realms of prosecution. People have to be protected against themselves even if they are innocent. I should have thought that in this case he might have a defence. I agree that he might well have a defence under other provisions of the Clause, but he might not, because these are all open to interpretation by the magistrates or other courts of law. In consequence, if the magistrates thought that he was relying on information which had been supplied to him, and the Clause was amended as the hon. Gentleman seeks, I think that he would be much more liable to be convicted. If we are to persist with the idea of having these offences tackled by the court, we must provide the fullest possible and most adequate defence for the individuals who are charged. I hope that the Government will resist the pressure of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and keep the Clause as wide as possible.
  Mr. Goodhart: I do not think that the hon. Lady can be very happy about resisting the Amendment, for the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), who moved it so ably, is a powerful member of the Co-operative movement. As he pointed out, the Consumer Council feels strongly that the Clause should be amended, and I can vouch for the fact that the Consumer Association feels the same.
  Perhaps more important even than those voices is that of the Retail Trading Standards Association, which has borne the heat of battle in bringing prosecutions under the Merchandise Marks Acts,

  513
  which will now be largely superseded by the Bill. The Association has been successful in 49 out of 50 cases it has brought under those Acts. Therefore, when it expresses concern about the new position under the Bill there is good reason to take note of what it says.
  The Association has gone so far as to take counsel's opinion from the barrister who successfully prosecuted in most of the cases that it brought. He expressed grave concern about the amount of warning time which a defendant is entitled to give to the prosecutor about the name of the person who furnished the false information, because it is clear that the amount of time specified will mean that the prosecution will be hamstrung in a large number of cases when reliance on false information is the main defence.
  The learned counsel went on to say:
  "In my view, there is a serious risk that the dishonest trader will be able to manufacture a defence for himself under the present wording of the Bill."
  He closed his opinion by saying:
  "I, therefore, feel that the dishonest trader will welcome Clause 23 in its present form and that he may use it successfully to the prejudice of the consumer and of the established honest trader alike."
  Those are powerful words from a man who has carried out more successful prosecutions in enforcing the Merchandise Marks Acts than any single individual.
  8.15 p.m.
  Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the R.P.S.A. believes that if the Bill goes through with the Clause unamended the consumer and the honest trader will be worse off than they were before the Bill was introduced, and that the crooks will be able to drive a coach and horses through the gap that Clause 23, as at present drafted, leaves in the prosecution's case.
  The point is that here we are not dealing with the small trader who may make a mistake in his oral description of some goods on his shelf but with the small minority of real crooks. They are the people who will have the skill, the facilities and legal advice to take every possible evasive action, and the Clause will be a godsend to the very small minority of traders who deliberately set out to cheat the public, and who bring
  514
  so many of the efficient, honest retailers into disrepute.
  Mr. Haseldine: I do not wish unduly to prolong the proceedings, but at this juncture it is important, in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), to draw attention to the problem of services. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has also paid particular attention to this in Committee and today.
  We must not overlook the deplorable circumstances of some holidays, particularly abroad, which I and other hon. Members raised in the Second Reading debate. Most travel agencies which organise holidays are careful to give good service, and do an excellent job. We do not want to cause distress or trouble to honest traders by any part of the Bill, but there are occasions when people really are taken for a ride on holidays—[Laughter.] That was quite unconscious humour. They are frequently taken for a ride in regard to accommodation described in glowing terms.
  The travel organisations concerned could use the defence that this was because of information given by some other person, or was the fault of some other person. But people organising such holidays have a responsibility to the public to see that what they are advertising is good accommodation and in full accord with the brochures they produce.
  There should be no objection to the amendment. We should without question stop people having the opportunity to defend themselves in the way provided by the wording we are now discussing and I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some satisfaction on the amendment.
  Mr. Crouch: I am not convinced by the legal and other arguments on Clause 23 which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner). I am not convinced by the legal argument which has been submitted by the Retail Trading Standards Association, nor by the argument put forward by the Consumer Council. Those organisations see only the point of view, which I agree is an important one, of the protection of the consumer. The Clause was also designed to protect another group of persons, that is to say, the advertising industry.

  515
  The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), at a suggestion from me that he should consider the point, made the following statement in Standing Committee:
  "The advertising agent is covered in Clause 23, provided that we retain the words which my hon. Friends wish to leave out—…"
  Those are the words we are discussing this evening.
  "that the advertising agent, if he committed an offence, committed the offence in relying on information supplied to him and that he took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the commission of that offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd April, 1968; c. 298.]
  We cannot write a better defence than that for the advertising agent. This was an answer which I was very happy to get.
  The hon. Member for Rushcliffe is concerned, on the advice that he had seen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) is equally concerned on the legal advice that has been presented to him through the Retail Trading Standards Association, that there may be an opportunity for the dishonest retailer, with clever legal defence, to drive a coach and horses through the Clause. This was not the view put forward to us in Committee by Government Ministers and their advisers. As I have already said, the right hon. Member, the former Minister of State, referred to the necessary protection that the advertising industry should have in this major Act which affects the industry and the promotion of products to the public. It is vital that we should give this important industry the protection that it needs. It will be in a very vulnerable position if we do not.
  If we were to take out the words suggested by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, the advertising industry would be left wide open to prosecution for mistakes made in the preparation of advertising claims on behalf of their clients. It is essential that, after proper, careful and thorough investigation, they should be able to rely on the information given to them by their clients.
  The advertising industry is a responsible industry, but, as in every industry, there are irresponsible elements. I want to see the irresponsible elements brought to book. On a number of occasions in Com-
  516
  mittee and on Second Reading I illustrated the care which is taken by the advertising industry. That care is illustrated by the massive task that they perform in a volatile sphere of communication, where mistakes can be damaging to society, and to the manner in which we live and conduct our lives. I maintain that they are responsible and careful in their approach to that task.
  Within the last three years there has been set up the Advertising Standards Authority, which exercises a voluntary control on advertising. The House, as guardian of the liberty of the people of the country, can be proud of this. It is a body of which manufacturers and retailers can be proud and of which the public can be proud. It is a voluntary body which makes sure that advertising is proper, responsible and correct.
  It is this industry, which has set up this voluntary body, that I seek to protect. The Minister has already said that the protection is in the Bill. I do not want the House, in a moment of high emotion, to be carried away by the good arguments on both sides of the House on behalf of the consumer.
  I have mentioned the activities of the Advertising Standards Authority. It has a dual function in the supervision and control of advertising, and preventing the publication of bad advertising. The chairman of this body is reported in the Evening Standard of Monday, 6th May, 1968, as having said:
  "Certainly, in the daily Press, we lead the world in the quality of advertising and this has a big effect on the quality of papers and vice versa. Good papers attract good advertising."
  I quote that to the House to underline the fact that the advertising industry is a responsible industry which takes care to show its responsibility to society as a whole and is not just concerned with its own ends.
  Television advertising is an even more volatile form of communication than the printed word. There are even stricter controls there. Statutory controls have been laid down by Parliament to make sure that the Independent Television Authority keeps its house in order. It must have come as some surprise to the House to realise that it is not possible for an advertisement to be screened until

  517
  it is first passed by an independent committee sot up by the Independent Television Companies' Association. This is an independent and responsible body.
  I merely ask that the hon. Lady bears in mind the other side of the question.
  Mr. Gardner: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share his concern to protect the reputable agencies. I hope that he will agree that the Amendments would serve that purpose, particularly Amendment No. 22.
  Mr. Crouch: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. This issue is not entirely black or white. There is much give and take on both sides. I am merely drawing attention to the other side of the issue.
  In Committee, I asked the Minister of State for an assurance about the I.T.A.'s position. He gave me an assurance that the I.T.A. would not be regarded as a body which would be responsible for the prosecution of misleading statements in television advertisements and therefore liable. I hope that the hon. Lady will confirm that that assurance still stands. The can test and alter advertisers' advertisements before they appear on the television screen. They do not often have to do so, but on occasion they have to step in and advise an advertising agent that a certain television commercial does not come up to its high standards and must be altered or modified. Having done so, it is a party to the statement subsequently screened to the public.
  I should like an assurance that the I.T.A., having taken part, as it were, in the construction of an advertising statement and having advised on the content of an advertisement, will not be liable to prosecution under the Bill.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: These Amendments concern two of the most important Clauses in the Bill, and I can understand why we have had such a far-reaching discussion.
  I wish, first, to deal with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) since it is the most far-reaching Amendment. It seeks to delete both "reliance on information supplied" and
  "the act or default of another person"
  518
  from the matters which may form the subject of a defence under Clause 23 on the ground that they open an unduly wide loophole in the Bill. I cannot agree that that is so.
  I remind hon. Members that it is by no means sufficient for a person charged with an offence to show that he relied on information supplied to him or that the commission of an offence by him was due to the act or default of another. He must also show that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. This is no light burden.
  Let me give an example. Suppose that a tailor buys cloth from a manufacturer who tells him that it is all wool and then he makes up a suit from it and, relying on the information which he has been given, he tells his customer that the suit is all wool. In fact, it turns out to be a mixture of wool and rayon. If the texture or appearance of the cloth is such as to suggest to someone of the tailor's experience that it contains rayon, or if the tailor knows nothing about the manufacturer, or if he knows that the manufacturer has a reputation for giving false information about the composition of the cloth he supplies, then I do not think that the tailor could show that he had exercised all due diligence or taken all reasonable precautions to avoid the commission of the offence. If, on the other hand, there is no outward sign which suggests that the cloth is not all wool and the manufacturer is a reputable one whom the tailor has every reason to trust, then he has a defence under Clause 23, and rightly so.
  I cannot deny that there may be cases in which a defendant is able to convince a court by a plausible but untrue story that he genuinely relied on information given him by another and that his offence was entirely due to the fault of someone else. In particular, he may succeed in doing this if others are prepared to conspire with him in supporting his story. However, I cannot think that this will happen often. We heard a great deal in Committee about the "weeping secretary", but I do not think that many defendants will have the benefit of such accommodating employees who are willing to perjure themselves for the benefit of their employers. Moreover, our courts are not easily taken in by dishonest

  519
  stories of the kind referred to in this debate.
  The fact that the dishonest rogue may, very occasionally, be able to hoodwink a court is no argument for denying a defence to the honest trader. This is exactly what the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Beckenham would do. If a person committed an offence because of reliance on information given him by another, or because of someone else's act or default, he would be liable even though he had genuinely taken every reasonable precaution and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
  I am sure that the House will agree that we do not want, by the Bill, to make people liable for a criminal offence in such circumstances.
  May I turn now to the Amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner). He seeks to delete
  "reliance on information supplied to him"
  from the matters which may form the subject of a defence under Clause 23 and to couple this with Amendments to Clause 24 which would widen the defences available under the Bill to advertising agents. As will be apparent from what I have said, it is not only the advertising agent who needs and deserves the defence that he relied on information supplied by another. It is a defence available to any person charged with an offence under the Bill and it was in fact designed with the retailer at least as much in mind as the advertising agent.
  We have already taken a number of examples from the textile field, so let us now take one from somewhere else. Suppose a retailer is often asked by his customers whether the detergents which he stocks are suitable for use in washing machines. When a new brand comes on the market, therefore, he asks the manufacturer of the detergent and leading manufacturers of washing machines whether it can be used for this purpose, and is assured that it can. He knows that his wife has used it for her weekly wash and found it successful. He therefore tells his customers that the detergent is fit for the purpose of use in washing machines, but it proves to be
  520
  not suitable when used in some types of machine.
  I suggest that in such a case the retailer has taken every reasonable precaution and used all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence and that he should not be held guilty of it. However, if the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend were accepted the retailer would be guilty since he could not bring himself within any of the other defences provided by Clause 23. There was no mistake or accident on his part. It is true that there may have been an act or default on the part of the manufacturer, but the commission of the offence by the retailer was not directly due to that act or default but was due to his repeating the information given to him.
  Similarly, the giving of the information by the manufacturer was a cause beyond the retailer's control, but, again, the commission of the offence was not directly due to that. If the retailer is to have a defence in the circumstances—and I am sure that the House will agree that he should—the words
  "reliance on information supplied to him"
  must remain in Clause 23.
  I come now to the Amendments to Clause 24 which have been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. Clause 24 as it now stands is a defence available to the publishers of advertisements and to persons who merely arrange for the publication of advertisements, and I think this was the point that particularly concerned the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). In other words, it is available to newspaper proprietors, television companies and other medium owners and to agents who arrange for publication without playing any part in drawing up the advertisement. Such persons have a defence if they do not know and have no reason to suspect that the publication would amount to an offence.
  The Amendments proposed by my hon. Friend seek to give such a defence to the advertising agent who draws up the advertisement, provided he has been given the material which comprises the advertisement by someone else. I cannot agree that an advertising agent should have a defence under the Bill merely because he does not know and has no reason to suspect that the issue of the

  521
  advertisement would constitute an offence. The advertising agent has a very large part to play in the compilation of advertisements and is often given a very free hand indeed by those who employ him. What makes an advertisement false or misleading may not be the material which comprises it but the way in which that material is presented.
  For that reason I think that, having regard to what we are trying to do in this Bill, he must be required to take reasonable precautions and to exercise all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
  I must apologise for speaking at rather great length, but the points at issue are really of the greatest importance to the Bill. I hope that what I have said will convince the House that the Amendments under discussion should not be accepted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 13, line 25, after 'person', insert
  'or to reliance on information supplied by another person'.
  Clause 23(2) as drafted provides that if a person charged with an offence intends to rely on the defence that the commission of that offence by him was due to the act or default of another person he must, before the hearing, give the prosecution such information as he has as to the identity of that other person.
  During the Committeee stage my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) put forward an Amendment designed to place a similar requirement on a defendant who intended to rely on the defence that he committed the offence because he relied on information supplied to him by another person. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) agreed with the principle of the Amendment and undertook to move an Amendment on Report to give effect to it. That is what the Amendment seeks to do.
  The reason why Clause 23(2) requires the defendant to give the prosecution advance notice of the other person concerned is that it will enable the prosecution to make further inquiries. If, as a result, it finds that the defence will not stand up, it will be able to bring witnesses to court to rebut it. If, on the other hand, the evidence suggests that the
  522
  defence will succeed, the prosecution will be able, in appropriate cases, to drop the proceedings against the original defendant and to institute proceedings against the real wrongdoer. Thus, if the prosecution is forewarned, a good deal of time will be saved all round.
  I hope that the House will agree that, for that reason, it is desirable that the defendant should be required to give advance notice not only where the defence on which he proposes to rely is that the commission of his offence was due to the act or default of another, but also where his defence is that he relied on information supplied by another. I suggest that exactly the same considerations apply in both cases.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26.

  POWER TO MAKE TEST PURCHASES.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 14, line 4l, after 'goods', insert:
  'and to authorise any of their officers to secure the provision of such services, accommodation or facilities,'.
  The Amendment will give effect to the principle of a proposal put forward in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). It will amend the Clause to enable local weights and measures authorities, in addition to making test purchases of goods, to authorise their officers to secure the provision of such services, accommodation or facilities as may appear expedient for the purpose of determining whether the provisions of the Bill are being complied with.
  If we give people a job to do which includes the enforcement of all the provisions of the Bill, and particularly Clause 13 which deals with false statements about services, accommodation and facilities, it seems reasonable that we Should give them power to spend money if it is necessary to establish whether the provisions are being complied with. They should, for instance, be able, if they want, to check to see whether there is any basis in a complaint which has been made to them. This is not a power which I expect to be used very frequently, but I think that it is needed.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I thank the Minister for acceding to my suggestion. It shows how, in suitable cases, we are anxious to strengthen the provisions of the Bill, and our efforts in that direction are meeting with success.
  Mr. Goodhart: I welcome the fact that the Government have seen fit to make this Amendment, because it is my experience that while members of the public rarely feel that they have been done down by shopkeepers, and are rarely actively dissatisfied with what they buy in the shops, there is active dissatisfaction with the provision of services, and perhaps I might give the House one example of what I mean.
  Not long ago I was talking to the proprietor of a garage in my constituency. I was making some mild comments about the servicing of cars, and saying how difficult it was to tell whether invoices were accurate. My friend pooh-poohed the idea, and more or less suggested that all garages were run by angels who did their best for the customer. He then happened to refer to electricians. Apparently in the not too far distant past he had suffered from his lights failing at frequent intervals.
  He called an electrician who diagnosed the fault and said that the entire house would have to be rewired. In fact I made some minor adjustments in one of the light sockets and completely solved the problem. This experience is apt to make one feel that all electricians were crooks and that when they went about their business they ought to be accompanied by members of the Fraud Squad.
  8.45 p.m.
  It is my experience in fact that there is considerable suspicion in the public mind about the provision of services, more so than about the provision of goods in shops, and I am sure that this Amendment, which enables the weights and measures inspectors if they wish to tackle the problem of services, is one of the most important provisions in the Bill.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I sympathise with the hon. Member in his experiences even if I do not always believe his generalisations. I hope this change will make his experiences better in the future.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27.

  POWER TO ENTER PREMISES AND INSPECT AND SEIZE GOODS AND DOCUMENTS.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 16, line 34, leave out from 'shall' to 'be' in line 35.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 27.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: These Amendments would, in one respect only, relax the restriction in Clause 27(5) on the disclosure of information obtained by virtue of the powers conferred by the Clause. This restriction is, of course, of great importance. When enforcement officers obtain information about a trader's affairs under powers of compulsion, that information must be properly safeguarded. But we find that the wording of the present provision would hinder an important aspect of the enforcement of the Bill and a slight widening to meet this point is really necessary. I am sure that when I have explained the reason the House will agree.
  As it stands the provision would prevent anyone from disclosing information which he has obtained in pursuance of the Bill unless the disclosure was made "in the performance of his duty". Since the duty of local weights and measures authorities, under Clause 25, is limited to enforcement in their own area, this would in effect bar the communication of information by one authority to another. The ability of enforcing authorities freely to consult with each other and exchange information seems to us essential to the sensible co-ordination of enforcement policies and the avoidance of unnecessary prosecutions.
  To take perhaps the most obvious example: An authority discovers that goods to which a false trade description has been applied are on sale in its area, but that the description has apparently been applied by the manufacturer whose works are situated in the area of another authority. The obvious course is for the first authority to communicate its discoveries to the second, so that the latter can pursue the matter in full knowledge of the facts and without having to duplicate the enquiries that have already been

  525
  made. We therefore propose that this obstacle should be removed by a rewording which would permit officers to pass on information
  "in or for the performance by him or any other person of functions under this Act".
  I can assure the House that the only respect in which this goes further than the present provision is in permitting disclosure to other enforcing authorities under the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 27, in line 35, at end insert:
  'unless the disclosure was made in or for the purpose of the performance by him or any other person of functions under this Act'.—[Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.]

Clause 29.

  NOTICE OF TEST AND INTENDED PROSECUTION.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move, Amendment No. 28, in page 17, line 35, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 44 and insert:
  (2) No proceedings for an offence under this Act, other than an offence under section 27(5) or 28, shall be instituted by a local weights and measures authority unless they have given to the Board of Trade notice of the intended proceedings and either a period of twenty-eight days has elapsed since the giving of the notice or the Board of Trade have before the end of that period issued a certificate under this section.
  (3) A notice under subsection (2) of this section must be accompanied by a summary of the facts on which the charges are to be founded.
  (4) A certificate of the Board of Trade that a notice under subsection (2) of this section was given on a date specified in the certificate and was accompanied by the summary required under subsection (3) of this section shall be conclusive evidence that the notice was given on that date and was accompanied by such a summary.
  This Amendment is designed to introduce a measure of flexibility into the requirement that local weights and measures authorities should not launch a prosecution for any offence under the Bill until at least 28 days after they have given notice of their intention to the Board of Trade. It has been represented to us that the application of this rule to all prosecutions under the Bill would cause unnecessary and undesirable delays in cases which are of purely local significance.
  526
  We think there is substance in this criticism. We remain convinced that it is right to provide for the Board to have notice of intended proceedings for all offences which are of national interest or involve the possibility of multiple prosecutions, and to be able to take up to 28 days for consideration and consultation in important cases, but we certainly do not want to hold up proceedings for no good reason.
  The Amendment would, therefore, make two changes in the present provisions. First, it would exclude from the requirement to give notice, offences under Clause 27(5)—disclosure of information obtained by virtue of that Clause—and under Clause 28—obstruction of enforcement officers. We find it difficult to envisage that these two offences could ever be of more than local significance. Secondly, and more important, the Amendment would enable the Board to dispense with the full 28 days' notice in appropriate cases by issuing a certificate on receipt of which the local authority would be free to go ahead with the prosecution at an earlier date. These changes would not weaken the procedure for ensuring that the Board is able to exercise a co-ordinating function in relation to prosecutions which are of more than local interest, and we shall be able to take the full 28 days for consideration and consultation in cases of wider interest.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
  House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If for any reason the Board's certificate had not been provided by the time the 28 days' notice expired, the local weights and measures authority would be free to institute proceedings. In cases which were obviously not in these categories we could issue a certificate at once and so enable the prosecution to proceed without delay. I hope the House will agree this is a sensible arrangement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 29. I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that in consequence of the insertion of the words in the last Amendment which has

  527
  just been carried, Amendment No. 29 will be at line 46 and not line 40 as stated on the Notice Paper.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I beg to move, Amendment No. 29, in page 17, line 46, at the end to insert:
  (3) Whenever notice of intended prosecution has been given to the Board of Trade notice setting out the matters complained of shall at the same time be given to the person against whom it is intended to proceed.
  (4) No proceedings in respect of any matter shall be taken under this Act if civil proceedings in respect of the same matter—

  (a) are pending, or

  (b) have succeeded against the person proposed to be charged.

  I do not really know what effect the previous Amendment has actually had on my Amendment, but perhaps the hon. Lady will give me some guidance on that when she replies.
  My Amendment is concerned with two matters. The new subsection (3) I propose is intended to provide that notification of intended prosecution is given in the case of services as well as that of goods, goods already being covered. As will be seen from Clause 29(1,a), where goods have been seized the person from whom they have been taken is informed of the results of any test. From that result he obviously can deduce that proceedings are imminent. There are, as I understand, no such provisions made in the case of services, and the new subsection (3) is intended to cover that point.
  The proposed subsection (4) in my Amendment is a little more complicated. Certainly it is very complicated as far as I am concerned. I understand that it is much more complicated than my proposed subsection (3), since the Misrepresentation Act, 1967, enables people to recover in the case of almost any sort of misrepresentation. In general terms, there is some difficulty in business as between this Bill and the Misrepresentation Act. In the case of almost any kind of representation under that Act, any person who was innocent in the case of services as well as goods was covered. But it seems that someone could be sued for misrepresentation under the 1967 Act while at the same time being prosecuted under this Bill.
  528
  It is the practice in many countries where the authority of the civil law is relatively small to provide penal offences in those cases in which in more advanced countries the civil law provides adequate protection. It therefore seems a retrograde step to provide not only a civil remedy but also a criminal offence, which can be brought to bear on top of the civil action.
  Furthermore, it does not seem necessary to have this criminal remedy in addition to the civil remedy. It must be recognised that people can get legal aid in actions which are being taken. This aspect arises out of the complication as between this Bill and the Misrepresentation Act, and I would appreciate the hon. Lady's advice on it.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: This Amendment in effect contains two proposals. The first one, set out in the proposed new subsection (3), is that local weights and measures authorities should be required to notify an intended defendant of the complaint against him at the same time as they give notice to the Board of Trade of their intentions to prosecute. Similar suggestions have been put forward before and we have given the whole subject careful consideration. We do not think, however, that we should be justified in amending the Bill in this way.
  I believe that, in practice, there would be few, if any, cases where the proposed defendant was not already aware of what was afoot some time before the authority had made up its mind to prosecute—for instance, because of an enforcement officer calling to make enquiries or because of correspondence with an aggrieved member of the public. It cannot be said that the Amendment is necessary to enable the defendant to prepare his case, since he will anyway have adequate time for this purpose if and when the summons arrives. It is, of course, the duty of the courts to make sure that an accused person has the time he needs to prepare his defence.
  Neither would the Amendment provide any special safeguard against the disappearance of evidence which might help the defence in the time which has elapsed since the commission of the offence. That may well have happened—if it is going to happen—before notice

  529
  is given to the Board of Trade. The best protection against it happening is the provision in Clause 18 that proceedings may not be brought more than twelve months from the discovery of the offence at the very latest, and, when the proceedings are summary, not more than twelve months from its commission. We see no genuine advantage to the accused in the provision proposed here. It would, however, have certain disadvantages, notably the extra paper work and formalities which it would involve, and I hope the House will agree that it should not be accepted.
  The second half of the Amendment is, I understand, intended to prevent the institution of a prosecution for any offence under the Bill when civil proceedings in respect of the same matter are pending or have succeeded against the person proposed to be charged. I can see no logic at all in this proposal. Its basic implication is that criminal proceedings under this Bill should be regarded as a second-best alternative to civil proceedings, whereas the two have quite different purposes.
  One of the principal objects of the Bill is to lay down high standards of care and accuracy in the giving of information about goods and services and to ensure that these standards are observed by placing a duty of enforcement on local authorities. It is irrelevant to this purpose whether civil proceedings have been taken by a person aggrieved by an act which is an offence under the Bill. Civil proceedings are the means by which one aggrieved individual obtains redress, whereas the object of this Bill is to deter or punish a deception practised on shoppers in general.
  In so far as civil proceedings are started in respect of the same act as an enforcement authority wished to make the subject of a criminal charge, the effect of the Amendment would seem to be to make it virtually impossible ever to proceed with that charge, for, by the time the civil proceedings had ended, it is very likely that the period of limitation in Clause 18 would have elapsed. Indeed, the concept of being able to prosecute where civil proceedings fail but unable to prosecute where they succeed seems to me a very strange one and very hard to justify.
  I am not at all sure that the Amendment as drafted would produce the
  530
  result that the hon. Member has in mind. But in any case I must ask the House not to accept it.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Lady has to recognise that the difficulty in this is that the civil proceedings that may be going on could be settled out of court, as a result of an agreement between the two parties. At the same time, under this Measure, action could be taken although there may not be a good case. It would cause a considerable amount of embarrassment.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope I have pointed out that the right course would be for the authority to decide whether it was in the general interest in order to deal with the case. In all the circumstances this would be taken into account.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 38.

  EXERCISE OF POWERS OF BOARD OF TRADE.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 21, line 27, to leave out Clause 38.
  Clause 38 is in a form which has been used in recent years in the many Acts of Parliament which have conferred powers on the Board of Trade. I am sure that the House will agree that it is both unnecessary and rather a bore to repeat an identical provision in statute after statute. It is for this reason that Clause 14 of the Industrial Expansion Bill provides that, for the purposes of that Act and any other Act passed before or after that Act, any functions given to the Board of Trade shall be performed by to or before the President, or any person acting with his authority. The Bill goes on, in Clause 18(2) to repeal what are generally known as the Board of Trade Clauses in all previous Acts.
  The Industrial Expansion Bill has been through all its stages in this House and has recently had its Second Reading in another place. It is reasonable to suppose that it will be on the Statute Book before this Bill comes into force, particularly since the provisions of the Clause 43(2) state that this Bill will only come

  531
  into force six months after it is passed. If this Clause were to remain, I think that I am right in saying that the Trade Descriptions Act would be the only enactment extant to contain this Clause. I am sure that it would be nice to keep a little bit of history here and there, but on this occasion it would be rather a dubious distinction.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40.

  PROVISIONS AS TO NORTHERN IRELAND.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 22, line 19, after '28', insert 'and 32'.
  This Amendment is consequential on the acceptance, in Committee, of what is now Clause 32 of the Bill. That Clause provides for compensation to be paid to the owner of goods which are seized by an officer of a local weights and measures authority or Government Department in pursuance of Clause 27, if he suffers loss as a result and is not convicted of an offence in relation to those goods.
  In Northern Ireland, the Bill is to be enforced, not by local authorities, but by the Ministry of Commerce and this Amendment puts the Ministry in the same position as regards the payment of compensation in Northern Ireland as local weights and measures authorities are in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43.

  SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 24, line 40, leave out 'six' and insert 'eighteen'.
  If I move this Amendment shortly it is not because I attach little importance to it—I attach great importance to it—but simply because we have kept the Scots out of their time for longer than they expected, and it would be dangerous to keep them out much longer.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the time from six to 18 months before the Bill comes into force. The reason is that there is, and will be, in the
  532
  pipeline at the time that the Bill comes into force a great deal of packaging material and other matters that can be held to apply trade descriptions to goods, and it will take longer than six months for them to work through.
  I hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) mumbling and muttering. His speech in Committee has received a great deal of criticism from the trade, because he pretended that it was possible and, indeed, the normal thing for the pipeline to empty itself within six months. By the "pipeline" I do not mean merely the process from the time that the packaging material—the wrappers, advertisements and labels—comes from the printers and gets to the manufacturers, which is what the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with, but all the points from the moment of the ordering of the packaging, the labelling, and so on, up to the point of sale, which may be in the village shop, which is a small and slow-moving affair and which hitherto was entitled to sell these things but which the Bill, by the will of this and another place, will make dangerous and illegal. It is wrong, in our view, that such village shops and other trade outlets should be landed with goods which, as a result of this legislation, are not disposable. There are many other examples, but I have taken the common one.
  It is idle for the ex-Minister of State, as we so sadly have to call him now—not the late Minister of State as sometimes such people are described—to say that six months is time enough. We are persuaded—and the hon. Lady will know where our persuasion comes from—that over many years the experience of a great many manufacturers is that 10 per cent. of any promotional pack is likely to be found in some shops well over six months after the date at which it was sold to the shops.
  It is apparent that it will barely be possible, within the six months period from the time when the final form of the legislation is settled, not merely to get these goods off the retailers' shelves, but to deliver to the trade promotional packs which have been revised to conform to the new legislation. Moreover, it will be impossible to ensure that no offending promotional packs are available in retail outlets after the six months period has

  533
  elapsed. This only affects trade descriptions which are not at present an offence. Most of the things about which we think as being offending trade descriptions are, and will continue to be, offences under the Merchandise Marks Acts.
  For the first time, substantially, price comparisons come within the offending area and until today—this will probably be so until Clause 11 is considered by another place—we did not know the provisions i1 this regard, so it is not right to say, as the ex-Minister of State said in Committee, that everyone has known about the Bill for a long time and should have got his facts right by now. It could be arguable that, almost until the Royal Assent, the final facts on Clause 11 will not be known and hints and more than hints have been held out that it would be considerably modified.
  It cannot be said in this case that the very introduction of a Bill should have put people on notice to take steps themselves, so we are dealing only with the situation as it is. It is putting an unnecessary burden on industry—I do not know why the Board of Trade insists on this—to make them get all the old and possibly offending material out of the way within six months.
  Things like false claims of quality or of provenance, whatever that may be, are already offences, so it is not true that rogues would have a free holiday of 18 months or so. They can be prosecuted now, not only under the Merchandise Marks Acts, but under the Weights and Measures Acts and other Acts relating to food and drugs. We are dealing only with a relatively narrow range of new offences, for which, since they are new, 18 months is not too long and in some cases is not long enough for business to put its house in order.
  We could get no budging from the position by the Board of Trade in committee. They have since then had considerable representation from responsible manufacturers and traders. We have had very little concession today on any of our points. Many people attach great importance to this, and it would mean a great sense of relief to the trade if this point could be met. If the hon. Lady insists on digging in her elegant toes again, it will cause an unnecessary exacerbation of the lack of confidence between industry and
  534
  the Government. I hope that she will not run that unnecessary risk.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Crouch: This is a most important requirement which we ask of the House and the hon. Lady. This is a good Bill, although it could be better. It has open ends and relies a good deal on the sound judgment of the Minister responsible. There has been some tidying up in the last few weeks, for which we are grateful, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) referred to one fact which would make the Bill immediately acceptable to industry. The Bill is a step forward in consumer protection and better manufacturing and marketing approach to the consumer, but it requires industry to adjust itself in some sectors. Only a small sector will have to put its house in order, since most of industry, being responsible, knew the Merchandise Marks Acts.
  Speaking with some experience of the pipeline in this respect, I know that packaged goods often carry important statements to the consumer about the manufacturers' claims or a possible price reduction. Those goods are in the pipeline now and may not appear for sale for at least six months and, more likely, 12 or 18 months. We ask the hon. Lady to treat this as a responsible suggestion for 18 months. This would give industry a chance to accept this responsible Bill and adjust itself so that it can make it work to serve the consumer and the distributing industries.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I strongly support the Bill and supported it long before it was even a gleam in the eye of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). I have for many years supported the extension of the Merchandise Marks Acts to advertising. The Government should think again about the transition period which they are allowing industry. Six months is too short. In my constituency there are three major confectionery firms which together take most of the confectionery sales in this country. The largest of the three is a nationally known firm. It has substantial advertising interests. Indeed, in terms of advertising time on television, it is probably the biggest contributor of the confectionery interests. It

  535
  is salutary to hear the company's observations on the Clause, and——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating the Clause but whether the period should be six or 18 months.
  Mr. Lyon: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Clause is really concerned only with the period of time and the Amendment is designed to change that period. I am addressing my remarks to that point.
  This firm has its forward print of packaging material for about four months in advanced of the time when it wishes to issue the goods. In addition, there is often a period of three months during which the goods, having been packed, are kept in storage by the firm. This means that, overall, there is, even on standard goods and packaging, an average of seven months between the original forward print and the period of issue.
  In addition, there is a period during which the retailer will have the goods in stock before they are sold to the consumer. The firm estimates that, on average, this period is about two months, which means that the seven months becomes nine. This means that, even on standard goods sold in normal packaging, there is a period of more than nine months in the whole process. As I say, this is an average time and it could be longer. This difficulty is accelerated when one considers special promotional periods or lines. For example, the Easter trade for next year has already been planned and the firm is in process of printing material. This, therefore, might be caught by the Bill. It follows that if even longer periods of planning, for more special promotional boosts—gifts with items of produce involved—are involved, there may be even longer periods.
  In terms of advertising films, which are now costing about £10,000 apiece, there is normally a life expectancy of about 12 months. If any of the material in a film offends against the extended cover of the Bill, that film would have to be discontinued and the firm would suffer a substantial loss.
  It is clear that when. in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough said that he had made diligent enquiries about the matter and had found that it was rubbish to consider that any firm would hold pack-
  536
  aging material for more than six months, he was looking at only a part of the picture. My right hon. Friend said, as the other part of his argument, that in any case an Amendment similar to this which we moved in Committee was not required because honest traders would already be observing the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act; and he did not conceive of any case—indeed, he thought it impossible—when they would be caught by the misdescription Clauses of the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend was underestimating the extent to which the Bill has widened the Merchandise Marks Act. It is one of the claims of the Government that they have considerably extended the cover of the legislation. They have extended it to advertising and, while I strongly support this, we must consider that we will be catching a lot of promotional material for goods which were never caught by the original Act.
  Because the range is so much wider, even honest traders who at present may not be offending in terms of misdescribing will be offending when the Bill is in operation. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough used the word "honest" because it is clear that an honest trader may be in breach of the Bill because there is no provision in it which says that a man must do something dishonestly. A man can be caught for a criminal offence if he is unintelligent——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is drifting into other parts of the Measure. We are considering whether the period should be six or 18 months.
  Mr. Lyon: I was dealing with the arguments adduced by the then Minister of State at the Board of Trade in support of the Clause as drafted and against a similar Amendment which was moved in Committee. I want to deal with the arguments because I am sure they will be repeated when my hon. Friend replies to this debate.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not concerned with the argument in Committee. The hon. Member must address himself to the argument about whether the period should be six months or 18 months.
  Mr. Lyon: I hope that is what I am doing. I take the point that the Government are now anxious that the

  537
  extended provisions of this Bill should come into force as quickly as possible. I am glad that they have had a change of heart. I remember when this Bill was the Consumer Protection Bill. I remember when it was introduced in the last Parliament before the last election. It was dropped in the first Session of this Parliament and it has reappeared only in the second.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's reminiscences are interesting, but he must come to the Amendment.
  Mr. Lyon: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the arguments I have so far deployed are also pertinent to this Amendment, because this is the argument of the Government for saying that this Bill should come into force six months after the Royal Assent. I am arguing that if the Government were prepared to delay for two years before they introduced the Bill, they can wait for another 12 months before the Act comes into force.
  I think there is considerable force in the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that even in that extended period it is not to be supposed that consumers will be the prey of reckless, negligent, or even dishonest traders because there already is the protection of the existing Merchandise Marks Acts. In that period the consumer will not be much less protected than he will be under the provisions of this Bill.
  Even in that period it is unlikely that there will be many prosecutions under the extended provisions of this Measure. It is a noticeable feature of the original Merchandise Marks Act that they have not been a very great protection to the consumer. Much greater protection is given by the threat of civil proceedings as a result of misrepresentation. It is much more likely that a misrepresentation Act with extended provisions would be a greater protection for the consumer than an Act making criminal offences could be.
  I do not think the Government are on strong ground in arguing that by this Bill we have such a substantial change in the protection given to consumers that we must have it in six months rather than 18 months. From the evidence I
  538
  have had from firms in my constituency, I am convinced that it would be desirable in justice to them and to many firms throughout the country that we should give industry 18 months in which to acclimatise itself to the provisions of this Bill.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Arnold Gregory: On the question of industry meeting the requirements of the Bill, I think it would be far more difficult to explain to the country precisely why we are debating a Bill about consumer protection and trade descriptions and at the tail end we argue for an 18 months' suspension for industry to put its house in order. The psychological effect of doing that would be absolutely confounding. We would have the dickens of a job to explain to the public precisely what we were doing.
  That industry wishes to provide good products but is halted in presenting them to the public by virtue of the difficulty of meeting the requirements of packaging and printing, the public would not believe. The great proportion of packaging and descriptions have met existing legislation, and will meet the new legislation. I do not think that there is a good reason for suspending the operation of the Act for 18 months.
  There will be a tremendous amount of printing material in the pipeline, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not accede to this proposal. I have made inquiries in the textile industry, and I am convinced that it can meet the requirements of the Bill in six months, because it has met the requirements of existing legislation and is not spoofing the public. It will attune itself to the new situation under the Bill as it stands within the six months' period.
  Mr. Goodhart: I am normally entirely convinced by the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who has led us through the Committee and Report stages of the Bill with immense erudition and common sense. I am sorry to part company with him at, as it were, the final whistle. But if the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) is coming over to us it would seem only fair that perhaps I should go over to the other side.

  539
  Although I voted for the Amendment in Committee, I have since re-read the speech of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), the final contentious speech he made as a Minister, and I am now convinced that he is right, for reasons that are not particularly creditable to the Government, because the argument that carries weight with me is that the Bill has been around for a very long time. A great deal was discussed with industry before the 1964 General Election and, apart from Clause 11, the Bill's contents have been public knowledge for two years. I find it difficult to believe that nagging uncertainty about Clause 11 will affect many manufacturers and packers. Therefore, I can see no reason why the Bill's introduction should be further delayed.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have listened carefully to the arguments which have been put forward for delaying the coming into force of the Bill for 18 months after it is passed instead of for six as the Clause provides. But I remain wholly unconvinced that they add up to a sufficient case to justify such a delay.
  I do not want to dispute about how much time manufacturers might need to change their labelling or packaging if they found that a description now lawfully in use would be a false trade description under the Bill. I am quite ready to accept that there could be circumstances in which, if this happened, a manufacturer would need something over six months to get new packs on to the market, but we have no reason to suppose that such problems will arise in practice.
  When we consider the sort of descriptions used on pre-packed goods we realise that—in so far as they are factual descriptions and not of the "Woz washes whiter" variety—they relate to matters which, if misdescribed, would be false trade descriptions under the present law. Such things as composition, method of manufacture, name of manufacturer, origin, measurement, fitness for purpose and performance are all covered by the Merchandise Marks Acts; while the misdescription provisions of the Food and Drugs Acts are of a quite general nature.
  The extensions made by the Bill to the meaning of trade description mostly
  540
  concern matters which are unlikely to figure on mass-produced pre-packed goods. I am not saying that there may not be some such goods bearing a description which is now lawful but would be caught by one of the new provisions of Clause 2(1). But I do say that such cases are likely to be rare; and the chances of one occurring in combination with circumstances requiring as much as six months for a change of pack seem extremely remote. We certainly have no evidence that it is anything more than a theoretical possibility.
  It has also been argued that more time is needed to ensure that any misdescribed goods already in the distributive pipeline will be cleared from retailers' stock before the Bill comes into force. But this is something which could not be ensured by a delay of even longer than 18 months. Where stock control is imperfect some goods may stay in wholesalers' and retailers' stocks for very long periods. It is not unknown for something to be sold over the counter years after it left the factory. Moreover, unscrupulous and careless suppliers, at whom the Bill is aimed, may be distributing misdescribed goods to retailers right up to the time that it comes into effect whenever that may be.
  We do not accept, however, that there are likely to be extensive difficulties at the retail stage, any more than in manufacturing. The vast majority of goods on the market are correctly labelled—if they are labelled at all—and will not be affected by the Bill; and if a retailer does have some wrongly labelled goods in his stock on the operative date he will, if he did not or could not have known that the labels were wrong, be adequately protected by the defences in Clause 23. Of course, if he knew or ought to have known of the misdescription, it would be up to him to remove the labels or otherwise correct it.
  There is no parallel with the Weights & Measures Act and Regulations or with the labelling regulations made under the Food & Drugs Act. Those measures introduced positive requirements for labelling goods, which manufacturers as a whole were not already meeting, either in response to previous legislation or as a matter of normal commercial practice. Under the Bill, positive requirements to mark goods with prescribed information

  541
  could be imposed only by subordinate legislation. In such cases the date of operation would be stated in the individual order. The time allowed would be adapted to the circumstances of the trades concerned and would be determined after the consultations required under Clause 37.
  We have given careful thought to all the representations which have been made to us on this matter, but we are not convinced that the various contingencies which are seen as theoretical possibilities are likely to give rise to real difficulties in practice. We are strengthened in this opinion by the experience of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1953. That Act extended the meaning of the term "trade description" to include fitness for purpose, strength, performance or behaviour: matters which are considerably more relevant to the marking of prepacked goods than the additions made by the present Bill. It also, for the first time, specifically made misleading trade descriptions an offence, as well as false ones. These new provisions came into
  force six months after the Act was passed; and we are not aware that any serious problems occurred as a result.
  To go beyond six months would, in short, be justified only by theoretical argument, and there would be a heavy price to pay. We are seeking in this Bill to provide an important new measure of protection for consumers. It would clearly be against the interests of consumers, and also of honest traders, to defer for longer than is really necessary the additional protection which is required in the fields of, for example, advertisements at large, oral misdescription and misdescription of services, or the enabling powers to make labelling orders, and so on.
  All in all, we believe that six months is a reasonable time to allow and I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that the amendment should not be accepted.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 175.

  Division No. 136.]

  AYES

  [9.38 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Astor, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Percival, Ian

  Awdry, Daniel

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Peyton, John

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Biffen, John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Boardman, Tom

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Francis

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hordern, Peter

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Brinton, Sir Tratton

  Hornby, Richard

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hunt, John

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Royle, Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Sharples, Richard

  Burden, F. A.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Campbell, Gordon

  Kitson, Timothy

  Silvester, Frederick

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stainton, Keith

  Clegg, Walter

  Loveys, W. H.

  Stodart, Anthony

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York')

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Crouch, David

  MacArthur, Ian

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Dance, James

  Maddan, Martin

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Maginnis, John E.

  Temple, John M.

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Maude, Angus

  Tilney, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Eden, Sir John

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Farr, John

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Webster, David

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Monro, Hector

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  More, Jasper

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gower, Raymond

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Grant, Anthony

  Murton, Oscar

  Wright, Esmond

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wylie, N. R.

  Gurden, Harold

  Neave, Airey

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

  NOES

  Allen, Scholefield

  Gregory, Arnold

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Anderson, Donald

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Moyle, Roland

  Archer, Peter

  Hamling, William

  Neal, Harold

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Hannan, William

  Newens, Stan

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Norwood, Christopher

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oakes, Gordon

  Barnett, Joel

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Ogden, Eric

  Baxter, William

  Hooson, Emlyn

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bessell, Peter

  Horner, John

  Orbach, Maurice

  Binns, John

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orme, Stanley

  Bishop, E. S.

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Blackburn, F.

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Booth, Albert

  Hoy, James

  Park, Trevor

  Boyden, James

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hunter, Adam

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Hynd, John

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pentland, Norman

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Coe, Denis

  Judd, Frank

  Probert, Arthur

  Concannon, J. D.

  Kelley, Richard

  Richard, Ivor

  Cronin, John

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Slater, Joseph

  Dewar, Donald

  Lubbock, Eric

  Small, William

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dickens, James

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stonehouse, John

  Dobson, Ray

  McBride, Neil

  Swingler, Stephen

  Doig, Peter

  MacColl, James

  Taverne, Dick

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacDermot, Niall

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Thornton, Ernest

  Eadie, Alex

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Ellis, John

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  English, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Wellbeloved, James

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Manuel, Archie

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mapp, Charles

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Forrester, John

  Marquand, David

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Gardner, Tony

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Woof, Robert

  Garrett, W. E.

  Millan, Bruce

  Goodhart, Philip

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Mr. Harry Gourlay and

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Mr. Speaker: I have posted, as is my wont, the Amendments which I have selected. The first is new Clause 1.

New Clause.

  ACTIONS FOR DIVORCE.
  The Sheriff Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any divorce action commenced after the coming into force of this Act.—[Mr. George Willis.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  9.49 p.m.
  Mr. George Willis: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Had I been sitting on the Opposition benches I might have been tempted to chide the Government very gently for putting Scottish business on at this time of night. I still gently chide the Government and I hope that the rebuke will be carried to the right quarters.
  I hope that hon. Gentlemen have read the new Clause, which I commend to them for the elegant simplicity of the wording. I am convinced that this is a model that could quite well be followed by Parliamentary draftsmen since it is a very clear statement of what we are trying to do.
  I have no doubt that I shall meet some opposition from my legal friends. I am sorry that I always do so, because I have a high regard for them. The only trouble about them is that though they are always anxious to reform the law, they are never anxious to reform their own institutions and practices. That is one reason why I come into conflict with them.
  The Clause seeks to reform one practice. It seeks to give the sheriff court concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Session to hear divorce actions. This idea has frequently been put forward by members of the legal profession, as well as by a number of ordinary citizens. It has been debated in the Press during the past few years, and the matter was considered by the Grant Committee. If sheriff courts could deal with divorce cases, they could be dealt with much more
  546
  quickly, more conveniently, and more cheaply.
  In paragraph 109 of its Report the Grant Committee recognised that, on balance, it would be more convenient and cheaper if divorce cases could be dealt with in the way that I am suggesting. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments, but I must make a few comments on the opinions expressed by the Grant Committee.
  I was surprised to find that the Committee concerned itself solely with the question of expense to the person seeking a divorce, and did not seem to think that it mattered much if the litigant was receiving aid from the Legal Aid Fund. The Committee took the view that as most of the pursuers were eligible for legal aid, no great financial hardship was involved. I take the view that the Legal Aid Fund should be used properly and that there should be no waste of money. The Grant Committee did not mention that, but it said that this proposal would result in economies to litigants, and that they would find it more convenient to get their actions dealt with in this way.
  The Grant Committee talked about the burden of work on the sheriff courts, but it did not think that there was any burden on the Court of Session. It said, in paragraph 113:
  "In Scotland the Court of Session has never experienced difficulty in dealing with all the divorce actions initiated."
  Over the past few years we have been asked to appoint additional judges precisely because of the burden of work on the Court of Session. Some of the arguments advanced for increasing the number of judges were based on the fact that an increasing number of cases had to be dealt with. I was therefore staggered to read that the Grant Committee thought that there was no problem. Why in Heaven's name have we been asked to authorise the appointment of extra judges to deal with the additional work?
  The last occasion on which we discussed the number of judges at the Court of Session was when the Administration of Justice Bill was going through the House. One of the by-products of that Measure is that the Court of Session has reverted to its former practice of having five judges sitting on Saturday mornings to deal with undefended divorce cases.

  547
  In the light of this I find it difficult to take the Grant Committee seriously.
  Let us look at the argument of convenience and burden of work in another way. We are told in the Grant Report that there were 2,770 divorce actions in 1965 and that one-third of them took place in the Sheriffdom of Lanark. That is 923 in Lanark. There are 18 sheriff substitutes in Lanark, and if we divide 923 by 18 we get 51 cases per year. In other words, each sheriff substitute might be called upon to take one divorce case per week. This really cannot amount to a very great deal of extra work. We are always blinded by this mass of statistics. We have the same experience on the Administration of Justice Bill.
  When we work it out we find that there would be one divorce case per week if all were done by the sheriff court, but some might go to the Court of Session. The great majority are undefended and I am told by people with experience that on average an undefended divorce case takes 15 to 20 minutes, sometimes less.
  This is the great burden which we are in danger of putting on the backs of the sheriff substitutes. I do not accept this argument. Like most of the things that come from this source I look at it with suspicion. I have heard the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie) quoting these figures, and when we examined them we found they did not make the picture he was trying to present.
  On the question of convenience, I am inclined to think that it would be just as convenient for the sheriff courts to deal with divorces as for the Court of Session. Having got the support of the Grant Committee on the aspect of convenience and on the question of economies that might be effected, I am bound to say I tend to think we could deal with the cases much more speedily than is done at the present time.
  I do not accept the Grant Committee's Report. I would need much more evidence than is in the Report. There is no evidence in it about the burden of work, merely the statement that the Court of Session has never experienced difficulty in dealing with divorce actions. In the light of my experience and the debates
  548
  we have had in this House I cannot accept that.
  The Grant Committee goes on to the really important reasons, and I question these. In paragraph 110 it says:
  "In our view"
  this is a very profound statement—
  "divorce is an important matter, because it affects the status of individuals, with consequent and far-reaching effects on rights to moveable and heritable property, and also because marriage and the family have great importance in the context of social organisation."
  One does not deny that it is important, but so are matters dealt with by the sheriff courts important, and I would point out that consequent far-reaching effects on the right in movable and heritable property arise out of divorce, and do not enter into consideration, I should hope, where——
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]
  Mr. Willis: They arise out of divorce and not, surely, considerations affecting whether or no divorce should be granted. Therefore I am not influenced to a great extent by this argument.
  Sheriff courts also have to consider important matters in actions of reparation for large sums of money, actions which arise out of accidents in mines and factories, and elsewhere. These are very important matters—very important matters indeed for the people involved—and the issues involved are very difficult, at times, very, very difficult. I do not think that it is an argument that this is something beyond the capabilities of sheriff substitutes in the sheriff courts.
  The Report goes on to say:
  "Obviously every divorce action does not raise difficult legal issues, but legal questions of great importance and complexity may arise"—
  this is what I call the legal mystique—
  "legal questions of great importance and complexity may arise, particularly in the cases based on cruelty, where the development of the law is a continuing process."

  549
  What is the position in the sheriff court? At the present time sheriff courts can entertain cases for judicial separation. Actions for judicial separation are based on adultery and cruelty. In other words, what the Grant Committee considered to be the most difficult form of case, that is, judging questions of cruelty in the relationship between a man and his wife, is already being dealt with by the sheriff court in cases of judicial separation, though this is the example particularly quoted why the sheriff court is not capable of dealing with this matter.
  It is interesting that in this business the sheriff court already has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Session in cases of judicial separation. What do we find? In 1966 there were 716 actions in the sheriff courts relating to judicial separation, adherence, aliment, and similar matrimonial cases. One assumes, I think with some justification, that the majority of these actions were actions of judicial separation. In the Court of Session the the final judgments in 1966 in respect of actions of judicial separation numbered five. So, where the litigants had a choice of court to go to they did not choose the Court of Session for this very difficult matter of judicial separation, but they went to the sheriff court, where there were 716 cases against five which went to the Court of Session. So, where there was a choice the sheriff court was accepted.
  The fact that the sheriff court did this work very well is borne out, I think, by the very small number of appeals which went either from sheriff substitute to Sheriff Principal or to the Court of Session. The number of appeals from sheriff substitute to Sheriff Principal in relation to matrimonial actions in 1966 was 16. The number which went from Sheriff Court to the Inner House of the Court of Session was also small—17. I submit that these figures show that the sheriff courts deal with the difficult matter of judicial separation effectively and satisfactorily and that the litigants were overwhelmingly disposed to accept their jurisdiction as against that of the Court of Session.
  I do not know that there are many other arguments which the Grant Committee raised, although there is one which will no doubt be mentioned again tonight. This is that, by retaining this work within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session,
  550
  we get uniformity of decision. I am not altogether impressed by that argument. I am not certain that uniformity of decision is necessarily good.
  In England, it has been decided to have a number of cases taken in the county courts and it was obviously considered that other matters are just as important as uniformity of decision. Surely, over a period, with the discussions held between the sheriff substitutes and in other ways in order to consider matters of legal decision, there would tend to be built up a body likely to give similar decisions in similar cases—that is, if it is vitally important to have uniformity. However, the question of uniformity is the one remaining argument I think important, although I am not certain as to how much importance one should attach to it as opposed to the other relevant matters.
  There is also the argument that the Court of Session is concerned at present in working out problems arising from the provisions of the Divorce (Scotland) Act, 1964 and the Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964. But if these cases had been dealt with by the sheriff courts, no doubt they would equally be engaged in precisely the same work.
  I find it difficult, therefore, in the circumstances to find any valid argument against my new Clause. We would not be denying the right of access to the Court of Session. If a case were difficult, if it raised all these profound issues which could only be settled by the Senators of the College of Justice, there would be nothing to prevent its going there.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) is a solicitor. If a client came to him and said that he wanted a divorce, I assume that my hon. Friend, as a solicitor, would do his best for his client. If it was an open and shut case—and there must be thousands of such cases in which little is involved afterwards by way of children, property and so on—he would no doubt say, "This seems a simple matter and there is no need to go to the Court of Session." He would take advantage of the provision in my new Clause to gain the benefits, both financial and of convenience, which the Grant Committee admitted exist.
  If my hon. Friend thought that the case was rather more difficult and that

  551
  he should get the advice of an advocate, no doubt he would get that advice and the advocate would himself appear in the sheriff court. If on the other hand, the case raised the profound issues which we are told are raised—and the Report is fair about this—in only a few cases, as a solicitor seeking to do his best for his client, my hon. Friend would say, "In the circumstances, I think we should take this case to the Court of Session."
  If this argument is not accepted, then those who do not accept it are suggesting that solicitors do not really know their business and do not really attend to the needs of their clients. That is rubbish. Much as I have criticised solicitors for various things in the past, it would be quite wrong to accuse them of this. They act in accordance with what they feel to be the best interests of their client, honestly and with integrity. In the circumstances of this case, they would have the choice of three courses. They could take a course which might be taken in a lot of cases, that of simply going to the sheriff court and the solicitor might do this himself, because both solicitor and advocate have access to the sheriff court. The solicitor does not have access to the Court of Session. This is something else that ought to be looked at, to get at this closed shop. Talk about restrictive practices! This is not an occasion on which to discuss this restrictive practice, however.
  On the other hand, he could, if he did not do the job himself, decide that it was
  552
  outside his scope and brief an advocate to go to the Court of Session.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member must not wander from his new Clause.
  Mr. Willis: I am suggesting how this Clause would work in practice. There are so many pleasant byways down which one is tempted.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman must resist temptation.
  Mr. Willis: I was about to express my gratitude to you, for drawing my eyes to the straight path of the Clause. This seems to be an improvement on the existing situation.
  We are always being told that the party opposite stands for choice. Let us give the person concerned choice. This is what the Clause proposes. I hope that it will receive some support. I have tried to put the case moderately, and it ought to be discussed now by Members in order to test the feeling. I would like to think that the Government would look upon this with a fresh mind. I know what the Government's answer will be, but I would like to think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would tear up his brief, given to him by his civil servants, and would judge this on the merits of the arguments. That would be a courageous thing to do, and my hon. Friend would go down in the pages of history as having established a glorious precedent, one well worth following. I hope that he will approach this Clause in that spirit.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: It has been a great pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) enjoying himself on one of his favourite topics. We have all watched his long-standing interest in legal matters—an interest that has not on all occasions been appreciated by members of the profession. Once again, we have had one of his energetic verbal assaults which some people find a little off-putting. I am grateful that he has raised the subject, if only because, as his speech made perfectly clear, it deals with at least one section of the very important Grant Report on the sheriff courts in Scotland.
  The section to which he has referred so copiously takes up only five out of something over 320 pages of the Report, so that if we are to have an adequate debate on this subject there is plenty of room for the procedural ingenuity of my right hon. Friend in the months or years ahead.
  Legal assistance ought to be made cheaper and more available, and any kind of reform such as this new Clause must be judged on these criteria alone. It is unfortunate that passions, even at this time of night, run a little high, and particularly when my right hon. Friend is under way head-on collisions are apt to be the result.
  Mr. Willis: There are no passions, just a whole-hearted zestfulness.
  Mr. Dewar: I thought it bordered occasionally on righteous indignation, but we will not split hairs on that. There is apt to be a head-on collision. There are those who think that anything the Court of Session does is some wicked demarcation arrangement which has been created to victimise the ordinary litigant, nothing more than a kind of black Dickensian restrictive practice.
  There are those who, on occasion, seem to defend it on the ground that we should not take divorce actions or undefended divorce actions out of its ambit, because they are the basis of the financial stability of the young advocate, without which my contemporaries in Parliament House could not live up to the standards to which they think they are accustomed.
  554
  I agree that there is nothing essentially impossible in my right hon. Friend's proposals. It is not heresy beyond the pale. Even the fact that ordinary citizens have advocated it on numerous occasions should not rule it out for consideration by the lawyers.
  I also agree that there is no reason why the average sheriff in the sheriff's court should not be able to deal with a divorce action. As my right hon. Friend has rightly said, at the moment they are required to deal with the niceties of reparation and fine points of the law of contract. If I remember rightly—and these are now vague memories—the examination I sat on my law course, these seem to be more complicated and more sophisticated matters than the law of divorce.
  Divorce is certainly an extremely important matter. I agree that status is something which should be considered carefully and reform should not be introduced for the sake of reform. But I object to the argument we hear advanced about divorce being a great occasion—that most people are divorced only once, some even do not get divorced at all, and very few people make a habit of it—and therefore, one should not object to making the ritual trip to the Court of Session, even if it costs that bit more. Those who advance that argument I suspect have never watched a Saturday morning in Parliament House when undefended divorces are being rushed through. I must not digress, but grounds are on occasions manufactured in a way which adds little to the dignity of the law and would seem to be a strong argument for reform in that sphere.
  I agree that there is a general prima facie case for reform, and I am not convinced by the Grant Committee's argument as it stands. Nor am I convinced by my right hon. Friend's arguments either. Convenience certainly must enter into it. The Grant Committee pointed out that something like five-sixths of all cases come from the central belt and do not involve a great deal of travel. Of those outside the central belt, over a quarter come from Aberdeen and the surrounding area where a bit more inconvenience might be suffered. However, this is not a sufficiently major consideration, or it has not yet been proved so to be.
  Mr. Willis: Surely there is inconvenience, even in the central belt, when someone has to go to a lawyer there who then has to engage a lawyer in Edinburgh. The lawyer in Edinburgh then has to engage an advocate and if witnesses are involved they have to come along too.
  Mr. Dewar: My right hon. Friend is broadening the argument. I will be meeting that point later. He will be delighted to hear that to some extent I agree on this. On the narrow point of convenience, as defined and dealt with by the Grant Report, that argument is inconclusive, though perhaps slightly weighted in my right hon. Friend's favour. More investigation has to be carried out.
  The fact that a large number of people get divorces on legal aid is not necessarily a relevant argument. If we could save money on the Legal Aid Fund, or use that public money to extend the Legal Aid Fund in other directions, that would be all to the good. I have always thought that legal aid showed in a stark way that litigation is all very well for the poor and the rich, but there is a horrible no-man's land in between.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss legal aid on this new Clause, interesting as that topic is.
  Mr. Dewar: I think most hon. Members will know to what I am referring. It is something that the Minister should look into at some future date.
  My right hon. Friend has talked about English precedents and changes in the English county courts. I am not sure that this is a good parallel. It puts the idea into circulation, but the structure of the English court system is different. County court judges, wearing a different hat but sitting in the same courtroom can grant divorces already. Therefore, it is nothing like so radical a change as my right hon. Friend is seeking.
  He also dismisses the pressure of business in too cavalier a fashion. It is a real problem in the sheriff's court. The main point he made in his interjection is a vital one. Reform of the nature he advocates has all sorts of repercussions and other consequences that follow through the whole organisation of the legal system in Scotland.
  556
  If it is thought that there is a case here, other related points must be considered, such as the fees structure, the mystical magic circle of Solicitors to the Supreme Court and Writers to the Signet, entry to the advocates' profession and the two-counsel rule. I regret that the profession is not the subject of an inquiry by the Monopolies Commission. There should be such a far-reaching inquiry of which this should be an integral part. The Government's record on law reform is good and Bills embodying the proposals of the Law Commission are becoming a feature of the Scottish legislative scene——
  Mr. Speaker: All this is very interesting, but we are deciding whether divorce cases go to the sheriff court, and we must keep to that.
  Mr. Dewar: Yes, Sir, and I am trying to suggest that this cannot be done in a vacuum without this kind of far-reaching inquiry. There is a case for this reform, but it cannot be done in this way in this Clause. I hope that the Government will consider this as part of a general review. I hope that my right hon. Friend will get a sympathetic hearing but will not press the matter further.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I agree with the praise of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for his new Clause which is a model to us all. He tried to tempt me from the straight and narrow path and did not need the further tempting into other fields given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar). I found the statistics that we are dealing with only five of the 300 pages of the Grant Committee slightly alarming. We can certainly look forward to a succession of very long nights.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East was less than fair in considering the recommendations of the Grant Committee. It considered this question on the basis of his three arguments of speed, convenience and cheapness and came out firmly against the proposal——[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend cannot say that the Committee's arguments were unbiased but its conclusions were biased—[Interruption.] I was thinking that I should have complimented my right hon. Friend

  557
  on having spent no more than the time taken on an undefended divorce action before referring to restrictive practices. He showed much restraint: I hope that he recognises the importance of some of the Committee's arguments and that the majority of the witnesses, as well as the Committee, thought that no change should be made.
  The first question is whether this is appropriate to the sheriff court. The Grant Committee said in paragraph 114:
  "In a small country like Scotland the Court of Session should play the leading part in shaping and developing the law, and in doing so should dispose of a good deal of the more important civil business at first instance."
  This is not just a question of uniformity, the point made my my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East. Nor is it fair merely to say that in the stress and strain of divorce one can draw the conclusion that the only important factor is that which may arise from divorce. If that which may arise is of great consequence, then the fact of divorce is of equal consequence and, therefore, it is correct to say that this is an important part of the court's function. I appreciate that this is a subtle point, but the Committee went on:
  "The fact that the great majority of divorce actions are undefended does not seem to us to detract from this argument; rather, it strengthens it."
  It is precisely in connection with undefended actions that the Court of Session may be required to play a leading rôle.
  There is a main reason why I must advise the House to reject the Clause, but first, apart from any abstract arguments, I should mention two minor reasons. The first is that accepting a proposal of this nature, without consulting the legal profession, would draw a storm not only on my right hon. Friend's head but on mine as well. The second is that it is unconnected with any of the main items in the Bill.
  The main reason is that it would be impracticable to give effect to it. There were 3,696 final judgments given in divorce actions in 1966. I do not apologise for turning to my brief because I want to be absolutely accurate. Although I am tempted by the blandishments of my right hon. Friend to cast my notes aside, he will appreciate the need for an
  558
  accurate reply to this matter. About a third of all divorce actions arise in the Sheriffdom of Lanark. The effect of the new Clause in Glasgow and Lanarkshire alone would, therefore, be to allow 1,200 divorce actions to be raised in the sheriff courts in that Sheriffdom each year.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister that it helps the Parliamentary reporters if he addresses his remarks to the Chair and not to his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
  Mr. Buchan: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. and I take note of your remarks.
  While less than 50 of these would be likely to be defended actions, the volume of court business which could be thrown on the sheriff courts if the Clause were enacted would be intolerable, given the existing pressure on buildings, staff and on the time of the judges. One is aware of the discussion that has been going on in this connection and one appreciates the great amount of business that must be handled. We will be discussing this matter tomorrow in another place. Anything which relieves the pressure on the sheriff courts is to be welcomed.
  Mr. Willis: I dealt with precisely this point and pointed out that the figures worked out at about one case per sheriff substitute per week. If we take the higher figures with which my hon. Friend is dealing—they were in respect of the following year, I think—we see that the amount of work involved is not as great per head as it might seem at first sight.
  Mr. Buchan: I am not attempting to over-emphasise the amount of work that is done. I am explaining that the sheriff court has an important load on its shoulders and that any additional work of this kind would represent an added burden. Despite the figures my right hon. Friend gave in connection with judicial separation, we cannot estimate the proportion of divorces that might choose that course. I suggest that if we did try to make such an estimate we would be taking a step in the dark. On the other hand, it is difficult to see any corresponding problem as regards the Court of Session which might justify the new Clause.
  Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend says that he does not see any comparable difficulty

  559
  for the Court of Session. He must be familiar with the debates that have been taking place over the years about the Court of Session and about the burden of work it has. Only last Christmas the Government asked for powers to appoint two additional judges.
  Mr. Buchan: I agree, and Parliament allowed us to have one, so that there a reasonable compromise was achieved. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend, who had a rôle in those discussions, would have been reasonably satisfied.
  10.30 p.m.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) that the situation in Scotland is not comparable with that in England. In the first place, the county courts have this jurisdiction placed upon them only in undefended actions, whereas this Clause refers to "any divorce action". In the second place, the change in England is a technical one and it will have relatively little effect upon the amount of business actually done by county court judges in county court buildings.
  The question of cost is very difficult. The Committee said:
  "Very few witnesses tried to estimate the actual savings in cost if divorce actions were heard in the Sheriff Courts, and those who made estimates tended to arrive at rather different conclusions."
  The Committee enumerated the assumptions on which in its view any calculation of savings should be made. It also spoke of the cost of providing additional judges, court staff and court buildings to deal with divorce actions in the sheriff court, and it concluded by saying:
  "We do not believe that the net saving would be large."
  Mr. David Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would look favourably on a new Clause which restricted this to undefended divorce?
  Mr. Buchan: Of course I am saying nothing of the kind. I was saying that the comparison is not a valid comparison. That is very different from talking about any argument I might deploy were the hon. Member to put forward a new Clause on those lines. It is rather difficult
  560
  to make an estimate as to any saving which might be made in this way.
  The question of convenience is important. I accept the points put forward, but it is also true, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said that a very great number of these cases come within the central belt. I do not accept that it is a real hardship when taking the climacteric step of divorcing to have to travel to Edinburgh. The Committee referred to an additional point that as opposed to those engaging in judicial separation it may be that many people like to have their divorce proceedings heard in the "comparative anonymity" of the Court of Session. For all these reasons I advice the House to reject the new Clause, but I rely on the good will of my right hon. Friend to withdraw it.
  Question put and negatived.

Clause 1.

  SUCCESSION IN CASES OF ILLEGITIMACY.
  Mr. N. R. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 4, leave out 'person' and insert 'woman'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment we may discuss the following Amendments: Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 4, leave out 'and is'; Amendment No. 3, in line 5, after first 'children', insert
  'or a man dies intestate survived by illegitimate children who have at any time lived in family with him';
  and Amendment No. 4, in line 31, leave out 'person' and insert
  'woman, or of any man with whom they have at any time lived in family'.
  Mr. Wylie: The purpose of these Amendments—apart from Amendment No. 2 which is a drafting Amendment and seems to be unexceptionable and one which I hope the Minister will accept—is to narrow the very wide provisions of Clauses 1 and 2. As those Clauses stand, in effect they put the illegitimate child in precisely the same position as a child of the marriage, in Clause 1 by an amendment to the Succession Act giving the illegitimate child the same rights of intestacy, and in Clause 2 by a further amendment to the Succession Act, 1964, giving the illegitimate child precisely the

  561
  same right to legitim as the legitimate child.
  In discussion in Committee my hon. Friends and I made clear that we were as anxious as anyone to improve the status so far as concerns succession of the illegitimate child for obvious reasons which do not require to be stated. Where the Committee took two different views was where a line should be drawn. In our view the provisions of those Clauses go too far because they are benefiting the illegitimate child to a point at which they can prejudice the legitimate Children, the children of that marriage, and also the widow who also has certain built-in rights of succession.
  The effect of those Amendments is to confine the rights of succession of the illegitimate child first of all to the mother's estate, whether she has legitimate children or not, and secondly—this is where tie restriction comes in—to confine the rights of the illegitimate child on the father's estate to those cases where the child has lived, for however short a time, in family with the father.
  There are reasons for this. In equity it is right to say that the relationship between a mother and her child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, is such as to entitle that child to an equal share in the estate with her legitimate children. The mother's relationship is such that any distinction drawn by law between her legitimate children and her illegitimate children tends to be somewhat artificial.
  As I pointed out to the Committee, the position of the illegitimate child in regard to rights of succession on the estate of the mother has been progressively improved. By the Legitimacy Act, 1926, provided that the mother died intestate without leaving any issue, the illegitimate child was entitled to the same share of the estate as that to which he would have succeeded if he had been legitimate. Then in the Succession Act, 1964, those rights were extended in those circumstances by giving the illegitimate child a right of succession to the owner of the intestate estate of the mother.
  We were prepared to accept the proposals of this Bill in relation to the mother's estate by putting the illegitimate child of the mother in exactly the same position from the point of view of rights of succession as her legitimate children.
  562
  Where the shoe began to pinch was where a question arose as to the rights of succession to the father's estate. The father's estate in any family has certain obligations long recognised by the law of Scotland towards the widow and children. It seemed to us that the line had to be drawn at a point at which there was no undue prejudice, to the rights of succession of the widow and children.
  The provisions of Clause 1 amending the 1964 Act in this way and Clause 2 of the Bill undoubtedly qualify the legitimate interests in succession of a widow and children. I do not know that this point is capable of a great deal of elaboration. It is very much' a point of view, but only today I received representations from the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow and I note that, after full consideration, they entirely share the view which I have put forward. What they say on this aspect of the Bill is this:
  "The Clause on illegitimacy is too wide. The benefits of the Bill should be limited to a legitimate child living in family with a deceased parent, or if adult who was brought up in family with the parent; otherwise grave practical defects could arise by reason of a person unheard of by a legitimate family appearing after the parents' death and alleging to be a legitimate child."
  This points to some of the practical difficulties to which reference was made in Committee.
  What will happen here, since there has been a time bar, apart from the negative prescription of 20 years, is that a claim can be brought only by someone alleging that he is an illegitimate child—perhaps even after the father is deceased, and even if estate has been disputed by the trustees or executors—to the beneficiaries, and Particular to the widow and children of the marriage. In these circumstances it seems to us that this is a very far-reaching proposal.
  While one would inevitably want to strengthen the legal position of the illegitimate child so far as possible—and I would mention in passing that the Legitimation (Scotland) Act was, apart from one technical requirement, accepted without any opposition from this side of the House, so I hope that no one will doubt our sincerity in this matter—a balance of interest has, none the less, to be struck and in our view this Clause goes

  563
  too far. These Amendments, apart from the drafting Amendment to which I have referred, seek to restore the balance to what is equitable to the illegitimate child on the one hand, and to the widow and children of the marriage on the other.
  10.41 p.m.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: Until this moment I have not had an opportunity of supporting my hon. and learned Friend in this respect. I must say in passing that I regret the absence of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). It seemed quite like old times a moment ago, and I thought they were going to so continue. But I want to take this opportunity of supporting my hon. and learned Friend, partly because I am not a lawyer. Frequently this House is riddled with lawyers but, curiously enough, when legal Bills come to the Floor there are remarkably few of them present.
  I want to make quite plain the fact that I am speaking not as a lawyer, but as one of the tens of thousands of ordinary citizens who are very considerably alarmed by the extent of provision for the illegitimate child which is being made in this part of the Bill. I know that this has been long argued out in Committee, but I should like to support the point of view which has been expressed so well tonight by my hon. and learned Friend, and to say that, although not a lawyer myself, I have from time to time benefited as he has from the advice of the Royal Faculty of Procurators of Glasgow, of which my father was long a member. I think that they have perhaps seen more clearly the possible results of the legislation which we are passing tonight than we in this House have been able to do, in our anxiety to make a more equitable distribution in favour of the illegitimate child.
  Reference has been made—and I should like to remind the House of this—to the fact that when we passed the Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964, we provided for the issue. But in column 4 of the Report of the Committee stage of this Bill, the relevant passage of that Act was quoted. It said:
  "but is survived by illegitimate children, the illegitimate children shall have the right to the whole of the intestate estate."—[OFFICIAL
  564
  REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 2nd April, 1968; c. 4.]
  At that time I was very alarmed at that provision, because I thought that it would inevitably lead to precisely the situation in which we find ourselves tonight. Whereas I thought at the time of passing the Succession (Scotland) Bill, as I still think tonight, that it is right to make adequate provision for the illegitimate child, I do not think it right to extend that provision to the point where it is possible to damage the legitimate children of a marriage.
  The most substantial point in this consideration is that made by my hon. and learned Friend, which makes clear that an illegitimate child could appear on the scene for the first known time not only after the decease of the father, but also after the distribution of the estate to the widow and children. When we reach a point where this is possible in law, then I think we are opening the doors to very grave considerations. It does not take a lot of imagination to visualise a situation where this will happen; to visualise a situation where, when this happens, it will greatly, alter the anticipated position of the widow and the legitimate children; and, indeed, alter the pattern of life which they may have set for themselves as a result of receiving the distribution from the estate. That part of the submission of the Royal Faculty of Procurators of Glasgow which has been quoted is very pertinent, and I think that the practical difficulties which could arise if we pass the Bill in its present form are sufficiently grave to warrant that these Amendments should be accepted even at this late stage in the full knowledge that they will not damage the rights which we are seeking to offer the illegitimate child, but that they will preserve the rights which the legitimate child can be expected to have and, in my view, should continue to hold.
  10.45 p.m.
  I support what my hon. and learned Friend has said, and I hope very much that the Minister may see this not so much in the light of the new legislation, concentrated on an over-liberal view, but with objective sight such as that presented by those outside bodies, and the many people who have written to us, who are, perhaps, in a better position to look objectively than we are in this House tonight.
  Mr. Buchan: I have listened with great care to the arguments which have been put forward. To a great extent they repeat the arguments with which we grew fairly familiar in Committee during an extended debate. I have not heard, I must confess, anything which has changed my basic view of the rightness of these provisions. The new arguments, the new evidence, the new points of view, the quotations by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) from the Royal Faculty of Procurators do not seem to me to alter the basic principles with which we have been concerned in these discussions. Indeed, I am rather surprised that the Amendment we now have here is, if anything, rather more restricted than the one we dealt with in Committee, as I recall it.
  I accept that the Amendments put forward are not a total rejection of the views of the Russell Committee. I accept that they are an attempt to meet the problem to some extent, but I do not really think that it is sufficient to argue that because in an earlier Measure, the Legitimation Bill, we legitimated 3,000 people, and perhaps 50 to 60 a year onwards from its enactment, we have solved the problem, though we have gone a considerable way to solving it. While I recognise that hon. Members opposite supported that Bill, and I recognise their good faith in this matter, I do not think they have got to grips completely with our standpoint on this and our intention to proceed with these provisions.
  The difficulty, among others, in the concept maintained by so many hon. Members opposite is, I think, that they tend to have the vision of the family and the arrival of the disrupting element, as they see it, of the illegitimate child who is not expected. I know that this has been a popular concept in some of our worst literature. I know it could happen in reality today. I know the heartburning such a situation may cause to the established family. However, with respect, one must ask hon. Members opposite to look at the other side of the picture, that is to say, the person who arrives.
  566
  Clause 1 of the Bill is an attempt to rectify an injustice which may have existed for a very long time for many people, and I ask hon. Members opposite to project themselves from their vision of the disruption of the family to that of the injustice which has been taking place for the illegitimate child. I must ask them to try to understand the motives behind the Clause. All these assumptions were fully considered in the Report of the Russell Committee, assumptions which were possible and desirable, and also the attempt to distinguish between different kinds of illegitimate persons in different circumstances—those who have lived in family and those who have not. They were also discussed in Committee on the Bill. I rejected similar Amendments in Committee for the reasons which I will deploy this evening, although I hope at less length.
  I take the view that it is wrong and misguided to punish the child through the law of succession for the behaviour of the parents. I then used the term "punish by proxy". This is true of all children in relation to succession to estates of both parents. I do not accept, in spite of the clear difficulties, that there is a difference between the children of the father and the children of the mother.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: Surely the hardship is equal for the legitimate child whose life is disrupted by the appearance of the illegitimate as that caused by the disruption to the illegitimate child by the right of succession.
  Mr. Buchan: With respect I do not think that it is. A considerable shock may be administered. It may be that a legitimate child will lose part of the, estate, but we are considering a proportional loss and a total loss. I do, think we can equate the two things. Our views may have become coloured with a rather Victorian sense of morality which makes us fail to see the deeper morality involved. When one looks at this in the familiar concept of the family relationship it is never argued that this is necessary in the case of the legitimate child. It is not argued that one should adopt the concept of the line of succession only where the child has been living in the family. I do not see how we can apply that concept to the legitimate child.

  567
  The Amendments would cut out some of the deserving cases which the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) referred to in his minority Report. A father may have recognised and supported an illegitimate child, but circumstances may have prevented him bringing that child into the family.
  The Russell Committee looked at the problem of the definition and found that they could not distinguish
  "…with the simplicity which should be aimed at in any law of succession"
  between illegitimate children with whom parents had established some degree of relationship, and others. The expression, "living in family" illustrates the dangers of trying to differentiate. It is not easy to express a definite term which can be interpreted and the certainty would go.
  Apart from the moral argument, it is wrong to place this extra hurdle in their path by making them prove they were living in family. It is true that implementing the principle would impinge on the rights of inheritance of widows and legitimate children. We argued this at length in Committee.
  In the case of the widow, it would happen only if she was receiving a large inheritance and she had no legtitimate children. If she had, it is the legitimate child which of itself would impinge on the widow's rights. The number of cases which would be affected by illegitimate children alone would be small.
  We have accepted one simple criterion, which is that of paternity, and I want to deal with the difficulty of proof of paternity. Reference was made to the difficulties which might arise when a child arrived alleging to be an illegitimate child. The difficulties fall into two main groups, since necessity for proof can arise many years after the alleged father is said to have sired the child.
  Evidence will rarely be available and the child will, in all probability, be likely to succeed only where he had been living in family or the father had acknowledged paternity in some other way. Secondly, it might be difficult to find a person who could successfully challenge or oppose the child's claim and it would be difficult to produce counter-evidence.
  568
  In a case of dispute, the court can take account of other possible factors, such as the birth certificate, a court decree or the finding of paternity. Such a finding of paternity will be admissible now as evidence of the child's right to succeed and, by virtue of the other parts of the Bill, it would be for anyone contesting the matter to show that the finding was wrong under Clause 11.
  I accept that where there is not this kind of evidence it will be more difficult to prove paternity. But the onus is surely on the person making the claim rather than the other way round. After all, the court must be satisfied that paternity has been proved, and even if no rebutting evidence is found by the defence, a finding will not be made unless the evidence for the child is sufficient to prove the case.
  So we are left with the prospect in this argument of possible fraudulent claims. But claimants will be required to prove their cases in a court of law and it will not be easy for them to do so. The main difficulty surely is not the prospect of fraudulent claims. One of the difficulties of a legitimate claim of an illegitimate child will be that of proof.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I do not wish to intervene in a Scottish debate, having already expressed my views on Second Reading. However, I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that the proposals in the Bill will often lead to blackmailing actions or at any rate to blackmail—that is to say, claims on the flimsiest foundations which the legal representatives of the next-of-kin will be unwilling to oppose because it would give publicity to the matter which they will be anxious to avoid, although there is likely to be no foundation for the claim.
  Mr. Buchan: I do not think that there is a great possibility of their being a very large number of such cases. Again, if there is a certain danger to society in this way, it is sometimes the sort of danger we have to accept in order to get the greater right done. May I add that we welcome the contribution of the hon. Gentleman to this discussion. On both sides of the House we know the great part he contributed to the Russell Committee. I have outlined and reiterated some of the arguments I deployed earlier in rejecting Amendments on this

  569
  matter. I have not referred to the Amendment on legitimation, which, in a sense, provides even more reason why the Bill should be left as it is.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman deploy the argument for the disruption of family life which would inevitably be created by the submission of a fraudulent claim? If, as is possible, a number of claims such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and others, are likely to be made as a result of the Bill, surely we must put in the scales—and the hon. Gentleman has not done so—the great effect such claims will have on the legitimate family life, whether the claims are successful or not.
  Mr. Buchan: These considerations have been put into the scales and we have come down firmly, not even on balance but firmly, on the side of morality and we believe that right is on the side of the Clause as drafted.
  Mr. Wylie: It is never well for a Minister to complain about the drafting
  of new Clauses and Amendments by the Opposition. We do not have the facilities of the Government in this matter. Surely terms like "living in family" and "membership of family" are not unknown in statute law. In my recollection, I believe that similar expressions are to be found in the Rent Restriction Acts. There has been no difficulty in interpreting that sort of expression so far, and there would be no difficulty here.
  I would certainly prefer the hon. Gentleman to take his stand on the issue of principle, as he did in the latter part of his reply. The question is now whether we should go the whole way or whether a line should be drawn at some point. In our view, this provision in the Bill goes too far. We believe that it prejudices the interests of family life, and to that extent we should not support it, despite the hon. Gentleman's valiant effort to convert us to the Government's point of view.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 120.

  Division No. 137.]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Silvester, Frederick

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Stainton, Keith

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Stodart, Anthony

  Boardman, Tom

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hordern, Peter

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Temple, John M.

  Campbell, Gordon

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Monro, Hector

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Clegg, Walter

  More, Jasper

  Webster, David

  Crouch, David

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Whitelaw, Rt, Hn. William

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wright, Esmond

  Eden, Sir John

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Eyre, Reginald

  Percival, Ian

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Peyton, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Goodhew, Victor

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Mr. Michael Clark Hutchinson and

  Gower, Raymond

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Ian MacArthur.

  Grant, Anthony

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  NOES

  Archer, Peter

  Coe, Denis

  Ellis, John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Concannon, J. D.

  English, Michael

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Barnett, Joel

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Ford, Ben

  Bessell, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Forrester, John

  Binns, John

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Freeson, Reginald

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dickens, James

  Garrett, W. E.

  Booth, Albert

  Dobson, Ray

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bradley, Tom

  Doig, Peter

  Gregory, Arnold

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Hamling, William

  Buchan, Norman

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Hannan, William

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Eadie, Alex

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Maclennan, Robert

  Richard, Ivor

  Horner, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Manuel, Archie

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Marquand, David

  Sheldon, Robert

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Millan, Bruce

  Small, William

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Stonehouse, John

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Judd, Frank

  Moyle, Roland

  Taverne, Dick

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Newens, Stan

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Varley, Eric G.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Ogden, Eric

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Oram, Albert E.

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  MacDermot, Niall

  Palmer, Arthur

  Woof, Robert

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Yates, Victor

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Mr. Neil McBride and

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

Clause 13.

  INTERPRETATION OF PART III, AND SAVINGS.
  Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 10, line 18, leave out from 'tribunal' to 'and' in line 20 and insert:
  'except proceedings in relation to which the strict rules of evidence do not apply,'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient, I think, to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 8, in page 10, leave out lines 22 and 23.
  Mr. Buchan: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), will remember our short discussion of these words in Committee. This is a purely drafting Amendment to deal with a point which was raised by the hon. and learned Member. In Part III of the Bill we are making changes in the law of evidence as regards civil proceedings, and abolishing the requirement of corroboration. We are also making criminal convictions admissible thereafter. The provisions, therefore, are drafted in terms of evidence before the ordinary civil courts, but if we change the basic law of evidence in the court proper, clearly it should have its effect throughout all civil proceedings.
  It is less easy to put into effect in Statutes, because outside the courts proper the laws of evidence are applied
  572
  and departed from to a greater or lesser extent depending on the precise nature of the tribunal. We do not want to alter the basic situation. These procedures have been built up as a result of experience to meet the need for which the tribunals were established.
  In so far as they have been bound by the law, we want them to take account of the law as we have amended it. In so far as they have not been, we wish to leave them free and not to bind them by the amended law. This is precisely what the subsection did as originally drafted and what it does as we propose to amend it. The drafting improvement merely simplifies that provision. As originally drafted, the subsection was quite correct in substance, but was unduly repetitive, and the two provisions can be combined in the interests of brevity and clarity.
  By applying Part III to civil proceedings before tribunals in which the strict rules of evidence are applied, that is to say the rules applied in the courts proper, we make sure that we take account of changes in the rules enacted in that Part by applying the provisions to other tribunals. We are ensuring that they remain there.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 8, in page 10, leave out lines 22 and 23.—[Mr. Buchan.]
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Buchan.]
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. Wylie: I do not wish to detain the House for many moments but I feel obliged to say something on the Bill. We on this side welcome Measures of law reform and no one welcomes them more than I. The last Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was accepted by this side of the House. The Legitimation Bill which is now in another place was welcomed in principle as a measure of law reform. I welcome the principle of proposals for law reform coming from the Scottish Law Commission, for which I have a high regard, although it could be strengthened in certain ways.
  What worries me about the Bill is that it contains a number of far-reaching changes in the law, mostly disconnected, all bound up in one Measure, which will make it very difficult for the practitioner to keep abreast of those changes.
  The burden of my criticism is this. The proposals in Clause 9 amend the law of evidence. Radical changes of that nature in the law should take place only after the widest and most careful discussion with those bodies most directly concerned, in this instance Her Majesty's judges in Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society and so forth.
  This Clause proceeds on the basis of recommendations simply of the Scottish Law Commission. I do not wish to argue on the proposals contained in the Clause, which would be out of order. The Clause has caused much concern in legal circles in Scotland, and it contains the kind of change which should have been embodied in an evidence Bill.
  Likewise, Clause 5 makes radical changes in the rules of construction of deeds. The representations I have had recently on Clause 8 are very worrying. Clause 8 applies the Succession (Scotland) Act to the tenancies of crofts. I have had strong representations against the Clause, which unfortunately it is now too late to take up. One feels that there has not been adequate discussion by the Government, particularly with the Crofters' Union, which is an extremely interested body; and I have no doubt that the hon.
  574
  Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) will endorse these remarks.
  There are other provisions in the Bill which I do not like. I hope that the next time we have a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill it will not contain such a hotchpotch of radical changes, most of which appear to have proceeded with entirely inadequate consideration and discussion.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I am not competent to comment on any part of the Bill save Clause 8, which is entitled:
  "Application of Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 to tenancies of crofts."
  The Measure introduces major changes in the system of crofting tenure. The Minister may wonder why he has heard so little from the crofters, particularly since the Bill has almost completed its passage through the House. There are two reasons for this; first, because the crofters knew little or nothing about these changes until the Second Reading had been completed, and, secondly, because the Crofters Commission, which was set up to look after the interests of the crofters, was established with the idea of not recommending major changes in crofting legislation without first consulting crofter opinion on the widest possible front. This has not happened.
  The crofters' rigid form of tenure has often been blamed for the lack of progress in crofting areas, but, from my long experience of crofting, I have not found this to be the case, except on rare occasions. The peculiarities of the system have been a measure of its success and it is interesting to note that the Highlands and Islands Development Board commented on the system in its first Report published in 1967:
  "Bearing in mind all that has been said about the system and its admittedly stultifying form of land tenure, it is apparently paradoxical, but we believe true, that if one had to look now for a way of life which would keep that number of people in such relatively intractable territory, it would be difficult to contrive a better system."
  That was an important statement, coming from a body that was set up to look after the interests of the Highlands and Islands and after examining the situation afresh.

  575
  Some crofting families can claim family ties to their crofts going back many centuries. This has been mainly due to the fact that the male heir has always succeeded to the tenancy. But under the Bill if a crofter survives his wife and dies intestate, the estate may have to be divided among all the members of the family, with the result that it will be unlikely that one of them will be able to carry on the tenancy.
  Perhaps some changes are necessary and perhaps the changes proposed by the Government are designed to secure better conditions for crofters' widows. If so, this is a high motive, but I suggest that there are other ways in which widows could be helped. Anyone who has studied the crofting system and crofting laws will agree that security of tenure has been the cornerstone of the system in the past. When it has been proved that it has saved crofting from complete extinction, major changes should not be undertaken lightly. I put down an Amendment to exclude this Clause, but it was not called. That, I understand, was for technical reasons. It is late in the day to call for the exclusion of the Clause now, but, in fairness to the crofters, we should keep up the reputation of bodies looking after their interests and more consideration should be given to them. Crofters should have been given an opportunity to express their views before these changes were made.
  11.21 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Stodart: It has been extremely useful to hear what the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) said because probably no one in the House knows more than he about crofting conditions. We missed him from the Committee when that Clause was discussed. It is an important Clause, as I made clear in Committee.
  What the hon. Member said has fortified what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) said about the Bill. One thing which has characterised all its Clauses has been the complete lack of consultation with interested parties concerned with its legal provisions and those closely involved with crofting, who could
  576
  have considerably helped with Clause 8. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take a lesson from this and that when other Bills of this kind are presented we shall have consultations with those who, if these matters were put to them, would be willing to help to make a better Bill.
  11.23 p.m.
  Mr. Buchan: I welcome the opportunity of a very short Third Reading debate. This is a useful Bill. I accept the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) that it contains a variety of topics, but that is of the nature of a miscellaneous provisions Bill. Most hon. Members in the Committee, although they disagreed with various aspects of the Bill and felt deeply about the earlier parts, nevertheless recognised the importance and the validity of the matters brought forward.
  On the arguments deployed by the hon. and learned Member against a miscellaneous law reform Bill, I accept that there may be difficulty for the practitioner, but we must keep in mind that there are also difficulties for people suffering injustice if we do not have miscellaneous law reform Bills of this kind. I accept that we might have waited for a Bill on evidence, but in the meantime the kind of person we have sought to protect would have been suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) emphasised that each year there are many cases involving industrial injury and people whom they concern would have suffered if we had waited for another Bill on evidence.
  We are told that the main objections are that we failed to consult on relevant parts of the Bill and failed to recognise the concern expressed in areas where we failed to, consult. Let it be clear that the major section of the Bill on the question of dealing with illegitimate children was the result of a high-powered Committee which met and heard high-powered evidence. Therefore, any argument to the contrary is not tenable.
  On the other point in regard to a change in the law of evidence, it is true that there has been criticism about lack of consultation. But it is not true to draw the corollary that overwhelming sections

  577
  of the legal profession in Scotland are opposed to this. The Faculty of Advocates in a letter to me have said that they were opposed to the provision only by a narrow majority. This is hardly an overwhelming section. Secondly, an important legal body, the Society of Writers to the Signet, have approved of it. Therefore, one cannot draw the conclusion that there is a great majority against this Bill.
  It is reasonable that there should be concern when one changes a centuries old legal practice in Scotland. But merely because a thing is centuries old, it is not necessarily correct. We should be pleased that this is being brought into operation. This is an amendment to our law which makes it comparable in this regard with any other civilised country of Europe, with the exception of Portugal. I am glad that we have brought it in as quickly as this without awaiting future legislation on evidence.
  Then we come to the third element, the matter of consultation. I accept the wisdom, knowledge and awareness which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) brings into a debate when he deals with crofting. I, too, very much regret that he was not present during the Committee proceedings. I am not sure that he was right in his strictures about failure to consult. The measure which we have brought in is correct, not least because of the security which it gives to the widow. To have left the position on the male primogeniture with the new change which we have brought into the law in other respects would have created a difficult situation in the Highlands. Most people with whom I have discussed the matter have approved of it as bringing in a necessary improvement. Far from its bringing in any dereliction of security, it provides an additional security to many people in the crofting community.
  I know that one section of the Crofters' Union is opposed to it. I have seen their memorandum on this matter, and I will not go into it in detail. I have not had very much other evidence of widespread opposition. It is not a correct accusation that we have not consulted the crofters, since the provisions were approved by the Crofters Commission—a body which statutorily we are bound to consult and which we have consulted.
  578
  I have seen no evidence that in 1964 when a change was made the party opposite consulted any more than we have. We consulted them in the first place, but, more important, now that we have reappointed the Panels of Assessors to the Crofters Commission it contains a group of people who reflect the crofters' point of view at the Grazings Committee level.
  There has been little, if any, opposition at assessors' meetings on this matter. The House will be pleased to know that when the Federation of Crofters' Unions recently met in Inverness they welcomed the new proposals as they affect crofters. Therefore, we have consulted, and I believe that our measures have been accepted and welcomed by most sections of the crofting community.
  I have spoken at rather great length on Third Reading. It seems to me that the three main elements in the Bill are necessary and valuable. We are indebted, on the one hand, to the Russell Committee, and, on the other, to Lord Kilbrandon and the Law Commission for preparing the material on which the Bill has been based. I am sure that it will bring a greater sense of justice to significant sections of the people of Scotland.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LLWYNYPIA HOSPITAL (CASUALTY UNIT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
11.30 p.m.
Mr. Alec Jones: I rise this evening to speak on the decision which has apparently been taken to close the casualty unit at the Llwynypia Hospital. First of all, I should like to say that though I represent but one half of Rhondda in this House, my colleague the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) shares my views and wishes to be associated with all my remarks. If he were here he would add his voice to mine, but as Members know he is unavoidably absent due to Parliamentary duties abroad.

579
I think at a time like this that no Member can claim with greater certainty than I can that he is speaking for all the people of his area. The letters, telegrams and phone calls which I have received in the past few weeks all reflect the bitter resentment, the deep disappointment and the justifiable opposition from the people of Rhondda at my right hon. Friend's decision. From all quarters messages supporting me have poured in. My right hon. Friend has done something which no Minister has ever done before. He has indeed achieved the impossible. He has in Rhondda united the Labour Party, the Communist Party, the Welsh Nationalists and even the ratepayers all in bitter opposition to his plans. He has succeeded in uniting trade unions and industrialists, clergy and publicans, teachers and governing bodies of schools, and a host of other organisations and individuals all convinced of the need to retain the casualty service in Rhondda.
I ask my right hon. Friend to believe me when I say that if this were a mere political issue I should not be pressing it. But it is a matter which for people in Rhondda transcends politics. If my right hon. Friend could convince me that his decision was the correct one, then I should not be making this protest, but would be quite willing to defend his decision and to argue his case with my own people. But from my meetings during the past few weeks not only with lay people, but with nurses, with senior sisters, ambulance drivers, general practitioners, doctors in the hospital service, members of hospital management committees—all these people with years of practical experience of administrating and working in the health service of Rhondda agree that the Plewes Committee, which made the recommendation, in the short time available for its inquiries and with its lack of knowledge of the special problems of Rhondda, could not have been expected to make a reasoned judgment on this vital matter.
Because a pattern of hospital service concentrating its casualty services in one base hospital suits the needs of some areas, or possibly many areas, of the country, it does not follow that that is the ideal pattern for all parts of the
580
country, because it pays insufficient attention to the special needs and difficulties of areas such as Rhondda. The problem of the casualty service in Rhondda arises from an accident of history which made East Glamorgan the base hospital for the Pontypridd and Rhondda Group, and there is no justification for that accident of history being perpetuated.
East Glamorgan, as my right hon. Friend knows, is at the edge of the area which it serves. It is some 20 miles from the top of the Rhondda, along winding roads and difficult hills made impassable at some time every winter by snow and ice. East Glamorgan was never sited nor intended to meet the needs of the 97,000 people who now reside in Rhondda. These are physical facts of geography which my right hon. Friend must have known and accepted when in 1965—just three years ago—he gave a directive to maintain the casualty unit at Llwynypia. Even accepting the fact that no directive can be permanent and last for all time, it is impossible to justify a reversal of this policy in a mere three years when there has been no change in the need for a casualty unit in Rhondda.
We are entitled to ask what account the Plewes Committee took of the special geographical difficulties of Rhondda. Did it make the journey from the top of the valleys from Fernhill or Maerdy to East Glamorgan? Did it drive by car apart from such a journey by bus? Did it consider evidence regarding the state of the roads, especially in winter? No outside body on a short visit to Rhondda could hope to be cognisant of these important considerations, not considerations merely of the convenience of patients but considerations of delay in the giving of urgent and life-saving treatment.
I would urge my right hon. Friend to consider and to reconsider his decision, not merely because of the weight of public opinion but remembering that in a democracy these views are of great importance. I would urge my right hon. Friend to look at the matter again, because the Plewes Report, which was, in the words of the hospital management committee, "hastily conceived" could not have taken sufficiently into account the expressed and expert opinion of medical, nursing, ambulance and hospital management committee staffs.

581
Let me quote some of their views, which are apparently to be ignored. In October, 1965, the view was expressed by the consultant orthopaedic traumatic surgeons that
"Llwynypia Hospital should be kept open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. to cope with the large number of cases which are seen."
This view was confirmed in July last year by the medical staffs committee of the Pontypridd and Rhondda Group. In July, 1967, this was the written view expressed by the senior administrative medical officer of the board:
"Firmly of the opinion that (a) with the medical assistant and full junior personnel in post a full casualty service should be maintained; (b) if the medical assistant is away then a screening service could be provided by the junior personnel."
On 10th April of this year, just a month ago, the management committee together with its medical advisers, knowing the particular problems of the area—this is the important point: the management committee together with its medical advisers, knowing the particular problems of the area: I deliberately repeat the words—said that maintenance of a casualty department at Llwynypia Hospital during the day
"is absolutely essential for the people of the Rhondda".
They added these words for good measure:
"Indeed, it is good management to divert from the main base those minor injuries which could be treated elsewhere and which would otherwise clutter up the major accident department".
This month the Glamorgan National Health Executive Council expressed its 100 per cent. opposition to the closure. Even the doctors at present working in the hospital service were among the 40,000 signatories to the petition opposing the closure.
These are not frivolous opinions, but the opinions of experts with real knowledge of Rhondda's problems, and these opinions are supported by the general practitioners of the area, doctors who are daily confronted with these problems of casualty and accident cases. I know my right hon. Friend has seen letters of protest representing the views of 80 per cent. of the general practitioners of the Rhondda. The 20 per cent. missing were missing because of the lack of time. Not one dissentient voice has come from the
582
general practitioners to support the Minister's view. I should like to quote a little from a letter from one general practitioner particularly well known to me
"As a general practitioner who has practised in Rhondda for 27 years I strongly resent the proposal to close the casualty department at Llwynypia… The permanent closure will lead to increased strain on the already overtaxed general practitioner service. Increased distances involved will mean increased risk and danger."
I will read an extract from a letter from a younger general practitioner who only recently arrived in the Rhondda.
"The decision to close the casualty unit at Llwynypia is most likely to force younger doctors to leave the valley for a more secure area with better facilities."
I know that this is not the Minister's wish and it is not mine. This doctor goes on to make a suggestion and I would ask my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to it. He says that it would be possible to enlist general practitioners employed on a long-term sessional basis to man the accident unit.
I ask the Minister to consider this point again and to ask the hospital management committee and the regional board to consider it since it was the staffing difficulty at East Glamorgan which led to the present trouble. One of the reasons advanced in support of the Minister's decision is the difficulty of staffing.
Although we know that there are 36 general practitioners in the Rhondda the Plewes Committee was able to consult only one and he was opposed to the recommendation. Surely in health matters like this the views of general practitioners, who are usually the first people to meet casualties and accident victims, ought to have been given greater consideration and greater weight.
It has been argued that many of the cases now going to Llwynypia Hospital ought to be, and could have been, dealt with in the surgeries of general practitioners. This might be reasonable in some parts of the country, but as the Minister knows the incidence of illness in the Rhondda is 2½ times the average for Britain. The work loads of general practitioners are already far too heavy. It would be impossible for general practitioners at present to treat every minor

583
injury now going to the Llwynypia Hospital.
I know that health centres have been put forward as a solution to the problem. This might be realistic in the future and that is why I said earlier that no decision ought to be permanent. At the moment there are no health centres in Rhondda. I welcome the one to be built at Tonypandy, but one is completely inadequate for present needs.
There is the problem of the extra demand for ambulances. I know that when a deputation went to see the Minister it was said that there would be no extra demand which could not be coped with. This has never been proved. What can be proved is the mileage of ambulances based at Treherbert at the top of the Rhondda has been increased with Llwynypia closed in the evening. Ambulance drivers in their letters to me, and the letters I have received from victims, give examples of the long delays. Ambulance drivers are convinced that the ambulance service is already overworked. I receive numerous complaints on this and the ambulance service will be unable to cope with the extra demand.
School teachers and the governing bodies of schools have expressed deep concern over this in relation to the treatment of minor accidents during school hours. As a school teacher I have taken children by bus to Llwynypia, but I would never attempt such a journey to East Glamorgan.
Of the 750 new cases treated per month at Llwynypia a large proportion will seek an ambulance, and who can blame them? From most parts of the Rhondda one bus will take them to Llwynypia but to go to East Glamorgan they will need never less than two buses, usually three and sometimes four. What importance did the Plewes Committee attach to the bus service in the Rhondda?
The safety of the patient is, I know the basis of the concern of the Minister, and it is mine. From ambulance drivers, nurses and doctors I have heard of patients having to be resuscitated and having to have urgent supportive treatment at Llwynypia before being conveyed to other hospitals.
I quote a letter I received last Monday from ambulance drivers. They said:
584
"We wonder which would have happened recently to the miner injured at Maerdy colliery with crush injuries, or the woman knocked down in Treorchy whose fractured foot was obstructing her blood circulation, or the little boy who last Friday took an overdose of drugs."
These three cases were taken to Llwynypia Hospital and are examples where supportive treatment there saved the possible loss of the miner's life, the woman's foot or the young child's life. We hear from both staff and patients at East Glamorgan that the hospital is already bursting at the seams. That applies to the casualty department as well. I know that improvements are envisaged but is it reasonable to expect that East Glamorgan will be able to cope with the extra demand from patients now being treated at Llwynypia Hospital, especially since the nearby area of Llantrisant is planning a new town development? What investigation did the Committee make into the effects of the new development on the casualty services of the area?
The complete withdrawal of casualty services from Llwynypia Hospital has not been and cannot be justified. Despite the eminence of the members of the Committee, the inquiry was carried out in haste—and this has been referred to by the hospital management committee and was intimated by a member of the Welsh Hospital Board on the deputation. The Committee had lack of knowledge of local conditions, which was no fault of its members, and failed adequately to consult those best able to give evidence, which was probably a question of time. The fact is that the overwhelming evidence both lay and medical, is opposed to its findings.
The Committee's recommendation ought to be reversed or at least reconsidered. The case for the retention of the casualty unit at Llwynypia Hospital is overwhelming, particularly during the day time. Any arguments against this are in direct conflict with those best able by qualification and experience and local knowledge to judge.
I want publicly to thank all those, far too many to mention, who have sent letters and telegrams to me and have helped me to do the job I was sent here to do. I know that our cause is just. I have done my best to present it fairly and efficiently. I appeal to my right hon.

585
Friend to reverse his decision and retain the casualty unit at Llwynypia Hospital, if only from nine a.m. to five p.m. Delay it until the new health centres are built and until we can see whether general practitioners can help the casualty staff at Llwynypia. If all these things are too much, I ask him to accept the plea of Rhondda Borough Council and establish an open inquiry so that justice can not only be done but can be seen to be done on behalf of the people of Rhondda.
11.47 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): May I, at the outset, say that I have much sympathy for the people of the Rhondda who are naturally greatly disturbed at the proposed closure of the casualty unit at Llwynypia Hospital.
The Welsh Hospital Board informed me that it accepted the Plewes Committee's Report and sought my authority to proceed with the implementation of its recommendations. It is the second of the two main recommendations, the closure of Llwynypia, which has given rise to this debate tonight and it is to this that I gave the most careful thought in arriving at my decision. I would ask my hon. Friend and the people of the Rhondda, for whom he speaks, to believe that, in considering the difficult issues presented to me in this situation, I have been activated solely by the desire to ensure the best possible accident service for the Pontypridd and Rhondda area.
Before I deal with the local question in more detail, I would like to say something of the developments which are taking place throughout the hospital service for dealing with accidents and emergencies. Some years ago a sub-committee of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee made a comprehensive study of these services. It recommended that the existing number of accident and emergency units should be substantially reduced and the services concentrated in a pattern of units staffed and equipped to deal immediately with injuries and other emergencies at any hour of the day or night. Injured patients requiring hospital treatment should, the Report recommended, be taken direct to these units rather than to the nearest hospital, unless of course it included such a unit.
Boards throughout the country have been reorganising and rationalising the
586
facilities for accident and emergency services in accordance with these recommendations. At selected hospitals they have designated accident and emergency units with an experienced consultant in day to day control, and with surgeons, anaesthetists and other medical staff and trained nurses with the necessary supporting services to enable them to deal with injuries and emergencies at all times, including weekends and holidays.
There is only one way of providing an effective 24-hour service of this kind and that is to concentrate hospital resources in terms of manpower and facilities. Unless we do so, essential elements in the treatment of seriously injured patients will be missing when they are needed. In short we are concentrating accident services in order to save lives. It is not possible for every hospital to be staffed and equipped up to the necessary high standard, and in the course of this concentration of services the casualty department at some hospitals will inevitably be closed as the accident and emergency services at the selected hospitals are developed and expanded.
The need for rationalisation is often insufficiently understood. When a patient needs emergency treatment because of injury or for some other reason, it is hard to appreciate that it may not be in his best interest to take him to the nearest hospital. But the fact remains that only if he is taken to a hospital with a comprehensive accident unit will he receive the expert diagnosis, skilled treatment he may need. The trend in modern medicine is towards team work drawing on the skills of a range of medical disciplines. It will be obvious that units of the kind I have described make heavy demand on resources both of manpower and materials, and it was on this account that the committee on accident and emergency services recommended a concentration into a pattern of units each serving a population of at least 150,000.
The population served by the Management Committee referred to is of this order, in fact it is 163,000 and cannot justify more than one such unit.
Experience has demonstrated the wisdom of the general policy in relation to accident services. This policy has the double advantage that not only does the patient get more effective treatment but

587
the resources of manpower and equipment, which cannot be unlimited, are put to the most economical use. In pursuance of this policy a number of casualty departments have already been closed in England and Wales, and a better all-round service has resulted.
Despite all the Welsh Hospital Board and the Pontypridd and Rhondda Hospital Management Committee could do, it has not always been possible to find medical staff to man the unit at Llwynypia, so as to provide even the restricted service of which a small unit of this kind is capable, with the consequence that various limitations have had to be accepted. It has not been possible in spite of every effort to provide anything like 24-hour cover and the service has had to be very much curtailed. For some time past the unit has operated on a 9 a.m.—5 p.m. basis on Mondays to Fridays, 9 a.m.—1 p.m. on Saturdays with no service at all on Sundays.
Staffing difficulties have also been experienced in the accident unit at East Glamorgan Hospital. The situation there became critical towards the end of 1967 and it was this that led to the appointment of the Plewes Committee to which reference has been made in this debate.
The Welsh Hospital Board was thus faced with a difficult choice. To try to maintain two casualty units, neither providing a full accident and emergency service would be against the best interests of the patient, whose safety calls for the highest standards of service and skill that are available in the specially staffed and best equipped accident centre.
Neither would it enable the limited resources of manpower to be used in the most economic and efficient manner possible. Hospital authorities frequently have to balance these considerations against the argument that to concentrate casualty services inevitably means that many smaller departments have to be closed, and that this must entail some inconvenience for patients living at a distance from the accident centre.
I came to the conclusion that the hospital board was right to apply to the Pontypridd and Rhondda group the general principle of concentrating resources, and that the first priority must
588
be the build-up of the accident unit at East Glamorgan hospital with the consequence that the need to maintain a casualty service at Llwynypia will diminish and ultimately come to an end. This does not mean that the hospital at Llwynypia will cease to play a useful part in the treatment of accident and emergency cases. On the contrary, as I have tried to emphasise, accident follow-up services at Llwynypia will not only be maintained but extended. Full use will be made of the beds at Llwynypia, and out-patient clinics will provide for the care of Rhondda patients after their initial treatment at East Glamorgan hospital. In this way each hospital will be making the best contribution that it is equipped to make towards a comprehensive service for the whole area, including the Rhondda. The one will be complementary to the other, rather than both trying to provide casualty facilities with resources that do not permit the maintenance of a satisfactory level of service at either.
I accept that the closure of the casualty unit at Llwynypia Hospital will place an additional burden on the ambulance service in the Pontypridd and Rhondda area, but I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that Glamorgan County Council has assured me that it will be able to expand its ambulance service to meet the additional demands that will be made on it.
Those, then, were the factors which determined my decision to accept the recommendation of the Welsh Hospital Board. I knew that it would come as a disappointment to many in the Rhondda who have an understandable affection for their local hospital, but it is not Llwynypia which is to close. It is no more than one limited service that it provides, that of dealing with comparatively minor casualties during normal working hours. The Welsh Hospital Board has no intention of closing Llwynypia Hospital itself. I mention that to relieve some anxieties that I have heard expressed.
From the reports that I have had of the nature of the work done at the casualty unit, much could be handled with the facilities usually available under the general medical services. I know well the difficulties of general practice in the Rhondda, but the proposal to

589
build a health centre at Tonypandy should make it easier for the local doctors to provide this sort of service. To this end I shall do all I can to encourage the development of further health centres or group practice premises in the area.
Though I am unshaken in my conviction that this decision is right and in the best interests of the Rhondda patients, I am not pressing the Welsh Hospital Board to implement it immediately. Indeed it will be a matter of months, not weeks, before this happens. The Welsh Hospital Board will shortly be appointing a consultant based on Church Village to organise and be responsible for the accident and emergency services for the whole area. If he, as the consultant responsible, felt that he favoured some different organisation of the services, and could deploy the resources of manpower at his disposal in some better way, the Welsh Hospital Board and I would be bound to give attention to his views.
590
I do not want what I have said to lead my hon. Friend or his constituents to think that I have weakened in my resolve, but I want them to know that I am very willing, before the proposed arrangements are finally implemented, to take into account the views of the consultant who will have medical responsibility for the service provided for the entire area.
I repeat to my hon. Friend that my only concern is to provide the best possible accident and emergency service for the area. I hope that I have succeeded if not in convincing him, at least in shaking his present conviction that the decision is not for the best. If I have done so, I can only hope that he will commend it to his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  Liverpool and Leeds Canal
  Liverpool and Leeds Canal
  Transport Bill (Drivers' Hours)
  Transport Bill (Drivers' Hours)
  Motorways (Fog)
  Motorways (Fog)
  Seat Belts (Buckles)
  Seat Belts (Buckles)
  Rear-end Collisions
  Rear-end Collisions
  Motorways and Class A Roads (Speed Limit)
  Motorways and Class A Roads (Speed Limit)
  Car Design (Safety Features)
  Car Design (Safety Features)
  Lorries, Bristol (Smoke Checks)
  Lorries, Bristol (Smoke Checks)
  Leominster Railway Crossing (Bridge and Underpass)
  Leominster Railway Crossing (Bridge and Underpass)
  Motor Cyclists (Safety Helmets)
  Motor Cyclists (Safety Helmets)
  British Road Services
  British Road Services
  Lighterage, River Thames
  Lighterage, River Thames
  Road Fund Licences (Evasion)
  Road Fund Licences (Evasion)
ROADS
  Park Lane and Dunning's Bridge Road, Bootle
  Park Lane and Dunning's Bridge Road, Bootle
  M4, Maidenhead—Reading
  M4, Maidenhead—Reading
  A19, Durham
  A19, Durham
  M11 (Route)
  M11 (Route)
  Parkway, Eastville Park, Bristol
  Parkway, Eastville Park, Bristol
  Motorways
  Motorways
RAILWAYS
  Surplus Land (Disposal)
  Surplus Land (Disposal)
  Level Crossings
  Level Crossings
  Disused Track, Scotland
  Disused Track, Scotland
PORTS
  Southampton Harbour Board
  Southampton Harbour Board
  Compensation Claims
  Compensation Claims
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Retail Food Prices (Reports)
  Retail Food Prices (Reports)
  Tinned Foods (Date-marking)
  Tinned Foods (Date-marking)
SCOTLAND
  Carriage of Fish (Transport Bill)
  Carriage of Fish (Transport Bill)
  Aberdeen (Roads)
  Aberdeen (Roads)
  Trout and Trout Eggs (Imports)
  Trout and Trout Eggs (Imports)
  Cullivoe (Pier)
  Cullivoe (Pier)
  Prisoners (Weekly Cost)
  Prisoners (Weekly Cost)
  Police and Prison Officers (Recruitment)
  Police and Prison Officers (Recruitment)
  Offensive Weapons (Steel Combs)
  Offensive Weapons (Steel Combs)
  Teacher Training Colleges (Physical Education Course)
  Teacher Training Colleges (Physical Education Course)
  Crimes Caused by Drink
  Crimes Caused by Drink
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Primary Schoolchildren (February Intake)
  Primary Schoolchildren (February Intake)
  Day and Block Release Courses
  Day and Block Release Courses
BOARD OF TRADE
  Developers (Credibility and Reputation)
  Developers (Credibility and Reputation)
  Consett and Stanley (New Industry)
  Consett and Stanley (New Industry)
  Development Areas (Investment Grant)
  Development Areas (Investment Grant)
  Aluminium Smelters
  Aluminium Smelters
  New Firms, Scotland (Employment)
  New Firms, Scotland (Employment)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire)
  Washing Powders and Detergents
  Washing Powders and Detergents
  Cosmetics
  Cosmetics
  Office Accommodation
  Office Accommodation
  Public and Private Companies
  Public and Private Companies
  Exports and Imports (Commonwealth, Rhodesia and South Africa)
  Exports and Imports (Commonwealth, Rhodesia and South Africa)
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS (MEETINGS)
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS (MEETINGS)
POST OFFICE
  Members' Post Office, House of Commons
  Members' Post Office, House of Commons
  Pillar Boxes and Telecommunications Vans (Colour)
  Pillar Boxes and Telecommunications Vans (Colour)
  Capital Expenditure, Scotland
  Capital Expenditure, Scotland
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks, Edinburgh (Vandalism)
  Kiosks, Edinburgh (Vandalism)
  Waiting List, Edinburgh
  Waiting List, Edinburgh
  Waiting List, Calne Area
  Waiting List, Calne Area
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. Gourevich
  Mr. Gourevich
  Local Government Act 1966 (Section 11 Grants)
  Local Government Act 1966 (Section 11 Grants)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nigeria (Eastern Region)
  Nigeria (Eastern Region)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Chemical Defence Experimental Station, Nancekuke
  Chemical Defence Experimental Station, Nancekuke
  R.A.F. Apprenticeship Scheme (Nationality Rules)
  R.A.F. Apprenticeship Scheme (Nationality Rules)
  Nuclear Submarine H.M.S. "Resolution"
  Nuclear Submarine H.M.S. "Resolution"
  Solent (Surveillance)
  Solent (Surveillance)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Member's Letter
  Member's Letter
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Wales
  Wales
  Public Companies (Members of Parliament)
  Public Companies (Members of Parliament)
  ISRAEL (INDEPENDENCE DAY)
  ISRAEL (INDEPENDENCE DAY)
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA (FRONTIERS)
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA (FRONTIERS)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Wolverhampton (Grants)
  Wolverhampton (Grants)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Sickle-Cell Anaemia
  Sickle-Cell Anaemia
  Nuneaton and Bedworth (Grants)
  Nuneaton and Bedworth (Grants)
HOSPITALS
  Frenchay Hospital, Bristol
  Frenchay Hospital, Bristol
HOUSING
  Nuneaton and Bedworth (Housing Subsidy)
  Nuneaton and Bedworth (Housing Subsidy)
  Unoccupied Houses
  Unoccupied Houses
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Redundant Mineworkers
TECHNOLOGY
  Thames Barrier
  Thames Barrier
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Old-Age Pensions
  Old-Age Pensions
  Finance Act, 1961 (Section 9)
  Finance Act, 1961 (Section 9)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Imported Textile Goods (Seized Consignments)
  Imported Textile Goods (Seized Consignments)
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
WALES
  Cardiff—Merthyr Tydfil Dual Carriageway
  Cardiff—Merthyr Tydfil Dual Carriageway
  Aberfan Tribunal (Costs)
  Aberfan Tribunal (Costs)
  Road Improvements (Midlands—South Wales)
  Road Improvements (Midlands—South Wales)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Rankeillour—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ROYAL ASSENT
2.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Criminal Appeal Act,

Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act,

Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act,

Legitimation (Scotland) Act,

Rent Act,

Commonwealth Telecommunications Act,

Scottish Life Assurance Company Act,

Saint Mary, Summerstown Act.

AMERICAN BOMBING OF NORTH VIETNAM
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the facts now revealed about the Tonkin incidents which led to American bombing of North Vietnam, they will reconsider their support of such bombing.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been devoted consistently to securing an end to all the
1470
fighting in Vietnam. This, of course, includes the bombing of the North as well as military action in the South. Nothing that has been said or reported about the incidents to which the noble Lord refers in any way affects this policy.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, and appreciating what the Government have done in the cause of peace, may I ask him this question? In view of the fact that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in America, after study, decided that the bombing was precipitous and based on inadequate information, and that Senator Fulbright, who moved the acceptance of the bombing, has subsequently said he regretted this more than anything in his life; and in view of the need to find a successful outcome of the peace negotiations which are now beginning, would not Her Majesty's Government use all their influence to slop the bombing which is taking place in North Vietnam, the cessation of which U Thant says is necessary in the cause of peace?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the views of Senator Fulbright and the Secretary-General of the United Nations are, of course, of great interest and value in this great debate, but I think it would be wrong if I allowed my noble friend to imply that in some way the American bombing of North Vietnam followed immediately and precipitously, as lie has put it, after the Gulf of Tonkin incident. As he will well know, the American response to the incident was a singe raid on the base from which attacks on American ships were launched, and there was no other bombing offensive against North Vietnam for at least six months after. It does not help matters forward one bit at this particular time to single out one or other method or weapon of way being used by one or the other side. I am sure we are all gratified that these peace talks are about to begin, and I think that what we must do is to try to persuade both sides to put an end to all the fighting.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that Her Majesty's Government, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, have consistently followed a policy of neutrality in relation to the bombing of North Vietnam, and that there is no evidence to suggest, as is

1471
suggested in the Question, that Her Majesty's Government have supported the bombing?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I think it would be wrong of me to agree entirely that the position of co-Chairmanship of the Geneva Conference implies some position of absolute neutrality. In fact, it is well understood, I think, that both co-Chairmen have their interests in this conflict and cannot indeed regard themselves as entirely neutral. We do not regard ourselves as entirely neutral. Although we have deplored such bombing as has taken place on towns like Hanoi and Haiphong, we have not been prepared to go further than that.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend—I do not want to say one word that is going to make the peace negotiations more difficult—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BROCKWAY: I say that sincerely. Is my noble friend aware that not only the Labour Party Conference, and the Trades Union Congress and the Liberal Party Conference, but also the United Nations Association and the British Council of Churches have all urged that this bombing should stop, in order that peace negotiations should begin? Is it not a contribution towards that end if one urges that course, which the Secretary-General of the United Nations has urged?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I certainly, for my part, have no doubts whatever about the sincerity of my noble friend in this matter; he has demonstrated it many times before. But I really feel that at the moment it would be wrong to press the United States for further concessions. They have made an unconditional cut-back in bombing in an attempt to bring this matter to the conference table, and I think it would be wrong to press for further concessions while the nature of the response is uncertain. We will do all we can to help in this matter, but I feel that prudence and a certain amount of reticence are what is required of us at the moment.

PENSIONERS AND LOCAL BENEFITS
2.36 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what benefits, in addition to their pension, are now available locally to retirement pensioners: and by what means these can be claimed by pensioners who have no weekly pension book because they receive their pensions quarterly.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, some local authorities and other organisations do provide certain benefits locally for retirement pensioners, but these are entirely at the discretion of the organisations concerned and vary very widely according to locality. A pensioner who is paid quarterly, and does not therefore have a pension order book, can be issued, on request with a card which affirms his entitlement to retirement pension and is, I understand, normally acceptable in lieu of a pension order book.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply to my Question, may I ask him two further questions? First, how does such a pensioner obtain that card, and from whom? Secondly, will it be possible to be sure there is sufficient publicity so that those who draw their pension quarterly will know of this arrangement?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, with regard to the second question of the noble Baroness, I think that her Question and my Answer may draw some attention to the position to which she has referred. As regards where to obtain this card, a retirement pensioner should write direct to the Ministry of Social Security, Central Pensions Branch (Quarterly Payments), Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

ACCOUNTANTS' FEES AND TAX RELIEF
2.38 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make provision for private persons to set the cost of an accountant's fee against tax.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that successive Governments have taken the view that they would not be justified in singling out this expense for tax relief.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, why are this Government and other Governments so mean about this matter? May I ask my noble friend two questions? Are the Government aware that someone with a business can get the cost of an accountant for his private purposes set off against taxation or thrown in with his expenses, but those without a business cannot? Is that fair? Secondly, do the Government realise how complicated taxation has become? Are they aware that a tax inspector said to me recently, "Once upon a time, one knew. Then one knew where to look. Now one just does not know even where to look"? If Her Majesty's inspectors of taxes hardly know where to look, how can private citizens possibly be expected to know?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, taking the last point first, I should have thought that all of us—and that includes the Government—are aware of the complications of the tax system. I would say, however, that the form which has gone out this year is a simplified one, and I should think that that was to some extent a help to the noble Lord and others. As to the point about business accounts, I should have thought that there was a difference between the preparation of trading accounts and the completion of one's own Personal tax return. There is no question of unfairness here. As to the question of the Government's being mean, if this concession were made it would not reduce the total amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to raise; it would only be a matter of
1474
shifting the burden from one to the other.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the tax returns are complicated only where the sources of income are complicated?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think there is a good deal in what my noble friend said, and I am surprised that in another place members of the Opposition were seeking to get a £40 relief for the fees of their accountants completing their personal tax returns. A person requiring an accountant's fee of £40 is clearly in a very different position from the general run of working-class people.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is that not rather begging the question? Surely everybody knows that this is a most complicated matter. Could we not have it looked at again, with a view to getting a much simpler structure?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not talking about the structure of taxation but about what goes on when one employs an accountant to complete one's tax return. I am saying that there are millions of people in this country under P.A.Y.E. who do not require an accountant, and if a concession were made to those who do employ an accountant it would simply mean that the amount of money so lost to the Exchequer would have to be collected in other ways.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, does not the noble Lord realise that the P.A.Y.E. taxation system is done for the people?
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, in view of the fact that this may affect numbers of retired people and pensioners, and having regard to the intricacies of the modern taxation system, may I ask my noble friend whether this is not the kind of reasonable, modest concession that the Government could well make?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the majority of retired people and pensioners have not the sort of money coming in which requires an accountant.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, are not the Government aware that millions of working class people who are being taxed under the P.A.Y.E. system are not aware in any degree whether or

1475
not they are being properly assessed for tax, and they feel a great sense of grievance in this respect?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am aware that there are many people who employ accountants and thereby save more in taxation than they pay to the accountants.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, did the Minister understand the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, to say that he understood the Finance Bill?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, when my noble friend said that if this concession were granted the money so lost to the Exchequer would have to be made up from other sources, are we to understand that a good many people are paying more tax than they ought to pay?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend, for whose astute mind I have the greatest respect, completely missed the point. If a concession were made it would mean that in this particular respect the Chancellor would not be collecting that money, and all I was saying was that he would have to collect the same amount of money in other directions.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is the duty of every citizen to take the best possible advantage of the tax laws as they exist? Therefore, would it not become the Government to give the citizen every assistance in this respect by allowing him the cost of his professional adviser?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand the attitude of the noble Lord, but I would not encourage it to the extent of paying the man who was an accomplice in avoiding taxation.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to withdraw that suggestion? It has never been suggested from any side of the House that there was any question of an "accomplice" in trying to avoid taxation; it is a matter of the taxpayer getting the advantages to which he is properly and legally entitled.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I withdraw what I said to the noble Lord,
1476
Lord Trefgarne, if it was taken to imply improper avoidance. I did not mean that.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there is any evidence that the Inland Revenue deal in any way unfairly with the income which is disclosed to them?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on balance, and in the case of the majority of people with whom I mix, if they play fairly with the Inland Revenue they receive fair treatment in return.

USE OF SHELL/B.P. FUEL IN THE YEMEN
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm or deny reports that the B.P. oil refinery in Aden is supplying fuel for use in Russian MiG fighters used in the Yemen.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I understand that the Shell Company of South Yemen, a joint Shell/B.P. Company, have a contract to supply the Yemen Petroleum Corporation with oil products, including aviation fuel. Some of their supplies come from the B.P. Refinery in Little Aden. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to confirm or deny reports on the uses to which this fuel is put.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that reports have reached me, particularly from Eritrea, and presumably confirmed in other countries in that area, that considerable consternation is felt by people in those countries about this matter, particularly as they believe that Shell/B.P. is a company which is 51 per cent. Government controlled, and that a certain degree of alarm and despondency has been built up?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry if there is alarm and despondency in regard to this matter. I can only

1477
reply once again that I have no knowledge of how the Yemen Petroleum Corporation uses the oil products and the aviation fuel supplied to it under the contract. The noble Earl will be aware that fuel is required for many purposes, including civil aviation, but I am afraid I cannot go further than that because we have no further information.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, would it not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to make some inquiries to see whether or not any of this fuel from partially British-owned refineries is being used in these aircraft and, if so, to try to prevent the supplies reaching their destination?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the noble Lord is making some assumptions of fact which I cannot accept. I am not quite sure to what he refers by "these aircraft". As I have said, I know of no way in which these products are used that is in conflict with British law and regulations or is in any way an infringement, and there is certainly no ground for intervention by us.

THE NUCLEAR REACTOR PROGRAMME
2.48 p.m.
LORD SHERFIELD LORD SHERFIELD rose to call attention to the report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Science and Technology on the United Kingdom Nuclear Reactor Programme; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. When I put this Motion down, I never expected to move it. The Select Committee on Science and Technology met first in February of last year, and produced its Report in October. I anticipated that the issues would have been settled by now, and that to initiate a debate would have been superfluous. However, six months have gone by, the matter is still hanging, and I make no apology for pressing my Motion this afternoon. I hope that the members of the Select Committee in another place will feel that my initiative here will be helpful in accelerating action on their Report by the Government and the interested parties.
This is the first Report of the first specialised Select Committee. It is interesting that the Committee should have selected nuclear power for its debut, and though, in terms, the Report is limited to the United Kingdom Nuclear Reactor Programme, it raises some rather broader issues which I shall endeavour to identify. In the first place, it establishes certain facts about the United Kingdom nuclear programme which have long been in dispute. The original purpose of this programme, say the Committee—the establishment of a new lower cost primary energy source for the British Isles—is already attained. The existing Magnox stations have more than lived up to expectations, in terms of both output and availability. It was right, they conclude, that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority should have devoted so much effort to the development of the as graphite reactor; indeed, they should press ahead for the development of high temperature reactors of this type, and should complete the Dragon experiment at Win-frith Heath if our European partners drop out of it. It was right, too, to diversify into the field of water reactors, and the A.E.A. and the industry are encouraged and should be enabled to speed up the development of the steam generating heavy water reactor. The Committee approve of the fast reactor programme, and spur the Atomic Energy Authority on to further efforts in this field.
The Committee accept the view that as far as the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme is concerned, electricity produced by nuclear fission will be commercially cheaper than electricity produced from coal, and is likely to become cheaper still. The arguments put forward by the Coal Board and others against tin; view are decisively rejected, and the Government are urged to face the consequences of a rapid contraction of the coal industry.
The Committee go further in saying that the United Kingdom is in drawer of falling behind other advanced countries in the rate of installation of nuclear power, especially the United States. They very properly emphasise that nuclear fission is a cleaner and more sophisticated way of obtaining energy than burning fossil fuels, and that cleanliness and avoidance of atmospheric pollution in the large-scale production of electrical energy is already important. The Committee

1479
therefore draw attention to the economic advantage to the country of an increase in the size of the present nuclear power programme. It would be interesting to hear what the Government's position is on this. The Committee, although they are quite clear in their conclusions, recommend that, in order to set all doubts at rest, there should be an examination by an independent outside agency of the purely financial aspects of costing of all methods of energy supply. The subject of costing has indeed become almost inextricably complicated, and I should like to know whether the Government intend to accept this recommendation.
The Select Committee, after full inquiry, have thus given complete endorsement to what has been done so far to develop the nuclear power industry, and I need hardly say that this will give great gratification to all in the Atomic Energy Authority, in the Central Electricity Generating Board and in industry who have been responsible for these developments. This has been a collective endeavour by a very great number of people over twenty years, but perhaps I may be allowed to single out for mention to-day the late Sir John Cockcroft, who did so much to conceive and lay out the programme, and the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, who was largely responsible for the remarkable engineering feats of the early years and who, I am delighted to see, is taking part in our debate to-day.
I now turn to the more difficult and more controversial question of the future organisation of the industry and of the Atomic Energy Authority. This has, quite rightly, to come up for review now, mainly because the first phase of the civil nuclear programme has come to an end with the establishment of competitive nuclear power, and we are entering a new era. The Committee first throw an envious glance at the American system under which the main research and development work is let out by the Atomic Energy Commission on contract to universities and to industrial firms. Virtually all the Commission's installations are run for them. This system has proved to have many advantages, but in 1946 it was not one which either British industry or the Government were able or willing to adopt. We plumped for
1480
State monopoly in research and development and, as far as the fuel cycle was concerned, for State manufacture. It is too late to put the clock back now and to undo what has been done, though it is not, of course, too late to introduce modifications. The Committee's solution is of a root-and-branch kind. It involves the disbandment of the consortia, and the disintegration of the Atomic Energy Authority.
In considering this question, there are two broad issues which affect one's judgment. They are the question of exports and the question of competition. Our export performance in the civil nuclear field has not come up to expectation, and it is relevant to ask why. I think that part of the explanation is the following. One of the main consequences, and perhaps the main disadvantage, of the enlargement of the civil nuclear programme in the mid-'fifties was that it threw such a heavy load on the industry that the consortia were not able, or not willing, to make a real effort in the export field. On the other hand, the Americans laid the foundations of their success in this period. They moved in quickly after the so-called Atoms For Peace Conference in Vienna in 1956. They made an agreement with Euratom. They offered cooperation and attractive incentives for nuclear development. Whenever one visited a European nuclear laboratory there was a representative of Westinghouse or of General Electric working in the laboratory alongside the local experts. Of representatives of British industry there was little sign. The benefits of this careful groundbaiting were later realised by the United States.
Another consequence was that such tenders as were put in by British industry were greatly in excess of American and Canadian tenders, which were also accompanied by extremely favourable financial terms. Finally, the Central Electricity Generating Board hesitated over-long in ordering an advanced gas-cooled reactor, which gave the Americans two vital years in which to establish their strength in and inside overseas markets. The Select Committe are inclined to pooh-pooh the suggestion that a domestic order is a prerequisite of a foreign order. Personally, I think that in this they are mistaken. But, however this may be, British industry and the Atomic Energy Authority did make a fresh start in the export field in 1966 with

1481
the formation of the British National Export Executive. This has not so far been successful in securing export orders, and the Select Committee recommend that it should be wound up and the problem of exports passed to the Board of Trade for study. What do the Government think about that? To me it is not very clear what a Government Department can achieve where the A.E.A. and industry have not succeeded.
One should not overlook the difficulties that have been encountered, the lost opportunities in the past, the nationalistic attitudes of the present, which lead countries to follow uneconomic and expensive protectionist policies in order to build up their own resources rather than to use overseas facilities. In these circumstances the Committee may have been rather unfair to the British National Export Executive, which has done what it could with the resources and terms of reference given to it, and there seems little point in abolishing it without putting some other system in its place. In practice, I believe that future export arrangements will depend on the industrial organisation to be adopted. But it is, I think, a general rule that only the manufacturer of a product can sell it successfully abroad.
One of the purposes of the organisation of the nuclear industry into a number of consortia was to prevent monopoly and to preserve competition. This view perhaps had some merit, as leading to diversity of approach to a novel engineering and construction programme, at a time when a number of orders for relatively small nuclear stations were contemplated. But it largely lost its raison d'être when the size of the individual unit increased beyond expectation. This meant that with, at most, one order in a year, or in an even longer period, the C.E.G.B. had either to give an order to each consortium in turn, or, in effect, to put one or more out of business. The fearful expense of tendering made the position all the more difficult. Thus, competition in the full sense is not attainable.
The Select Committee recognise this problem, and they advocate two new monopolies, one for the construction of the nuclear boiler—what they call the "nuclear island"—and one for fuel manufacture, the competition coming from the foreign manufacturer, and the
1482
Central Electricity Generating Board being encouraged to seek foreign tenders. This is pretty drastic. It involves the elimination of certain vested interests which are not necessarily bad ones; it involves the radical reorganisation of the industry, and the virtual dissolution of the Atomic Energy Authority. Moreover, it is not a solution which commands even majority support, since the Central Electricity Generating Board and an important part of industry are against it.
It seems to me that this puts the Government in a difficult position. Suppose they were to accept the Committee's recommendation? How are they to impose it—by legislation? Moreover, the proposal itself is not very precise. The new company, that is to say the Nuclear Boiler Company, is to comprise a substantial part of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, together with
"those design and manufacturing resources peculiar to nuclear engineering"
and
"so much of the Authority's facilities as is at present devoted to research and development of a commercial nature"
To one who is fairly familiar with the organisation of the Atomic Energy Authority, this poses a problem of dissection so difficult as to be liable lead to the death of both halves of the patient. By propounding so controversial I. solution, the Committee have left others to make what they can of it. I cannot help wondering whether there is not some rather less far-reaching method which might prove to be more workable: for example, having the Atomic Energy Authority and two industrial groups with interlocking shareholdings, a large consortium with a single export organisation, capable of standing behind any export order. This would not provide competition in the true sense, for the reasons I have given, but it would provide a check on monopolistic practices, and it is relevant that the Central Electricity Generating Board consider that the degree of competition offered by two industrial groups in the domestic market would be of value to them.
The second proposal is that a new British fuel supply and manufacturing company should be established to take the place of the present Atomic Energy Authority monopoly of the fuel cycle. I

1483
do not myself find this proposal to supersede the existing Authority's control of the fuel manufacture and supply very attractive. This part of the Atomic Energy Authority's activities is, and has been for some time, on a commercial and profitable basis. It is not a process which private industry has taken up in this country, except to a maginal extent. It therefore differs from the design and construction of nuclear stations. Many may regret that it is a State monopoly, but this one is possibly better than some. And there would be real difficulty about giving private firms a stake in this enterprise, if only on account of its size and the value of its assets.
The Committee's reason for making this proposal seems to be partly connected with a belief that it would make easier collaboration with the European Economic Community. But I find this argument rather difficult to follow; nor has it yet been borne out by experience, vide the contract for the supply of plutonium to Euratom announced only this week. In any case, the present system is undoubtedly working well, and there does not seem to be the same urgency about dealing with it as there is in the case of the organisation of the rest of the nuclear industry.
Finally, as regards the Atomic Energy Authority itself, the Committee say they are satisfied that the Authority has done its basic task, that of nuclear research and development, with success. But the Committee go on to suggest, really without further argument, that the Authority should now be broken up into four parts. The consequences of this proposal do not seem to have been fully thought out, and I would suppose that it will have created anxiety among the staff of the Atomic Energy Authority which ought to be allayed as soon as possible.
These personal doubts and opinions are perhaps not important, and I expect there will be a diversity of view expressed in the debate. But the essential point is that a decision in the matter should be reached without delay. The present uncertainty is having an unsettling and damaging effect on the nuclear industry, which in turn has ramifications throughout the rest of industry, as well as on the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board.
1484
So the uncertainty fans out over a wide field. The time has almost come when the fact of a decision is more important than its nature. I recognise that this question is an extremely difficult one for the Government, and that its solution has been made more complicated by the difference of view which exists about the validity of the recommended solutions. I recognise, too, that it would be much more satisfactory if an agreement could be worked out by the interested parties themselves, the consortia, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority.
It would not matter, in my view, if such an agreement were to depart from the Select Committee's proposals; nor, if there is a real prospect of an agreed solution, that it would take a few more weeks to work out. I hope the noble Lord who is replying to this debate will be able to throw some light on how the Government's mind is moving; what steps they have taken or propose to take in the matter, and when a decision may be expected.
Up to now, I fear that this has been a speech of restricted range, but there are in the Report two points of much more general interest which I will mention in conclusion. The Select Committee were impressed by what they thought was lack of control of the Atomic Energy Authority and, by extension, of other public boards by the responsible Ministers. They have two proposals to deal with this problem. The first, on a narrow front, is that a technical assessment unit to advise the Government on items in the Atomic Energy Authority's programme should be set up.
Now, my Lords, I hope this proposal will be firmly resisted. There is in this country a growing trend towards the superimposing of bureaucracy on bureaucracy. A national board works out a programme and sends it to a Minister, whose Department does the work all over again. In this case, the Select Committee seem to think that the Ministries of Technology and Power do not do their work very well. So it is proposed to insert a third group of bureaucrats, which will not, of course, prevent the same work being done by three groups rather than by two. Since the Central Electricity Generating Board is heavily involved in a programming of civil nuclear power

1485
projects, they may well make a fourth group. Surely, my Lords, the system of public boards is based on the principle that they have responsibility for their decisions, subject to finance, and that they are accountable for their decisions? If the Government Departments are inadequate, which I do not believe, then strengthen them rather than bring in a tertium quid.
The second proposal is that a body should be set up within our system of Government to perform functions similar to that of a United States Joint Congressional Committee. I personally would greatly prefer this proposal to that for an assessment panel, and it is, of course, of much wider scope. But there are two points of considerable importance. The first is that it should be a Joint Committee; in other words, Members of this House should be associated with Members of the other place.
The second point is that if a Joint Committee must have its own secretariat—and there is certainly a case for this—then there is a danger that this secretariat may become another little bureaucracy interposed between the public board and the Ministry concerned. Thus, the Joint Committee plus its secretariat may become an element in the Government mechanism, having power without responsibility. This phenomenon can be observed, as I know by experience, certainly in rather different circumstances in the United States, and it is not one which it is easy to guard against.
The question of assistance to specialised committees was examined in 1959 in a Special Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. In fact, this Report never seems to have been followed up. Again, there was some reference to the general question of joint specialised committees in the debate in this House on April 23 on the organisation of government. But here in this Report there is a specific proposal, and I am sure the House-would be interested in any views which the Government wished to express on it. The Select Committee's Report is wide-ranging, and I fear that in the time available I have not dealt with all its implications and its recommendations. But I hope I have sorted out some of the salient points in such a way as to throw attractive flies
1486
over the speakers who are to follow, and even over the Government Beach itself.
In conclusion, my Lords, the Report of the Select Committee in effect confirms the view that the British nuclear energy programme is the foremost postwar technological achievement of this country. I am concerned that its further development should not be held up, or its success jeopardised, by difficulties over the structure and organisation of the nuclear industry, and I earnestly hope that a solution will now be sought energetically and with all appropriate, speed. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, as a former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, is eminently qualified to move this Motion to-day, and he has done so in his usual cogent and convincing manner which makes him such an asset to your Lordships' House. Having worked with the noble Lord in some of his previous incarnations, I know what an incisive brain he has and what an able head he made of the Atomic Energy Authority, We are all grateful to him for having expressed his views in so forthright and uncompromising a fashion in a debate which clearly promises to be of considerable importance, especially in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, a former Chairman of the C.E.G.B., is to make his maiden speech. I think we ought to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, on having persuaded Lord Hinton to speak, and to congratulate Lord Hinton upon doing so. He, too, will speak with the great authority of his former post behind him, and we look forward to what he has to tell us.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has given us a good deal of homework in our efforts to master this very useful 500-page Report. We should thank all the members of the Committee for their arduous work. Personally, it has involved my going to bed with it over the past week—somewhat to Lady Bessborough's pique. Not, perhaps, since the eight volumes of the Robbins Report on Higher Education have we had to master so much data, and our own inbuilt computers must have been working overtime. But if all this data—500 pages of it, or about over 200,000 words—had

1487
been fed into a computer and processed, and had we asked the machine to give us the optimum solution to the problems of this industry, it certainly would not have come up with the Government's so far sterile answer which, in this dynamic, technological age, has, in the past three-and-a-half years, been, in effect, to do absolutely nothing. Not even the infallible, if mischievous, computer HAL 1900 in the film "2001" would have come up with so negative and dangerous a reply. But more of the Government's do-nothing attitude later. I recognise that when you are so well documented it is the more difficult to make up your mind.
However, I think, in the first place, that we should accept the Select Committee's view that, in so far as the programme for the advanced gas-cooled reactor is concerned, electricity produced by nuclear fission will be commercially cheaper than electricity produced from coal, and is likely to become cheaper still. When this will be, we do not know. This is not, I think, an occasion on which we can discuss in detail the effect which this will have on the Coal Board, but we must accept the fact that there must be a rapid contraction of the coal industry, not only in consequence of possibly cheaper nuclear power but also because of increased oil supplies, North Sea gas, and a general change in consumer preferences.
I think that a good case has been made out for the A.G.R., in that nuclear fission is a cleaner and more sophisticated way of obtaining energy than burning fossil fuels. The A.G.R. has, not least among other advantages, safety margins which mean that A.G.R. power stations can be located nearer the main need—that is to say, in densely populated areas—than can other nuclear reactors. And in view of its economic and other advantages, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, in asking what the Government intend to do to increase the size of the present nuclear power programme. Do they consider we should continue to give priority to gas-cooled reactors—I should be glad of the noble Lord's attention on this very important point—or do they believe that greater effort should now be directed towards the development of water reactors? Which do they think is better?
1488
In regard to the Committee's recommendation that there should be an examination by an independent outside agency of costing all methods of energy supply, I think I ought to make the point that the Select Committee were very much pressed for time in getting out their Report because the Minister of Technology was exerting considerable pressure on the Committee to publish it when they did last year, so that the recommendations might be taken into account in the Government's proposed reorganisation of the industry—which was claimed to be a matter of great urgency. As a result, when the Committee's Report went to press they had not had an opportunity of giving full consideration to the Coal Board Memorandum. Had they been able to study this Report carefully—especially the comparative figures which were agreed upon with the Coal Board—I suspect that the Committee might have taken a rather different view. In view of the pressure brought to bear by the Minister to cut short the Committee's proceedings, it seems extraordinary that the Report has still not so far been discussed on the Floor of another place. Surely, Parliamentary time should be given to it. I find the Government's attitude over this matter to be quite arbitrary and even insulting to another place. It is curious indeed that we should be allowed time to discuss it, but not they. I think that my right honourable friend and honourable friends there have justifiable complaints on this score.
In regard to the future organisation of the industry and of the Atomic Energy Authority, I recall that ever since 1964, when I made a tentative study of the structure of the British and the American nuclear industries, I was more impressed by the way in which the United States Atomic Energy Commission and American industry managed their affairs than I was, I regret to say, by our own organisation, good as it may have been in the beginning in fulfilling immediate postwar requirements. Three and a half years of Labour rule have gone by since I came to this conclusion, and I still think that the American system of leaving the design and construction of reactors to industry itself, particularly to Westinghouse and General Electric, and placing even basic research out to contract with firms such as Union Carbide, has

1489
proved more satisfactory than our system here by which the Atomic Energy Authority have so much wider powers of their own in these fields.
I would certainly agree with Professor Blackett, the Special Adviser to the Ministry of Technology, when he said only last year—and I strongly endorse what he said—that
"Britain, after the war, inadvertently took a wrong turning when it continued to rely so much for defence and atomic energy research and development on its own Government stations rather than on industry."
I think that Professor Blackett agrees that in the United States, with a bigger fraction of Government funds for defence and atomic energy going to industry and a smaller fraction to Government stations, the United States has gained greatly from the resulting strengthening of industry and the building of very strong firms, and that, relatively speaking, Britain lost over this.
I believe, too, that with at least one of the consortia the monolithic nature of our own development organisation was largely responsible for the slow progress made in producing a reactor system that was competitive with American water reactors. Germany, for example, commenced reactor development later than most industrial countries, but by adopting American technology and the American organisational structure made up lost ground. As a result, both Siemens and A.E.G. are themselves developing prototype fast reactors and must thus become strong competitors of this country. As we know, no British reactor has been exported during the present Government's tenure of office. Indeed, Britain has obtained only two export orders—one from Italy and one from Japan—both of them over four years ago; whereas the Americans, with or without the Germans or the Japanese, have sold very considerably more reactors; and even the Canadians have effectively entered the field, especially with their CANDU reactor, which they have sold to Pakistan.
If, therefore, we are to capture a larger share of this market, it is clearly essential to improve our reactor systems rapidly. And in this connection I would accept fully the view put forward in the Amendment moved in the Select Committee to paragraph 130, on which I was interested to see that even one Labour
1490
Member abstained. That Amendment, which I am sorry was not adopted, rejected the proposal that a single Nuclear Boiler Company should be established. Personally, I would certainly agree that there should be two Nuclear Boiler Companies which would undertake the work under Government development contracts. Your Lordships must be impressed, as were the Conservative Members in the Committee, by the fact that the Central Electricity Generating Board, the dominant customer in this country for nuclear boilers, were opposed to the setting up of a monopoly organisation for the design and construction of nuclear power stations both at home and abroad.
The reasons for C.E.G.B. opposition were set out clearly in their memorandum, which stated that while the A.E.A. were the major repository of nuclear knowledge—and we all agree with that—they were far from being so as regards design, manufacture, erection and operation of commercial plant. Moreover, the proposal for one Boiler Company would, if accepted, virtually abolish technical competition and this, the C E.G.B. thought, would be undesirable. They believe—and I am glad they do; and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, has to say about this—that competition is the best spur to efficiency, stimulating, as it does, a response to market requirements, and that the one-company proposal would relegate industry to the role of component-makers only. Indeed, to deny industry responsibility for the development of designs or for the overall end result must inevitably lead to stagnation with little lasting incentive to cut costs or improve performance. The Conservatives on the Select Committee could not, therefore, accept the proposal that as the present consortia were phased out a single Company based on the A.E.A. should be established.
In this respect I would agree with the views of one of the consortia, that the simplest way of adopting the best features of the American method of working would be to transfer the work of the A.E.A. headquarters design team, as and when practicable, to two Companies and to make these Companies responsible for the control and the development of new reactor systems or improvements to existing systems.

1491
I also agree that Government funds which are now available to the reactor group of the A.E.A. should be channelled through the two Companies, who would place contracts for the necessary research and development work—which itself would nevertheless continue to be run by A.E.A. personnel. A small committee drawn from the A.E.A., the C.E.G.B., and the two Boiler Companies would ensure that work was not being duplicated. Gradually, I believe, Government financial support should be tapered off and made available only for the development of entirely new reactor systems. I agree, too, that in the future, if at all possible, such development should be carried out jointly with European countries.
In this very important context I should like to stress the importance of British Boiler Companies having associates overseas in selling our types of reactor. I know that one consortium has been having discussions with German, Italian, Belgian and French organisations, and has now agreed to set up an international company and sell its reactors through this company. I believe that this basic principle also applies to-day to other industries in this country if we are to ensure that we gain orders in Europe, and indeed in other parts of the world. If there are to be mergers, it seems to me more important that they should be on a European or international basis, rather than on a purely national monopolistic basis. Otherwise there seems less likelihood of our being able to sell reactors on the Continent or elsewhere overseas.
This view, my Lords, ties in closely with the desirability which the Prime Minister has expressed on more than one occasion of creating a European Technological Community through a European Centre or Institute which would encourage technological co-operation through mergers of this kind. Such mergers can, I believe, be achieved more effectively by the industries concerned than by Government itself, although Government no doubt will have to play some role in all this. One of the reasons why, for example, in the space field ELDO has not been as successful as it might have been is the fact that it is basically an inter-Governmental rather than, as I might put it, an inter-industrial organisation. I
1492
think the same kind of considerations apply also to Euratom, which has not proved to be a very effective organisation.
In regards to exports generally, I agree that the British Nuclear Export Executive, B.N.X., should be wound up. Moreover, although we can have no objection to the Board of Trade studying this whole problem of exports, and of course giving firms what help they can, I think that they should pass primary responsibility for exports to the kind of international companies which I think we must all have in mind. We cannot ignore the kind of nationalistic attitudes and uneconomic protectionist policies to which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has referred, which are bound to obtain in certain countries if a company is purely national in scope. And I would urge strongly that, where they have not already done so, companies in this country should be allowed to merge with their European rather than with their purely national counterparts. We must, as I say, be associated with indigenous companies in other countries and encourage private enterprise co-operation. We must think internationally. Big firms in this country should, I consider, have a German partner, for example. Some already have. We have a considerable lead in Britain, especially in fast breeder development, but now the Germans are developing a fast breeder, too. And in certain parts of the world the Germans are, I believe, doing even better than the Americans.
But, above all, I agree with the noble Lord that the Government must take decisions in these matters as soon as possible, in order to relieve the growing uncertainty which is doing it a lot of damage. Vacillation and indecision will be the death of the industry. I gather also, although it has not, I think, been announced officially, that the whole future of the industry is to be referred to the I.R.C. We always seem to be referring things to the I.R.C. I wonder whether it is right to use it in this way, or whether this will not result in further disastrous delays.
There are a few other questions which I should like to ask the Government very briefly indeed. First of all, what is being done about fusion research? In paragraph 75 the Committee state that they heard only little evidence of the fusion research work which is being done at

1493
the Authority's laboratory at Culham. They add that the decision greatly to reduce the expenditure on such research is in contrast to the general increase in fusion work in other countries. Can the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, justify this reduction?
Then in regard to the steam generating heavy water reactor (S.G.H.W.R.), is Britain going to order one? It seems most unlikely that we shall be able to export this reactor overseas if there is no order even in this country. Although I recognise that this smaller reactor is likely to be more of a requirement overseas than here, where the A.G.R. should fill the bill pretty well, there may well be certain areas in the United Kingdom where a steam generating heavy water reactor would prove suitable. It is three years since the A.G.R. was announced but so far there have been no orders from overseas. How are we to avoid this situation in the case of other reactors, such as the steam generating one, the high temperature water reactor, and later the fast reactor of which the first prototype is now being developed at Dounreay?
I would also ask the noble Lord—I am coming very near to the end of my remarks—whether we are going to press on with the high temperature water reactor. Would he not agree that this is most important if we are to compete in the export market? This ties in with my earlier question as to whether we should continue to give precedence to gas-cooled reactors or now concentrate more on water reactors.
Then in regard to fuel supply, it is clearly important that the A.E.A. should also have foreign partners. In this respect we should look at the demand and then see how we can meet it. Can the noble Lord say how far we have got in negotiations concerning Capenhurst and the building up of a fuel supply other than from the United States? Am I also right in thinking that there is a new Dutch diffusion method which may be cheaper?
I should like to ask one further question, this time about nuclear marine propulsion. The noble Lord the Leader of the House will remember that, as a
1494
very "new boy" to the Front Bench on the other side of the House in 1963–64 I was pressed on this subject almost every week in a series of Unstarred Questions from the late Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who urged very toughly—and I had a very rough time over this matter that we should go ahead with civil marine propulsion. I notice, in reading the relevant part of the Committee's Report on this subject, that it might well have been written in 1963 or 1961, since the arguments which I then used regarding the deferment of such a project are repeated in this Report. Even if it may be some time before it becomes economic, I do not think we should forget about nuclear marine propulsion. This is a subject in which I think the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is also most interested. I am certainly surprised that a Government who when in Opposition pressed so strongly for further development in this field do not appear to have got on with it themselves. Then what about nuclear rocket motors for the aircraft and spacecraft of the future? Are we doing any research in that field? And, if so, should we not press on with it? We must look ahead to the needs of future generations.
Finally, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, in his plea that we should establish a Joint Parliamentary Committee on similar lnes to the U.S. Joint Congressional Committee, and that noble Lords in this House should also be members of such a Committee. As we know, the present Select Committee consists solely of Members of another place. There is a great deal to be said for such a Joint Committee, and I believe that our friends in another place would welcome Members from your Lordships' House. I shall not express any views on the secretariat, because I suppose it clearly must have one, and if it is going to have one it must have an efficient one, but I think I agree that it should not be too large. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for having initiated this important debate, and I look forward to hearing the answers which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will five to the questions which we have raised in what I can only describe as this sorry tale.
3.37 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I should like to echo the noble Earl's last remark, that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for having initiated this debate to-day. It has enabled me to do a little stimulating homework, and I hope that the discussion which follows will be equally stimulating. I shall now make a formal statement of the Government's attitude to the "state of play" as at present, and I hope to reply to the debate, with the permission of the House, at a later stage. So if the noble Earl and the noble Lord will forgive me, I shall answer specific points later in the debate, and at this stage do no more than state the Government's position.
From the outset the basic aim of the United Kingdom's civil atomic energy policy has been to encourage the sure and safe development of a low-cost energy source for the benefit of the country's economy. The lines of advance have been, first, to secure the general development of the new technology as rapidly as possible; second, to seek to meet the requirements of the Generating Boards; and third, to develop and exploit export markets for United Kingdom reactors and fuels.
About three years ago, in May, 1965, with the award of the Dungeness "B" contract to an advanced gas-cooled reactor design the exploratory phase of the atomic energy programme can be said to have ended, in that it marked the stage when nuclear power was seen to have become the most economic source of energy generation in this country. At the same time British reactor designs were shown to be fully competitive. The estimated costs of nuclear power generation have continued to decline. Thus the estimated cost of generation from Hinkley Point "B" is 0·52d. per kWh compared with 0·57d. for Dungeness "B". Further and considerable cost reductions are expected from advanced gas-cooled reactors in the post-1975 period, and the recent White Paper, Fuel Policy, predicts that A.G.R. costs will be down by 20 per cent. by 1980. Fast reactors in the 1980s and 1990s will provide even cheaper power.
The disappointing results so far of our efforts to sell nuclear reactors abroad
1496
stem from a number of reasons. Some of these are connected with weaknesses in organisation which we now aim to correct. Others lie outside the scope of normal commercial transactions, since in this sort of field where national prestige plays a part—where even foot-and-mouth disease plays a part—political as well as economic considerations are sometimes decisive. There are also technical factors. The A.G.R. system designed for the domestic market and generating about 500 to 600 megawatts is not ideally suited for overseas markets where smaller units of about 100 to 150 megawatts are in greater demand. The steam generating heavy water reactor (S.G.H.W.) recently unveiled at Winfrith has been designed specifically to meet this demand, and we have high hopes of being able to exploit this versatile design in the export markets.
While it will be necessary to maintain a sizeable effort on research and development in support of systems now in hand, it is clear that the emphasis of our civil nuclear programme has now shifted to the stage where we must do everything possible to exploit the vast store of experience and expertise which has been built up in the last twelve or thirteen years by selling our reactors and fuel in overseas markets. It was because of this change in emphasis, and because of our comparative lack of success in the export field, that early in 1967 the Government came to the conclusion that the existing organisation of the nuclear power industry was unsatisfactory; and this led to the initiation by my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology of discussions with all sectors of the industry and Government concerned with the nuclear power programme with a view to making changes in that organisation. The examination of the nuclear reactor programme by the Select Committee and its subsequent Report was, therefore, most timely.
Since the publication of the Report there have been a number of informal discussions with most of those interests which will be involved in the reorganisation of the industry. It has become clear from these discussions that there is considerable disparity of view about what is practicable and what new form of organisation will be most effective. As

1497
noble Lords are aware, the Select Committee was itself divided on the major question whether or not there should be a single organisation to design and organise the construction of nuclear boilers. The arguments for and against this recommendation can be read by your Lordships in the Minutes of the Committee's meeting of October 25, 1967, on pages lxxix-lxxxii of the Report. This division of opinion is reflected in industry and the public authorities concerned.
It is clear, therefore, that any reorganisation will be difficult to achieve. There are, quite naturally, vested interests to overcome. One consortium has already a healthy programme of work. As is only too clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee, there are conflicting views to be reconciled. The interests of the staff of the various organisations involved must be carefully considered, and continuing uncertainty about their future is not conducive to the maintenance of good morale.
In spite of all the difficulties, the Government continue to be most anxious to arrive at an early solution to the major problem of the future structure of the industry. Initial talks with the chairmen of the consortia were held more than a year ago. Inevitably, the work and the Report of the Select Committee have prolonged the uncertainty both in industry and in the Atomic Energy Authority. Apart from the effect on the morale of the people concerned, our efforts overseas are also handicapped, owing to uncertainty about where future responsibility in this field will lie. In particular, arrangements for the commercial exploitation both at home and overseas of the two new reactor systems, the steam generating heavy water reactor and the fast reactor, cannot long be deferred. Both noble Lords who have spoken so far have stressed this point. Moreover, the possibility that these new reactor systems and an improved version of the advanced gas-cooled reactor may be very competitive with American designs, particularly in the light of the trend of current costs in the U.S.A. and elsewhere, makes it desirable from the commercial standpoint that any new organisation should quickly be brought into being to take advantage of them.
1498
Successive Governments have over the years spent considerable sums on research and development on nuclear power systems, and the present Government have the right and the duty to see that this investment produces dividends by way of an increase in overseas trade, in addition, of course, to whatever royalties may be obtained from the Central Electricity Generating Board and the long-term industrial and domestic advantage of using a cheaper mode of generating electricity than burning either coal or oil.
The design of the nuclear boiler constituent of a nuclear power station entails the participation not only of the nuclear engineers but also of the boilermakers and manufacturers of other major components who are normally responsible for the detailed design of their respective components within the parameters set by the nuclear engineers. This brings in a number of different industries; and in the actual construction of the complete power station the turbine and other electrical gear manufacturers, working to their own designs, and the civil engineers also have a major part to play.
As your Lordships know, it was decided at the outset of our civil nuclear programme that firms in these various industries should band together in nuclear consortia to design and build nuclear power stations on a turnkey basis. Latterly, after these nuclear consortia had in the process of time been reduced to three, they have been transformed from associations of firms into companies with a separate existence under their own management, and operating to some extent independently of their parent firms. Thus, the present organisation is exceedingly complex, and negotiations on a new structure for the nuclear industry entail discussion not merely with the nuclear companies or consortia but with a large number of their parent firms, many of them of major importance with widespread industrial interests, and often with associate and subsidiary companies overseas interested in one or other aspects of the nuclear business. Discussions are now in progress with the various interested parties. They are bound to be delicate. In these circumstances, I would ask noble Lords to excuse me from giving any further details of what it is in the Government's mind to achieve during these negotiations.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting him for one moment? Could he tell us what role the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation are playing in this; or is he going to mention that later?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am glad the noble Earl is waiting upon my words with such impatience. I am going to say something about this in a moment. I am sorry I have to speak for so long. To resume my statement, whatever I might say could possibly prejudice the success of these negotiations, and I am sure that noble Lords taking part in the debate on this Motion will share the view of the Government that the objective must be to try to secure as satisfactory an organisation as possible. I am sure that many of those who will participate in this debate will have had much more intimate and detailed knowledge of the situation in this industry than I can claim. Their views on what it is desirable to aim at and what may be achievable in the reorganisation of the industry will undoubtedly be helpful to the Government in a somewhat tangled situation.
The benefits of competition in this highly specialised field can be overrated, and in this industry such competition as might take place is much more likely to be between different reactor systems rather than between different organisations. From this standpoint there is much to be said for the majority view of the Select Committee, that we should aim to set up a single, strong design/ construction organisation, in which the Atomic Energy Authority and the principal manufacturers will participate, formed from elements of the existing consortia and the U.K.A.E.A. The Government have in fact invited the Chairman of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to seek the reactions of industry to a reorganisation along the lines of the majority view of the Committee. The Chairman's preliminary report to the Minister of Technology will not be available until later. Following that, delicate and complicated negotiations will be required. We are all anxious to reach a rapid decision, but I think your Lordships will agree that it is even more important to get the right results than to get them quickly, although I
1500
know that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, believes that speed is an important element in our calculations.
The scope of the present negotiations covers the Select Committee's recommendations in the beginning of the Blue Book, 1(a)(b) and (c), 2(a) and (b)(i). So far as Recommendation 6 is concerned, I should like to say that British Nuclear Executive has done valuable work in studying the prospects in export markets and establishing contact with possible customers, and publicising the achievements of the British nuclear power programme. Until the future organisation of the British nuclear industry becomes clear B.N.X. must stay in business. As regards Recommendation 3, the Government believe that there appear to be good arguments that a separate fuel organisation should be set up. However, the existing organisation has operated very successfully and a decision on the nature and timing of any changes cannot be taken until the shape of the new organisation for the design and construction of reactors has been determined. The remaining recommendations are being considered by the Government Departments concerned, and it is proposed to incorporate the Government's views on these matters either in an early statement or, if negotiations on the major problems of reorganisation are speedily concluded, in a comprehensive White Paper.
My Lords, we are debating here to-day the future of an industry which is the forefront of technological advance. The story of nuclear power generation is one of great success, and given the right organisation the industry and the nation now have a great opportunity to reap the rewards in overseas markets of all the effort and money which has gone into research and development over the past twenty years. To achieve that organisation, sacrifices may have to be made, there may be inconvenience both to corporate bodies and to individuals. But given flexibility of outlook, singleness of purpose, and true co-operation between Government and industry, the opportunity can be seized to the great advantage of us all.
3.52 p.m.
LORD HINTON OF BANKSIDE: My Lords, I crave your Lordships' indulgence. I do not agree with all the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Science and Technology but I should like

1501
to pay tribute to them for the very thorough and useful examination they have made of the nuclear power industry. Although I suppose it is unfashionable and it may be indiscreet to confess to disappointment, I am disappointed—and I am sure that my disappontment is shared by many of the other men who worked on the development of nuclear power in the 1950s—over the way in which the industry has developed in this country in the years that have passed since. We felt at that time that we were creating a new industry and we felt too that this country was leading the world in that new industry.
But, my Lords, the success of industry must, I suppose, be measured to some extent by the size of its order books. If we use this criterion in judging the success of the nuclear power industry, we find that the picture is not a very happy one, because in the two years 1966 and 1967 orders for about 40,000 megawatts capacity nuclear powered plant of American design were placed, while less than one-tenth of that capacity nuclear powered plant of British design was ordered. But, perhaps even worse, one finds that while reactors of American design have been ordered and are being built in eight overseas countries, only two countries have ordered a reactor of British design—and that more than ten years ago.
When one meets with disappointment of this kind, I think it is wise to seek the reason for it. I should like to suggest to your Lordships three reasons why progress has been, as I see it, disappointing. In the first place, I think the technological progress in this country was retarded by the large, obligatory, nuclear power programme of 1957. I do not seek to criticise the people who were responsible for that programme; indeed, I had some part of it myself. At that time the programme appeared to be absolutely necessary. The official forecast warned the electrical industries that at no date in the future would more than 52 million tons of coal a year be available for electricity generation; the Suez crisis curtailed supplies of oil; and it looked as if we must make extensive use of nuclear fuel, irrespective of cost, as quickly as possible.
But although that programme was reduced when supplies of fossil fuels
1502
improved in 1959, the programme remained large. The servicing of that large programme made heavy calls on the resources of the A.E.A. and of the generating boards and I think it diverted attention from the development of more advanced forms of reactors. But, even worse, it gave a guaranteed programme to the nuclear power industry, and that industry knew that, irrespective of economics, the Electricity Boards were bound to go on ordering nuclear power stations—each one of which was certainly better than the last but all of which were less economic than the conventional stations which could have been built concurrently—simply to meet an immutable long-term nuclear programme. That, I suggest, is one reason.
The second reason which I should like to suggest for our comparative lack of success is that it takes too long to build plant in this country; it takes us too long to get off the drawing board and out of the development laboratories into full-scale production. I believe that the figures published by the Central Electricity Generating Board giving a comparison of costs for the Dungeness reactor should convince an unbiased engineer anywhere in the world that in most circumstances there is very little to choose between the A.G.R. and the American reactor systems. But overseas buyers—and particularly those overseas buyers making a choice between two systems whose economics are more or less equal—are likely to follow the majority lead and to place their orders (remembering that there is little to choose) for the type of reactor for which most orders have been placed. If we in this country had been able to get the A.G.R. through the prototype and development stage 18 months or two years earlier than we did, I believe that position could have been reversed and we might have h id the American manufacturers trying to catch up with us, instead of our being in the position of trying to catch up with them. That, I suggest, is the second reason.
The third reason lies, I think, in the extremely vigorous and very expensive promotional campaign waged by the American manufacturers. In considering that, I think we should remember the great support that they get from the large power-plant consultants and engineer architect firms in the United States. Those

1503
organisations are an important component in getting overseas orders, because they are most likely to recommend to their clients the reactors which have been developed in their own country and with which they are familiar.
If, as I believe, those are three reasons for our disappointing performance, I think that we should be wise to ask ourselves what lessons we ought to learn from them. In the first place, I think that we should learn that it is a mistake to lay down a long-term, fixed, immutable programme for the use of given quantities of any type of fuel. Certainly broad, long-term Government planning is necessary, but I suggest that it should be flexible and that the decision on the type of fuel to be used in any power station when its construction is under consideration should be determined by the economic evaluation of that specific case; that the fuel to be used should be the fuel which gives the greatest economy and not the fuel which has to be used to meet an immutable Government programme.
In the second place I think that we must learn to do our construction work in this country more quickly. This is important not merely in the field of nuclear power, 'it is important in all the fields of engineering. The prospective buyer, particularly the prospective buyer from overseas is not impressed by the idea, however brilliant, that he sees on the drawing board, or in the development laboratory; he wants to see ironmongery working, and in order that we can show this before our competitors we must do construction work more quickly.
In the third place, I think we should be careful to see that we build up in this country strong teams of consultants and engineer architects. The existing consortia in the nuclear field, can, I believe, already act satisfactorily as engineer architects. The consultants have recently—I think with a great wisdom—formed a joint organisation for the design of nuclear power plant, but I think we ought always to remember that the great American power plant consortia and engineer architects get off-shore business because they are regularly employed by the United States utilities. Their off-shore business is built on the basis of the work
1504
that they do at home. We must aim to achieve this in the United Kingdom. British consultants should, I consider, be similarly employed, and this should be done even though it demands some change in the organisation of the electricity authorities; although I feel that it would be possible to conceive an organisation in which it could be done without any dramatic change in those organisations. I think that we must look to the future, and that as we do so we shall find that it is much brighter than the past has been.
My Lords, the Atomic Energy Authority has within the last six months commissioned the steam generating heavy water reactor at Winfrith Heath. Although that was developed with the primary purpose of competing in the small reactor field, I believe that it has great potentiality in the field of the larger reactors. It may well prove to be a better reactor than the A.G.R. and perhaps, with some limitations on the very largest sizes, it may well prove to be better than either of the American established reactor types. The techniques of manufacture and construction of the steam generating heavy water reactor are very different from those of the A.G.R. and are much more in line with the techniques of the American reactor manufacture and construction. I think that in deciding how to exploit the steam generating heavy water reactor it would be worth while to look at the pattern of industry which has been adopted by those great American manufacturers who have met with such success.
In the early promotional days the American manufacturers were prepared to accept turnkey contracts for the design and construction of complete stations, but as they emerged from the promotional stage they firmly adopted a policy based on the fact that the design and construction of complete power stations, with all the heavy civil and structural engineering which is involved, is not the line of country in which they are outstandingly expert. They now aim to undertake to contract only for what they call the nuclear components; that, in the case of the American reactors, is the fuel, the control mechanism, some of the instrumentation and the reactor vessels. This accounts for about one-third of the total cost of the power

1505
station, and the purchasing utility is left free either to design the station himself and place his own contracts for the other two-thirds of the work, to employ consultants to do this for him, or to place the whole station in the hands of an engineer architect.
My Lords, I believe that that system could well be employed and should be carefully considered for the exploitation of the S.G.H.W.R. The A.E.A. could design and supply the nuclear components plus the fuel. The overall design of the station, the civil, structural and other engineering work, could be done either by the purchasing utility or consultants employed by him, or by the consortia acting as engineer architects. This would have the advantage of keeping together the very highly competent design teams of the A.E.A. but it would confine them to those sections of the work in which they are outstandingly expert. I suggest that the adoption of such a system would not destroy competition because the existing consortia, either merged or kept separate, as they judged best, could still offer the A.G.R., for which they have licences; and they would in any case be able to tender for the two-thirds of the station which represents the bulk of it and comprises everything other than the so-called nuclear components.
With respect to the Select Committee, I do not agree with their proposal that the manufacture of fuel elements should be divorced from the design of the nuclear components, and indeed of the whole power station. I disagree for two reasons. In the first place, many overseas buyers do not like to feel that they are dependent on two separate organisations for the satisfactory performance of the reactor they have purchased: they want to hold one manufacturer responsible both for the design of the reactor and for the performance of the fuel. And in the second place there are, I think, occasions when negotiating for off-shore contracts where it is an advantage to offer a reactor at a promotional capital cost, counting on making one's profit from the later sale of fuel elements. That can be done only if an integrated organisation is retained. If one looks forward into the future, it seems that such an organisation would fit well with the de-
1506
sign of the fast reactor as it is at present envisaged.
My Lords, I have been warned that a maiden speech should be brief and uncontroversial. I have tried to be brief. I hope that at least I have been concise. If I have been controversial, I can only ask your Lordships to forgive me and say that even respect for the practices of your Lordships' House does not make it easy to break the habit of a lifetime.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, it is a tremendous privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, and to have the opportunity of congratulating him on his maiden speech. With his vast experience of the nuclear power and electrical industries, he has certainly chosen well the subject for his maiden speech, and I know that it has delighted the whole House. I know also that the House will hope that the noble Lord will not restrict his contributions to our debates to his specialities and that we shall often have the benefit of his great intellect and wide knowledge and experience. I should like to congratulate him very warmly on his maiden speech.
I must declare an interest in the subject of this debate, as I am connected with a company which works in this field. It also gives me particular pleasure to take part in this debate as President of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, because we are debating the first Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which was set up in another place largely on the initiative of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. I am delighted that the first Chairman of the Select Committee is also the Chairman of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, and I am sure that he will study this debate with great interest.
As the noble Lord, Lord She-field, said, this debate is largely about future policy. It is particularly about the future structure of the United Kingdom industry. It seems to me that there are two major objectives—first of all, to ensure that the industry is properly constructed so that it can provide the requirements of the United Kingdom satisfactorily and efficiently and, secondly, that the industry can maximise its exports to take full advantage of the money that has been spent in this field.

1507
I should like to deal with the export point first, and try to put it a little in perspective. There has been much criticism of the industry because of its alleged lack of exports. May I look at the record for a moment, not to justify what has been achieved, but to learn from it. The United Kingdom programme was initiated in the early 'fifties. The original designs were based on the Magnox type of reactor, and these were first available for export about 1955. That type of reactor was certainly competitive up to about 1960–61, and in fact United Kingdom firms were invited up to 1962 to tender for five different requirements. Out of those five, the United Kingdom industry obtained two and the United States three. That is not an unreasonable record, and I certainly would not accept the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that the consortia did not try. I think that they tried very hard but, for reasons which I will come to in a moment, they have not been very successful. In that early period I do not think the record is bad.
But after 1961 the Magnox reactor clearly became uncompetitive. There followed that unfortunate period, which may be called the period of uncertainty, from 1961 to 1965. The United Kingdom had no competitive reactor, for the A.G.R. was not adopted until later in 1965. In the meantime, as has already been pointed out, the United States took quick steps forward in the light water reactor field. It is true to say that not all those exports from the United States were entirely successful. Clearly this is a case of the United Kingdom suffering to some extent for its pioneering efforts.
In 1965, there were great hopes that the contract for Dungeness "B" Power Station with its A.G.R. would restart exports in this field. Unfortunately, this proved over-optimistic. The reactors, as has already been pointed out, were too large, on the whole, for exports, particularly to Europe. The United Kingdom price per kilowatt was considerably higher—£70 per Kw for a 1,200 Kw station, compared with some £40 per Kw for a 1,000 Kw station from the United States, who were offering their light water reactors. Also at that time no A.G.R. was yet in operation and we had to compete with several years' experience in the
1508
United States of L.W.R.'s being used in power stations and for the nuclear submarine programme. Nevertheless, during that period United Kingdom consortia did tender, using A.G.R. designs, and they showed that they could tender competitively. One design, for instance, was the cheapest per kilowatt of all designs submitted, but it was rejected for other reasons, one of which was that competitors offered a 25-year financing programme.
To sum up the export position, it seems to me that the United Kingdom has suffered from its pioneering activity in this field. Perhaps the consortia and the whole industry, including the A.E.A., misjudged the pace of development in the late Magnox era from 1959 to 1961. There was certainly too long a period of uncertainty between 1961 and 1965, and during that period the United States pressed forward with its L.W.R. They sold from proved designs, backed by home orders and the usual powerful United States marketing and financial support, including strong links with European companies and licensing arrangements which they had already made. Against this the British A.G.R. had little or no cost advantage and it had not yet been proved commercially.
But in the earlier period, when they had a competitive product, the United Kingdom consortia did not do too badly. There is no evidence, I submit, that they lost competitive position due to too much internal competition or to lack of liaison with A.E.A. or to any other organisational difficulties. I think that the moral to be drawn is rather that there was some lack of effective marketing in the broadest sense. For one reason or another, Britain's nuclear power policy in the early years was too inward-looking. They looked too much to supplying the requirements of Britain, just as has happened in other fields—for instance, in the aircraft industry at some stages. It is essential, particularly in these fast and big technological developments, to look outwards and to consider what the customers overseas are going to need, as well as what will satisfy our home requirements. This situation is not peculiar to the nuclear power industry, and many lessons have been learned since the 'sixties, not least that technical advance is of no merit in itself in this competitive

1509
world. It is useful only if it gives commercial competitive advantages in the world market.
How then to apply these lessons in settling our future organisation? I suggest that the nuclear power industry is not unlike the aircraft industry. It involves huge development expenditure to keep pace with a fast-moving technology. There is great difficulty in achieving adequate production to absorb the high development costs. Yet there is the need to keep ahead and to maintain first-class development teams. Then there is the long interval between the decision on a new product and commercial sales. The noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, said that this period is too long, and I fully agree with him in that connection. Again, that is not peculiar, as the noble Lord said, to the nuclear power industry. Hence the tremendous importance of efficient, adequate market analysis by people with strong, world-wide commercial and sales content. These, I believe, are paramount considerations.
Above all, no doctrinaire political considerations must confuse or distract the decisions. Alas! such bogies seem already to be raising their heads, and I am sorry to see that in the Select Committee Report the decision on a major issue, whether they would recommend setting up one consortium instead of several, was carried on a strictly Party political basis, with six Labour Members and one Liberal Member against five Conservative Members. It is inconceivable that all those Members in each Party really thought the same way. Surely there are wider considerations than Party considerations. One can only feel that they must have voted in that way out of Party loyalty.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I think I should point out that in fact one Labour Member abstained.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: I am glad to be corrected by my noble friend. At any rate, this principal recommendation therefore seems to have been reached on a largely political basis. It gives one little confidence that in the future these important decisions will be taken without any doctrinaire political bias, and with market consideration as the only factor. But I hope that I am wrong about this.
1510
My Lords, what are the alternatives? The alternatives for the future organisation, surely, are, first of all, to remain as we are with three consortia, and the A.E.A. outside them; secondly, to concentrate industry into two consortia making comprehensive contracts or contracts for reactors only; and thirdly, to form one organisation, as recommended by the Select Committee, based on the A.E.A., to design and construct reactors, described as nuclear boilers. I think that we can quickly discard one of these three, the preservation of the status quo, owing to the changing pattern of demand and the fewer orders for larger stations. So the issue is really between alternatives two and three; that is, between having two consortia and one single consortium proposed by the Select Committee.
Like most major problems, these issues are not clear cut. There are obvious advantages, first of all, in not creating a monopoly. We all know the arguments about that. But the Select Committee have made their case very clearly, in paragraph 136, against having two teams, and in favour, therefore, of a monopoly. I rather doubt whether they have the premises right. They make a strong case by pushing the figures about demand in the industry and the size of individual reactor plants to the limit. In particular, I think it is important to take account of the fact that at present the programme of the C.E.G.B. is to some extent artificially depressed, due to the fact that the previous programmes have gone ahead faster than was needed to meet demand, with the result that an excess of capacity hits been created.
Some who are expert in this field will say that there will be adequate work for the consortia to carry on in an efficient way, particularly (and I will come back to this point in a moment) if, instead of the A.E.A. itself constructing full-scale prototypes, this work is put out to industry. I therefore believe that the case against two teams has been overplayed. For there is no doubt that competition is valuable. There is no doubt at all that the teams that have been working in this field have had their wits sharpened and their energies increased by the spur of competition, in trying to get contracts from the other consortia. While I am no expert in this field, I have been close enough to it to know this from first-hand experience.

1511
Certainly competition in the consortia has produced some very spectacular technological advances. It has produced a quick progress from 150-megawatt sets to sets of up to 1,200 megawatts. It produced the idea of concrete pressure vessels. Above all it produced the idea of the integrated building between the reactor and the whole power station, which has had a big effect on cost reduction. In passing, I would just say that I think it is a little doubtful whether it is right to separate completely the two contractors, one doing the civil work for the power stations as a whole, and the other making the concrete pressure vessels. This, I understand, is now a very much integrated operation, on which a great deal of money can be saved by carrying it out through one contractor.
Again, it is not very satisfactory in a specialised field like nuclear power to have only one career opportunity for those who want to go into the business. Is it not much more healthy that a man can feel that if he goes into consortium "A", and does not get on with, does not agree with, his boss, he can keep in the same business and go into consortium "B"? If there is only one consortium, then he simply has to go abroad and add to the brain-drain.
I doubt whether the argument that international competition is sufficient to spur people on is a good one. Once there is only one national consortium, all kinds of political considerations come into the choice of the contractor. If his design is not the best, clearly people in the consortium will argue with the people who are placing the contract, and probably with the Government: "The contract must come to a British firm. You cannot possibly place this contract abroad." Therefore choice and competition are devalued. It increases greatly the difficulty of choosing on merit, and it is tantamount to nationalisation, which has not proved altogether successful in the export market. I would also draw the attention of the House to the danger that this organisation might lead to the same sort of situation that has been prevalent in the naval shipbuilding industry over the years, where the Admiralty had a design organisation and designed ships, and they simply put out the designs to builders who built to the Admiralty design. This has not
1512
proved wholly successful or stimulating in the shipbuilding industry.
There has been an alternative compromise proposal, which was mentioned in the Press last December, and which I understand emanated from the Ministry of Technology: that there should be a holding company, with two contracting companies under it, owned by it. This seems to me to have most of the disadvantages of both the other schemes. It would not lead to real competition, and I should not have thought that it was worth further consideration.
What then, my Lords, is the solution? I believe that the industry should concentrate into two companies dealing with reactors, equipment and as much of the station design as is necessary for full efficiency. The turbines, the generators, the switchgear and all the ancillary equipment can be let out to separate contracts at home, if that is the desire of the customer. For overseas contracts the reactor companies can be prime contractors, since overseas customers usually wish to have one contractor with whom to deal.
I believe that the A.E.A. should concentrate more on research and early development work, such as the development of small prototypes, but should not build full-scale prototypes, which should be put out by contract to industry. This, surely, would help continuity of work in industry; it would give experience there; it would help the rapid exploitation of new designs and technology. This, as has been pointed out already, is the American practice; it is also the practice in the aircraft industry, which has led to average exports over the last three years of over £180 million. I believe there was an early mistake, which we should now seek to correct, when the nuclear power programme moved over from research to development and construction. The Atomic Energy Authority hung on to the development and manufacture of prototypes instead of passing that over to industry and concentrating more on research.
My Lords, I have only touched on the fringes of these problems, and I have already spoken too long. I would make a plea again that commercial realism should be the only factor that is considered in the decisions that are to be taken on the future of the industry. Let us get away from vested interests,

1513
wherever they are. Let us get away, above all, from doctrinaire politics.
I wonder whether the Government (I should like to put this question to the noble Lord who is to reply) would consider giving new instructions to the I.R.C., so that they are not confined to considering a single consortium but can also discuss with industry the formation of two consortia from the present three, and see what industry thinks about this and whether that might not be a better way of proceeding. For there are great opportunities in this field in Britain and we must not be discouraged by early setbacks in the export field. There is plenty of skill, enthusiasm and knowledge. I would certainly agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that decisions are needed soon. They are needed to release the talent that is there, to release the talent in a sensible new structure, decided, as I say, by commercial and marketing factors only, combined with a long-term stable programme at home. And, my Lords, we need to take those decisions soon.
4.32 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I rise as, I suppose, the first amateur in a set of highly professional speakers who have shown us the great problems which arise in discussing our nuclear energy industry. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, upon his very distinguished maiden speech which it was a great delight to hear and from which I personally have learnt a lot. The introductory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, I found also very interesting. I hope he will not expect me to agree with them all, but I am sure he never expects anyone to agree with him; he merely hopes that he will incite us to think, and to think deeply. I have at least tried to think.
With regard to this problem of the development of nuclear energy, we have bandied about words such as "competition" and "nationalisation" and so on. More than one noble Lord has referred to the necessity for keeping away from these shibboleths, but unfortunately, in doing so, the noble Lord introduced the very shibboleths which he asks us to avoid: because it is just as ridiculous to say that there must be competition when competition may be unnecessary as to say
1514
that there should be a monopoly. In considering this problem of the development of nuclear energy it is very doubtful whether it is possible in this country to have more than one effective group of people manufacturing a station, because one knows perfectly well what happens. The number of stations needed is so small that, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said, in effect if you have a number of consortia you give the first station to one consortium, the second to another consortium, and the third to another consortium—all this in the blessed name of "competition". This is not competition at all; this is merely sharing. It is merely deciding that there is a certain market and that it shall he shared out.
The real point of competition does not arise in having just a number of different firms like this. Surely it is having a number of different ideas, a number of different ways of thinking about things. This is where international competition is, I think, in a field as vast as this, the biggest spur and the one which should be most important to us. Naturally one wants to ensure that if the work being done by a certain body that body is not allowed to get some of the worst features of monopoly. I would again agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that it is very dangerous to try to prevent one body from reaching a decision by putting a whole tier of other bodies above it, so that each decision has to be reconsidered by another body on exactly the same evidence as was available the first time. This is a stupid way of judging anything, and one should certainly riot do tha.
When one looks at the recommendation put forward in the Report of the Select Committee one finds that they did not commit themselves to say that there must be only one manufacturing authority. Recommendation 143, for instance, includes the following statement:
"Finally, Your Committee wish to emphasise that they do not present their recommendations as an unalterable solution to be adhered to for all time. They have been very much aware throughout their enquiries that great changes in marketing opportunities may take place in the future, particularly if links can be established with continental and other interests. With an increase in the scale of ordering by utilities and others and greater success than hitherto in securing orders it may be that ultimately there will be scope for

1515
the operation of additional nuclear boiler companies, whether British or jointly owned with overseas manufacturers."
This is not a statement that a monopoly should be set up, and this is clearly stated in the Report. I think that we should be doing a great disservice if we misquoted the Report and used it simply in order to attack certain bogies which noble Lords and others may feel are appropriate at a particular time.
When we are considering this question of nuclear energy there is the all-important matter of time-scale, and this is what the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, called our attention to at the start. He asks that an immediate decision should be reached. There is a certain risk in demanding immediate decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside (I hope that I am allowed to refer to a maiden speech), pointed out to us very clearly that one of the big troubles in our development of the nuclear energy industry was that we rushed on too big a scale in 1957 into a programme. There is no doubt at all that that precipitate move was one of the most disastrous moves that were made. So there we have an illustration of the danger in merely coming to a decision. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that it is excellent to come to a decision, but it is even more important to come to the right decision; and it is not always true that any decision is better than none.
In this particular field I am very doubtful whether a rapid decision is better than taking time to reach the correct one. Look at the present position with regard to the advanced gas-cooled reactor, the one which has been developed out of the other reactors. It is simply the same sort of reactor running at a higher temperature, and therefore able to run at higher efficiency. The scheme was put forward for it. It was excellent; it seemed to be highly competitive, and one suitable for going ahead with. But are we really certain that the A.G.R. is the right reactor to go ahead with? We know perfectly well that it is in any case a stopgap reactor. It is not the reactor that we should hope to see in another fifteen years' time; it is a reactor which is a development out of existing reactors.
1516
I make no comment upon the development. I have no doubt that it was very well done; I have no doubt that it was technically good. But it is important to remember that when you raise the temperature you bring in new problems altogether. There is the very grave and serious problem of the reaction between carbon dioxide and graphite, and when the temperature is raised this reaction increases in speed considerably. It is all very well to say that tests have been carried out. I have done research on this reaction for twenty years, and all I can say is that you may still find, when you start working under conditions which operate inside the reactor, that you have failed, however careful your preliminary work was, to take into account all the consequences of this reaction.
The reaction is considerably speeded up by impurities. If you happen to get some impurity, particularly a metallic impurity, inside then the rate of reaction is considerably speeded up. I know quite well that the Authority have examined them, but until you build a reactor you will not know its life; and it is not yet safe to say that, because the life of the Magnox reactor has been greater than was predicted, therefore the life of the A.G.R. will be greater. It may be less—we do not know. It is difficult to judge the costs, but at the present time it seems to me that the advantage of the A.G.R. over conventional methods of producing electricity is marginal. It may turn out to be better than we think, but on present evidence that does not appear to be so. Therefore, I believe that we should be making as big an error as was made in 1957 if we precipitately decided to develop a programme of nuclear energy production.
I have no doubt at all that anyone can see that in the long term we shall be getting our electrical energy from nuclear sources. A fast reactor may well come into production in the 1970s. If it does, we think it will give us power at a much lower rate than to-day, but I suggest that, while we may well ask the Government to give the closest consideration to it, it would be wrong to say that we expect the Government to produce an answer out of a hat. Science and technology is not a rabbit to be produced out of a hat.
4.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT MILLS: My Lords, I, for one, am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, put down this Motion for debate, because we have had the opportunity of listening to his own well balanced introduction and to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bank-side. I have been waiting for a long time to listen to that speech, because the noble Lord could not be controversial, and nor was he. I was well aware of his great knowledge of the subject, and, as he explained, he also has the advantage of hindsight. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is concerned, and his reference to the 1958 programme, I would remind him, as the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, said, that we could not get the coal, we could not get the oil—it was rationed—and we were faced with the necessity of making sure that at any rate electricity supplies were available.
My basic reason for participating in this debate on the Report from the Select Committee on the United Kingdom Nuclear Reactor Programme is to be found in paragraph 116 of the Report, which says:
"Your Committee wish to stress their strong conviction that the production of electric power by the processes of nuclear fission will in the future be seen to have been a great technological revolution which lifted mankind to a higher level of living. Britain must remain in the forefront of this revolution."
As a result of my interest in the first extension of the nuclear programme, in 1958, I expressed a similar view, both to your Lordships and elsewhere. This remains my view, and if it be the correct one it is important that the nuclear organisation should be the best that can be devised, to deal adequately with our requirements both here at home and in world markets. As commercial stations based on the prototype Magnox reactor at Calder Hall developed by the Atomic Energy Authority are now being superseded, we are at a turning point, and it seems most opportune that we should have the benefit of this Report being available for consideration.
I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the Select Committee in producing such a readable and well arranged Report on this important subject. I am sure the Report is the result of much research, hard work and great care by
1518
Members of another place. I believe I am right in stating that it has not yet been debated there, and therefore perhaps we have been at a loss to know what view Ministers were taking of its recommendations. But I was sorry to hear—if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, correctly—that the Government are proceeding by consulting industry on the main recommendation, in other words, that of one organisation. I would much rather have heard that they were consulting industry on all the alternatives which are open to the Government.
The Report gives a summary of the recommendations at which the Committee have arrived—in some important cases by a majority vote, even if "Party vote" is a wrong description, and I do not think it is. I should like to devote my remarks mainly to recommendation 1(c), which says:
"In present circumstances the best interests of the country would be served by the combination in a single organisation or company of the skill and resources of those now separately engaged in the design and construction of nuclear boilers."
This seems to me to be the nub of the organisational problem. Is competition in this industry to be destroyed? And, if so, is it wise? I do not believe that there is any false competition. I believe there has been very serious competition, as is evidenced by the fact that some of the consortia have had to get out. I take the view that competition is essential to ensure progress both in reactor design and construction.
I find it difficult to reconcile this recommendation with paragraph 45 of the Report, which begins in this way:
"Whatever may be the advantages or disadvantages of continuing or modifying the consortium system, Your Committee found general agreement that an element of competition in the home market was considered vital, but there was some ambiguity as to whether this was intended to mean technical or commercial competition."
The Central Electricity Generating Board in their Memorandum, Appendix 17, on page 403, says that
"the proposal virtually abolishes technical completion".
They also say in paragraph 6:
"The Board feel that the benefits arising from such preservation of commercial and technological competition would greatly exceed

1519
the savings which theoretically could be claimed from the reduction of design and construction organisations to one."
With this I entirely agree. Although the recommendation is for a single organisation or company to combine the skill and resources of those now engaged in the design and construction of nuclear boilers, this apparently is not the general view. It seems to be agreed, however, that the tendency to bigger reactors no longer justifies retention of three consortia and that they could well be reduced to two, which would preserve the necessary degree of competition.
There is one other aspect of this matter to which I should refer, because while recommending the establishment of a single organisation concerned with design and construction, the Committee say they are aware of the need for competitive pressures in the home market, and emphasise that the corollary to their proposals must be willingness on the part of the Central Electricity Generating Board to invite tenders from abroad in respect of nuclear boilers. I doubt whether we can exclude political considerations from such an arrangement, and I am quite certain that we should have frequent Questions, both in this House and in another place, if that arrangement were followed.
Now I should like to say a word about exports in this important field. As has already been mentioned, they got off to a start in 1958. I was privileged to attend the preliminaries for the Latina power station and later the opening of that station, and, as has been mentioned, this was followed by the sale of a station to Japan in 1959. It is quite clear that owing to developments in the United States we have for some time had nothing really to sell, and I suggest that here again the stimulus of competition is needed. Many large firms have their own companies or associates abroad, so if there were two groups there would in fact be two international groups, and the share of business which we would have the chance of receiving would be increased.
Perhaps I may just say a word about the Atomic Energy Authority. It is good to read in paragraph 145 that the A.E.A. have done their basic task, that of nuclear research and development, so well and with success. That is my under-
1520
standing. I for one hope that they will not be tempted to become the base of another great nationalised industry but be content to serve British industry in their development of nuclear power reactors and to advise the electric power industry generally. The A.E.A. have indeed a proud record. They have had brilliant men at their head and in their ranks. Among them I must again mention the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, who has done so much, not only for the nuclear industry but for the electric supply industry in general. I can again only express the hope that the researches that are going on now will take into account every alternative, and that the Government will not put pressure on British industry to accept the Report of the majority of the Select Committee.
4.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Sherfield told me that he was putting down this Motion for this afternoon I was naturally grateful to him for the opportunity to debate the subject, but at the same time I had qualms of the kind the noble Earl expressed when he addressed your Lordships' House this afternoon. It seemed a rather odd situation that we should be debating the Report of a Select Committee of another place before it had been debated in another place itself. But when I looked at the date of the Report it seemed to me that the date alone justified our discussing it.
We cannot treat the subject as taboo for ever because the Government of the day have temporarily put the subject into cold storage. Nor can we debate it under the shadow of the knowledge that this Report exists without referring to it. So I think that in bringing this subject forward, the noble Lord has done something for which we are all grateful, and I am particularly glad since it enabled me to attend your Lordships' House this afternoon to hear the truly excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Hinton of Bankside, on which the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, has congratulated him in your Lordships' traditional way.
Before coming to the subject, I must follow the noble Viscount in declaring an interest. I, too, am connected with the industrial side of nuclear power

1521
station building, and I wish first of all to deal with this question of the contractual pattern of building, because I believe it to be a great mistake to think that the contractual pattern of building a nuclear power station is so different from all other contractual patterns that it needs special treatment and intermeddling by the Government. When a very large and complex installation in which many technologies converge has to be constructed—an oil refinery, a large chemical or petrochemical plant, an integrated steelworks or power station of either kind—somebody has to design it and somebody has to undertake the procurement, the installation on site and the commissioning. That "somebody" can be the same person or different persons, and that is the first division of the subject of contracting.
Secondly, and quite independently of that, the persons in whom these responsibilities vest may be employed internally by the customer who is finally going to possess the installation, or they may be employed externally, in which case we can talk of constructor, contractor, designer, architect engineer, or whatever it may be. Thirdly, they may be individuals, as individual consultants or firms or consortia, in which case the consortium will of course operate through their own instrument which will itself be an architect engineer. And, lastly, there will be the terms of the contract.
Will the procurement responsibility involve a professional man acting as purchasing agent for his client? That is one possibility. Alternatively, will he take a turnkey contract and take overall responsibility for the entire installation, from soup to nuts, at a fixed price, win or lose? It would be quite wrong to suppose that one of these innumerable combinations of patterns is right and the others are wrong.
You will find particular combinations everywhere, each of them characteristic of some particular situation which reflects a customer's free choice of how he would like his future assets built. It would be wrong to suppose that a customer would necessarily employ only one pattern in the context of a particular installation. It is commonplace in the chemical industry for the main plant unit of, say, a petro-chemical installation to be built by a turnkey contractor, a consultant-de-
1522
signer, and for the customer itself to take responsibility for the off-sites, the boilers, the cooling plant, the water purification, the effluent purification, and so on. There you have two patterns on one site.
In the nationalised gas industry, before the days of hydro-carbon reforming, the industry acted as its own architect-designer. But then came a new and revolutionary process, hydro-carbon reforming, and it went over to the pattern of employing an architect-engineer on a turnkey contract. The old carbonisation plants were designed a hundred years or more before and the industry knew how to build them. The hydro-carbon reforming plants were new and unconventional, and the industry did not know how to build them. The history of thermo-electric and nuclear power plants in the electricity supply industry has gone through a similar pattern.
I do not think we ought to regard the current phase as something special, something that needs special attention. I belive that you should treat the Central Electricity Generating Board exactly as if it were any other customer, and allow it to come to its own free conclusions on such matters as whether it wants to condense the nuclear boiler area into one design organisation and treat the generating sets as the subject of contracts which it will itself place as its own contracting authority. It may want to mix its techniques and have two consortia or three and restrict the consortia to the central part of the plant, the nuclear boiler.
If this matter is left to the free choice of the Central Electricity Generating Board, I believe they will get the answer right. That is not because I think the Central Electricity Generating Board is incapable of making mistakes, but I believe that it is the best judge of its own interests, meaning only that any third party who tries to do its work for it without its responsibilities will probably make more mistakes in the long run than would the Central Electricity Generating Board.
On the question of competition, it is clear that the C.E.G.B. do not want to be in the hands of a sole contractor. That is one factor in the situation. Admittedly going through competitive tenders is laborious. That is another factor. The manifest wish of the C.E.G.B. is to undertake this labour for the sake of

1523
having a competitive situation. Why should we impose on them what they do not want, and then ask them to operate as if they were free agents? I think we should leave them free here.
In this context, while we are all most grateful for the Report, our gratitude for the compilation of this immense amount of subject matter does not necessarily run to agreeing with all the conclusions of the Select Committee. They have come to one recommendation which seems to me a most odd one. It seems characteristic of an attempt to try to please everyone. The C.E.G.B. wants competition, so it must have it. The Select Committee would like to see a monopoly supplier, so we must have that too. And so we must have a situation in which foreign tenderers are to supply the competitive element in this country. This appears to be justified on the rather odd argument that if British firms are to be free to tender abroad, then foreign firms must be free to tender in this country.
In a permissive sense that is of course true. Of course foreign firms must be free. But it does not mean that foreign firms ought to be in a sort of mandatory position to quote here because without them the C.E.G.B. would not have a competitive situation. Does anybody suppose that public utilities in America are proposing a system in which British consortia must quote for supplies in America? Does anybody suppose that in Europe there will be rules and regulations saying that to ensure a competitive situation the British consortia must quote? I do not think so. They will leave it on a permissive basis, not a mandatory one. I find this recommendation extraordinarily difficult to justify.
First of all, from the export point of view, supposing you have a single consortium what will happen? No one supposes that you could export an entire nuclear power station across the world. The civil engineering will have to be done locally, which means that anybody who is making a nuclear boiler will want a partner abroad for some of the local supplies. Of course there are many potential partners abroad, and they are competitors. They compete with one another.
1524
If you restrict yourself to a single consortium in this country you restrict yourself to a single set of partners abroad. Then what do the competitors of those partners do when they themselves seek a partnership? Do they come to this country and tie in with another group over here? No, they cannot, because if this argument applies we have extinguished all other groups over here. Instead of having a free selection of partners in this country they must go elsewhere, possibly to the United States, possibly to another country. But why should we restrict ourselves in this way from our ability to get as many power station orders as possible?
Lastly, I come to the status of the A.E.A. I am not one of those who want to see the A.E.A. dissolved. In as unconventional a technology as this, I am sure you need an authority on health standards and an authority on safety standards. I do not think you can separate that authority from its research programme—research into fission, research into fusion, research into power generation, research into weapons. The authority ought to have an integrated character. But it ought to be an authority, not a judge and jury in its own cause. If, in addition, it is going to be a contractor on all those matters in which it ought to exercise independent judgment as the Government's principal adviser, then it loses its character as an authority and will acquire a quite different one. I do not think we should acquiesce in its acquiring an entirely different character.
Currently, the A.E.A. is under pressure from the consortia to modify some of its policies. They want to see more speed on the steam generating heavy water reactor. They want a faster rate of development on the high temperature reactor, spreading from the Dragon project. They would like to see more progress made in investigating a gas cooled as opposed to a sodium cooled fast reactor for the late 1970's, early 1980's. It is good that the Authority should come under pressure from the contractors but it never will come under pressure from the contractors if it is itself one of the contractors. These are healthy pressures.
The only change I should like to see is the one advocated by the noble Earl in

1525
his speech to the House this afternoon, that is, an earlier transfer of responsibility on the design side, once the prototype stage has been reached, from the Authority over to the consortia to be absorbed for the future, and then some direction of research and development from the consortia back to the Authority. I believe that that would make for good health. It would mean only a small progressive transfer of some of the Headquarters design staff, and in his evidence to the Select Committee the noble Lord, Lord Penney, whom I am sorry not to see in his place this afternoon, made the point that he did not expect the Authority to be designing power stations in twenty years time. If that is so, what I would propose, and what the noble Earl has proposed is nothing more than a phased transfer to the forward look as adumbrated by Lord Penney in his evidence to the Select Committee. It seems to be important to get the interests of the parties clear so as to allow each to exercise its own effective pressures. I do not believe in static situations. I believe that movement takes place as a result of a balance of forces.
The interest of the C.E.G.B. is in cheap electricity; cheap electricity in this country, not cheap electricity in some other country. If the circumstances of generation here are different to the pattern of public utilities in other countries, the C.E.G.B. will inevitably foster the design of stations which will not be readily saleable abroad because they will be too large. The interest of the consortia is in getting orders. They are not, in the normal sense of the word, profit making bodies, because the profits are ploughed back into their members. They are concerned primarily with getting orders not only for their members, but for others as well. They are the only people who have a direct interest in exporting nuclear power stations. Everybody else's interest, that of the C.E.G.B., the A.E.A. and the Government, is indirect. Only the consortia actually make money out of exports in this field, and I want to see a situation in which the consortia are exercising direct pressure on the Authority, because they have an independent existence from it, to modify its policies so as to enable them to absorb designs which will be the basis for a satisfactory export business. They will also have to exert pressure on the C.E.G.B. to purchase
1526
some of these designs in this country so as to give a demonstration to foreigners that we have got something to sell that works.
My Lords, why have the members of the consortia come together? Simply because they believe they will get more orders that way. Why? Because they believe that acting together their joint quotations will be more competitive. Why will they be more competitive? Because the product will, in their opinion, be better and cheaper. Why has the C.E.G.B. so far acquiesced in this situation? Because so far it has agreed. If two parties to a transaction can come to a free arrangement based upon what each believes to be in its own interest, why should any third party enter a claim to know better? That is my argument, and I believe it is as simple as that.
5.14 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I would join with other noble Lords who have spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for having put this Motion on the Order Paper, and I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, whom I believe I am privileged to call art old colleague, on the notable speech which he made to us this afternoon, and to express the hope that he may see his way to give us the benefit of his great knowledge and experience on many future occasions.
It is certainly a very comprehensive and voluminous Report that we considering this afternoon. I find, on going over it, that it appears to contain fifteen recommendations. These are listed on page vi, and I propose to refer to them as they appear in order on that list. Your Lordships will be relieved to know that at this stage in the debate I do not propose to comment on those recommendations which are numbered 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, which brings me to recommendation No. 3. This is that a new British fuel supply and manufacturing company should be established. This was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, in his remarks. At the present moment the production and reprocessing of fuel is carried out by the A.E.A., and, so far as I have been able to discover, to the complete satisfaction of all concerned,

1527
while the costs which the Authority quotes would appear to be competitive with American figures. In all these circumstances it would seem to be quite unnecessary to interfere with the existing organisation and arrangements.
Recommendation 4(a) proposes the establishment of a technical assessment unit capable of advising Her Majesty's Government. But are not the Ministries of Science and Technology and of Power equipped to perform just that function? If that is so, as I believe it is—and if it is not, then I believe that it ought to be—why do we need to set up another body for the same purpose: a body which would no doubt require a staff of highly skilled experts, people who are already in very short supply, merely to duplicate the work which is already being carried out by these two Ministries in that connection? I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that the proposal should be resisted.
Much the same argument applies to recommendation 4(b). That suggests there should be another new body set up to deal with all the aspects of energy policy, and it lays down specifically that it should be provided with an adequate expert staff. Again, I would question whether this new body is really necessary when the Ministries and industries together should surely be capable of dealing with all the aspects of energy policy.
Recommendation No. 5 proposes the setting up of yet another body, this one to examine
"the purely financial aspects of costing of all methods of energy supply".
That appears to me to assume that those who are presently responsible for the supply of energy are seemingly lacking in economic sense, or that they have some particular axe of their own to grind. So far as my experience of the electricity supply industry is concerned, that is most certainly not the case. Indeed, that industry envisaged its job to be the production and supply of electrical energy, to the nation, to industry and to individuals, by such means as would give it to them at the lowest possible cost; and to that end it keeps under constant review the financial aspect of all its operations. To that I would just add this: that when, for one reason or another, the Government have on occasion stepped in and stopped
1528
the industry from taking action which it had proved to itself would reduce the cost of electricity, the industry resented it, feeling that it was being unjustly treated, and indeed abused. When I speak in this connection of the "industry", I mean the entire personnel from top to bottom, and not merely the top management.
Recommendation No. 6, that the British Nuclear Export Executive should be wound up, will probably not meet with very much opposition, because that body has, unfortunately, so far not been able to serve any very useful purpose. But when in that recommendation the Committee go on to recommend that the Board of Trade put in hand an intensive survey of potential overseas nuclear needs and opportunities, it is again putting forward a proposal which will lead to the duplication of work and effort. The consortia, after all, are not asleep; they are out to do business, and they know full well the overseas needs and opportunities which are available to them. It is probable that the Board of Trade knows them also, but, if not, it would likewise in all likelihood set out on the proposed intensive survey by asking the consortia any number of questions, which will multiply paper work and duplicate effort.
Now none of the 13 recommendations to which I have referred, nor the five of them on which I have briefly commented, are really of major importance, but those put forward in paragraphs 1(c) and 2(a) are crucial to the future of the industry. The dominating word in each of the paragraphs is the word "single"—a single organisation for the design and construction of nuclear boilers is recommended, and the transfer to that organisation (which is called "the new single nuclear boiler organisation") of the Atomic Energy Authority facilities at present devoted to research and development of a commercial nature. The argument would seem to turn upon whether a single organisation will contain within itself the same measure of specialist skills, inventiveness, foresight and the will to experiment as would be found in two or more competing organisations.
However skilled and impartial any single management may be, the possibility of a serious error of judgment cannot

1529
be ruled out. My own experience does not lead me to believe that where competition is absent there is that same compulsion which drives one to be constantly on one's toes, to be continually examining one's organisation, methods and current practices, which forbids complacency and prevents acceptance of any established process, custom or routine as beyond challenge. But neither do I believe that one organisation, no matter how expert, alive and keen it may be, will inevitably produce at any given time something which is incapable of being improved. I therefore support the view expressed by a number of parties in evidence to the Select Committee that during the British nuclear power programme certain major design innovations owe their success to commercial competition.
Your Lordships may remember that in the Minutes of Evidence, on pages 95 and 96, five examples were given which it was claimed led to rapid advances and significant cost reductions. As regards competition leading to rapid advances, the reply given by Lord Penney to a question put to him on page 27 in paragraph 98 is somewhat significant. Lord Penney's answer was that H.T.R. would be later than the second nuclear programme. But I understand that now, at least, one of the consortia has tendered H.T.R. as a fully commercial and practical proposition. The inference that could be drawn from that reply is that had there been a sole authority at that time, H.T.R. would not be as far advanced as in fact it has been under the spur of competition.
There are in this country two main customers for nuclear power reactors and boilers, the C.E.G.B. and— I am sorry noble Lords have not mentioned it—the South of Scotland Electricity Board, which has a very large part to play in my own country in this connection. Both Boards are utterly opposed to a monopoly organisation for design and construction. It naturally follows that they are also opposed to such an organisation's being entrusted with the design and construction of complete nuclear power stations. The consortia are also opposed to, while the Committee was only marginally in favour of, a single nuclear boiler company being established. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, has reminded us of the vote
1530
on that issue which was 7 to 5; that is to say 6 Labour and 1 Liberal for, and 5, all Conservative, against. Like other noble Lords, I was sorry indeed to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that the Government propose to reconstruct the industry on the lines suggested by the Committee. I hope that they may think again.
Reference was made more than once in the Committee's Report to the "nuclear island"; that is, the reactor and the boiler. Particularly when it is desired to ensure completion to schedule and possibly a performance guarantee, there is a very great deal to commend the comprehensive contract, even for conventional power stations. I understand that at this moment the South of Scotland Electricity Board may well he considering this type of contract for their next conventional station. Hitherto the Atomic Energy Authority has been responsible for research and development involving the production of new basic designs of reactors, constructing experimental plants to prove them, and thereafter a prototype. Those tests being satisfactorily completed, the Authority is able to issue licences to the consortia for their design and construction on a commercial scale.
The experimental reactor may be comparatively small. To talk of something of which I have knowledge, the firs t fast reactor at Dounreay was 15 Mw—that is larger than many others—and the prototype now under construction is 250 Mw. The first commercial set may well be of 1,000 Mw., or even more. The problems associated with the construction of these various reactors must obviously be very different, and may indeed call for considerable alterations to the detailed design of the reactor and boiler—atteradons which, it is argued, the consortia are, in consultation with the Boards, well-equipped to carry out. So I would suggest that there emerges an alternative both to the present system and to the single organisation—an alternative which has much in common with that put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. It is that Atomic Energy Authority reactor group personnel should be divided among the consortia, whether they be two or three, and that the consortia should then be responsible for de-

1531
sign and development, the research associated with these activities, and construction, leaving A.E.A. responsible for fundamental research into nuclear matters in the broadest sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, mentioned that some people might think that this would mean the dissolution of the A.E.A., but at the end of the day the Authority would be left with the operation of their productive factories, with particular responsibility for the procurement of uranium ore and the manufacture, enrichment and reprocessing of fuel. As at present, they would continue to be responsible for fundamental research at Harwell and other laboratories which would continue to provide a service to nuclear power plant industry, as well as developing and investigating new ideas and methods of using energy. They would, as at present, advise Her Majesty's Government on all these various matters. Such a solution would enable the Atomic Energy Authority to concentrate their effort on their primary task of pure research and development in the most effective way, and to pass over such of their other activities not inextricably linked with their primary task to other more appropriate organisations.
These are not my words. These are the words contained in Recommendation 2(b)(i) and (ii) of the Committee's Report. This is what the Committee recommend, but in view of the other recommendations it is not capable of fulfilment. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give some further consideration to a solution on the lines suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and also, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, which all the evidence goes to show would be more acceptable to many of those who appeared before the Select Committee and, in particular, to the two Boards which are responsible for the production of electrical energy in this country.
5.29 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I hesitated somewhat before I put down my name to speak in this very expert debate, but I did so because I have been connected a certain amount with export promotion in this field and I also have been connected in O.E.C.D. with the development of the Dragon Reactor.
1532
I believe that this question is of enormous importance. We have had a somewhat critical debate and the Report itself is somewhat critical, but if we stand back for a moment and look at the broad picture we see that this is a field in which we have had extraordinary success. Nobody could have foreseen twelve or fifteen years ago that by this time a considerable proportion of the British base load of electricity would be generated in nuclear power stations. It seems to me a remarkable success, attained by the quite remarkable men who have pioneered in this field. Among them I should like to include in particular the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, whose maiden speech we heard with such great interest to-day.
It seems to me that we have often lost enormously since the war by not having had confidence in what we ourselves have started out to do, by not seeing it through with courage and determination, and by giving it up halfway. There is no surer method of wasting money than to spend millions on developing a new aeroplane, a new rocket or, for that matter, a new reactor or a new system of fusion or fission, and then to give it up after a few years because it seems to cost too much, because it is rather a lot of trouble and so on. What is remarkable about this story is that the Government set their minds to make reactors that would work, that the remarkable men in this field made them work, and that we now have a great success to our credit. I do not think we should be too self-critical about it.
The important thing now is to look forward; not to look backward and regret that we did not have more success in the past in exporting this or that. We have to look forward to the High Temperature Reactor and to the Fast Breeder Reactor which is under construction at Dounreay. I am sure that that is going to be a prototype which will be of enormous interest to the whole world. I should like to say—though it is obvious to the experts who have spoken in this debate—that as the fast breeder reactor will use the plutonium and uranium produced by the present generation of reactors and will produce more plutonium than it consumes, it should be enormously valuable as a supplement to our present system, quite apart from its own merits.

1533
I think that that will greatly change the economics of nuclear power production. If we do not get this working soon, somebody else very soon will. It is interesting that the Americans are now very active in this field. I was interested to see from the Report that they are experimenting not only with sodium cooling but also with steam cooling, and I think that we ought to be pressing on.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, that our construction periods are inordinately slow in this country. They are very much faster in America. Anything the Government could do to hasten construction work would be of great value, not only in this field but right across the whole field of export industry. I must say that the disastrous delay in construction of some of the Government offices within half-a-mile of this building does not encourage one to believe that the Government are making much progress here.
I have no doubt at all that we shall need any amount of electricity which we can produce in this way. I do not believe that we are in any danger of overproducing it. It is obvious that our economy cannot be allowed to continue for many more years in the doldrums where it now lies, and the experience of other countries shows that, when it increases, the consumption of electricity per head will rise. Our present consumption of electricity per head is not very high compared with the consumption in the United States or Canada, and it is very low by comparison with Norway. I have no doubt that there will be a great field for further construction in this sphere.
Another reason why I personally am anxious that we should make progress with nuclear power production is that I have felt for some time that we were getting too dependent on oil. The closure of the Suez Canal has greatly complicated the oil supply. The announcement of the Government that they propose to withdraw our forces from the Persian Gulf leads me to wonder whether we can long continue to count on the stability in that area which is necessary for getting the oil which industry is at present receiving. I do not like to think what would happen if we were much more dependent on dollar oil, or if we had to pay in dollars for the oil from the Persian Gulf. These
1534
matters ought to be considered together, because we cannot develop our economy without adequate power. Electric Power is absolutely primary, and it is the Government's duty to see that we get it. Therefore, I think we ought to aim at diversification as an essential plank of our energy policy, and nuclear power production has a central part to play in that policy.
Much has been said about the importance of our getting more exports. After studying this Report, I rather doubt whether the reason for our lack of success is to be found in the organisation of the consortia or of the British Nuclear Export Executive. I believe that the fundamental reasons were very well stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. The fact is that we have needed very large installations for carrying our base load. Other countries have not needed such large installations and therefore our system has been too large. The very large installations require a good deal of capital and, as we have had rather high rates of interest and cannot give such long or low credit terms as the Americans, it has not been easy for us to persuade potential clients abroad that this would be the best system. I believe that the conclusion to be drawn from that is not that we should cease to produce the type of reactors which we ourselves need, because I believe, in spite of the great importance of exports, that our own needs ought to come first and that we shall continue to need these large installations for carrying our base load.
On the other hand, there would be great advantages in diversifying our research work and in multiplying the number of types which we are prepared to produce and sell abroad. Certainly we ought to be interesting ourselves in nuclear reactors which are capable of driving ships. We have talked for years about the interest in the Belgian project, the Vulcain, but it seems to be advancing very slowly and I cannot help wondering whether we ought not to be trying to press it forward much more actively. I am sure that this will prove to be very interesting in the future.
I do not wish to go too much into the field of industry and the Atomic Energy Authority, because others have spoken so very authoritatively on the subject,

1535
but it is difficult to believe that we ought, more or less, to abolish the Atomic Energy Authority or divide it into four as the Report suggests. Personally, I think the present system has served us very well and is probably still doing so. There is very much work still to do. I believe that the huge new installations, such as Dounreay, are really beyond the power of any consortium in this country to build and run. I should like to say that as Dounreay is virtually (using very untechnical language) a controlled atom bomb, it would perhaps not be very desirable to leave it in the hands of any one consortium. Personally, I would much prefer that a public authority should see this thing through and make sure that it works. I have therefore come to the conclusion that this very large-scale research and prototype construction really ought to be under Government control, in spite of what is said in the Report. But I would suggest that more of the work could in fact be farmed out to industry than already is, and that in that way industry could be brought more into association with the A.E.A. The division in the United Kingdom between private industry and Government institutions—and, for that matter, the universities—is much too watertight. We ought to do everything we can to break these divisions down, and in that respect I agree with everything that has been said in this debate.
There is another reason why I am very doubtful about the proposal to divide up the Atomic Energy Authority. It seems to me that the closest co-operation across the whole field is in practice necessary in order to ensure the best results. If the fuel elements are not entirely suitable or cannot stand the temperatures or pressures involved, all sorts of expensive corrections have to be made, and I should have thought that the need for close co-operation between the fuel element authority and the reactor vessel authority (if one likes to speak of two authorities) makes it very desirable that the same authority should do the work. Another consideration is that there is an increasing tendency to use enriched fuels, and this tendency will undoubtedly grow. My Lords, enriched fuels have such a close connection with defence work that I find it impossible to believe that it is desir-
1536
able to have defence work and the enrichment of fuels undertaken by two totally separate bodies. I should have thought that there was a very good case for such close co-operation that the same authority did this work.
There is also the question of technical fall-out from defence work. If you shut the defence authority away, and if everything is labelled "Top Secret", then obviously it is very hard to organise the passing on of technical information derived from defence research to the civil authorities, who may be able to make very good use of it. I am very impressed by what the Americans do in this field. They have a way of passing defence information out to their industry which we in this country have never been able to match because we have a much more rigid system. If we were to have a much more rigid system in the nuclear field, I am sure it would be a very great disadvantage. Therefore, here again I personally come down, with all respect, in favour of a more unitary authority such as we have already.
As regards the number of consortia, I find it almost impossible to believe that we would find that it would pay to go over to a monopoly. My Lords, monopolies get lazy. It would not pay, I am sure, to have a single consortium dealing with this question. I do not believe it pays, either, to have three; but I would hope very much that the I.R.C. can help the Government to reduce the present three consortia to two. It is true that this involves two design teams, but then competition between two design teams is a good thing. Also, it facilitates cross-fertilisation of ideas and cross-promotions of staff, and produces better careers for the people concerned. Equally, I really do not believe that it would be a good idea for the Atomic Energy Authority to let their industrial staffs go over to the consortia, or to a single consortium. If the Atomic Energy Authority are to do the work which I am sure they have to do, then surely, they must have their own industrial staffs. Here, perhaps I may add that the presence of industrial staffs in a public authority makes it possible for personnel to move between private industry and that public authority, and I believe that is enormously valuable. If you want anything done effectively and for profit, it is best done by

1537
private industry; but in this field there is undoubtedly a good reason why the public authority should know a lot more—and I mean a lot more—than the public authorities which have controlled, for instance, the aircraft industry. Undoubtedly, if in the case of the aircraft industry they had had larger numbers of industrial personnel in the Ministries concerned, we should not have had some of the difficulties we have had.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I warmly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said. The important thing is that we should get on with this work. It would be a disaster if hot controversy and argument about the correct shape of the industry or the organisation of the Atomic Energy Authority led to decisions being delayed and the work not being proceeded with. This work is of the utmost importance and urgency. We have a big success story behind us, and it is essential to press forward towards further successes at the earliest possible moment. Especially is this true of the breeder reactor at Dounreay. The last time I was there the remarkable manager who showed me round said, with a wry smile on his face, "Well, there you are; you see what our motto is here—'If it works it is obsolete'". That is a quite remarkable state of affairs, and I strongly hope it continues.
5.48 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, it has been a very great privilege to listen to a debate in which so many distinguished scientists and industrialists have taken part. When my noble friend invited me to take part in his debate I read most of the 500 pages of the Report and I wrote a beautiful speech. That has now been torn up, and so I shall not be very long.
If the Minister chooses to take the advice given him in this debate it will save him a tremendous amount of trouble, because I can well see that the whittling down of three consortia into one consortium would be an operation of considerable difficulty, whereas to get it down to two might be a more feasible task. I prefer the solution of two, suggested by my noble friend Lord Caldecote, but I still do not think that by any means it will necessarily be perfect, because one still does not really know whether there will be enough business to
1538
keep two in operation. If doubtful, it becomes a case of Buggins's turn—and then what sort of competition do you have, if they each take it in turn to have a station? And if, every time they have to tender, it means a ton of specifications, as was mentioned in the Report, and one consortium never seems to get the business, how long is that consortium going to stay in business unless, despite the merits, it is given a station by the rule of Buggins's turn?
The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, seems to think that we need all the current we can get. I have always been rather dubious about that question. For several years I thought we were over-investing in electrical generating plant.. I believe that we should look much more to our load factor and should try to use what we have more efficiently than we are doing at the moment. But if we are reduced to one consortium by the fact that there is not enough business to keep two in operation, that does not mean that it will be completely devoid of competition, because it will be competing against people who are submitting conventional designs, oil or coal. You can target them. You can say that you are not going to place an order unless it is a certain percentage cheaper than the last. And I suppose that they could internally employ two design teams and use only the team that seems to be the winner when it comes to tendering. However, these are only very makeshift arrangements and are no substitute for genuine competition from two keen teams.
My Lords, there are one or two snippets of information that emerge from the Report. They have not been mentioned today, but they give me some food for thought. First, apparently the ultimate future of these reactors is not nearly so difficult as I had imagined. They have found out how to dismantle some of them so that not a very great deal will have to be buried for all time. I see that the authorities still state a 75 per cent. availability and a 20-year life, thus handicapping themselves in what one might call the "performance boasting race" against the Americans. Much to my surprise I found that the Treasury do not take account of inflation—which was, I thought a very curious decision. One can imagine the Treasury, rather like Canute, wanting to keep inflation at bay. But I think that

1539
by now it is time they recognised that the tide does come in. Further, I read a certain amount of the evidence submitted by the National Coal Board, and I must say that to my untutored mind the arithmetic contained in those reports on the future price of coal and the arguments derived from it were extremely dubious.
My Lords, the Report has confirmed me in my conviction that we must go steadily ahead, as we have done in the past. After all, the progress is steady but sure. Dungeness "B" expects to generate at a cost of 0·57d. per kWh.; Hinckley Point "B" at 0·52d.; and later stations in the 1975 programme at 0.46d. Then, after that, the next generation, the Dragon will be at 25 per cent. less generating cost and 40 per cent. less capital cost. Then we get on to the fast breeder reactor, where we are talking about generating costs of 0·3d. per kWh. Of course all these things are merely on paper; but in the past the paper and the facts have not been too widely different. That leads me to believe that we are quite right to go along developing; but I am a little dubious as to whether we should be right to go all out for a really big programme until we get somewhat nearer the ultimate of perfection.
5.53 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will try to answer the key points made in this interesting and important debate. If, on reading Hansard, I should find that I have not answered any noble Lord who requested an answer I will try to reply in writing. I should like to join with all those Members of your Lordships' House who spoke to-day in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, on a most valuable maiden speech. I cannot conceive how he thought there was the slightest element of controversy in it. I am used to quite a different sort of controversy. I thought that he stated one side of a complex argument and that he helped lighten our darkness to a substantial degree. I know that we all hope that he will help us find our way through the thickets of scientific thought and controversy in the future.
One or two speakers have questioned the action—I will not say "the pro-
1540
priety"—of this House in debating a Report made by a Select Committee of another place before the other place has itself debated the Report. From what I have heard, no such resentment exists. In fact, the Minister concerned is most grateful that this House has found time to debate this excellent Report. I think it is timely that it should be debated; because although I spoke in somewhat guarded terms about the date on which the Government may make an announcement of their intentions, that time is not so far off that the expression of your Lordships' views is inopportune. I think it is desirable that your Lordships should express your views upon the Report while the various organisations concerned with the organisation of the nuclear power industry are making up their minds.
I should like to make a further point in relation to this matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Mills, implied that I had stated that the Government were pressurising their advisers to reach a certain decision. I should like to read to your Lordships again what I actually said:
"The Government have, in fact, invited the chairman of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to sound the reaction of industry to reorganisation along the lines of the majority view of the Committee."
That is not an absolutely firm order to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, but a request that they should try to find out, over the very wide range of interests concerned with the promised reorganisation, what their views are, and to advise the Government on this. The advice, having been given, will be subject to debate in both Houses, particularly if, as suggested, the Government issue a White Paper on these proposals. So there is not going to be a solution imposed automatically on the suggestions of the Committee. Obviously this is a very valuable aid to thought, but it is not necessarily the last word.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him at this point. I understood him to say that the Government had decided to follow the recommendation made by the Committee.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I with your permission again read what I said?—
"The Government have, in fact, invited the chairman of the Industrial Reorganisation

1541
Corporation to sound the reaction of industry to reorganisation along the lines of the majority view of the Committee."
I should imagine that this means that the Government would like to see something of the pattern suggested by the Select Committee. But if the advice of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation—which is not a completely kept animal of the Government—after consultation with the consortia, with the Atomic Energy Authority and with the two Generating Boards is that these proposals are unacceptable to organisations or to individuals and that more heat than light would be generated as a result, then the Government are obviously not forced to accept the Select Committee proposals. I am certain that in this very important and sensitive section of the economy careful attention must be paid to the points of view of the very able men who are running its various elements. They cannot be overruled—nor would they agree to be—as simply as that.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, could the noble Lord confirm that the chairman of the I.R.C. will be free to discuss with industry the two consortia idea instead of the one consortium idea?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot give an absolutely clear answer to that point, but I am pretty certain that the consortia will put this point to him. I am certain that he will not be allowed to overlook the views of those consortia which wish to continue to survive in their present form.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how long it is expected the consultations with the I.R.C. will take, in view of the urgency which has been stressed during the debate by various noble Lords?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should like to be able to do this, but there are a number of factors which make it rather difficult for me to give a firm statement to-day. I think that a preliminary statement is not very far off; on the other hand, nothing final has been decided. As your Lordships will remember, the discussions started over a year ago, and it is about time that something came out of the debate. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, need not feel too great a concern that the arguments will drag on for too long.
1542
My Lords, may I now turn to what I think is one of the key divisions of opinion in the House on the reorganisation of the nuclear construction industry. It revolves around the concept of what is meant by competition. This, in my view, is something that it is very difficult to define. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, mentioned forms of competition other than straightforward competition by the two consortia. We know that the Select Committee have recommended that if a single joint body is created, the Electricity Generating Board should be free to go abroad to get competitive tenders from outside the British economy. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who thought this an idea that at was not as sound as it might be. But, as I read this document, it is not mandatory upon the Electricity Generating Board to ask for tenders from abroad; they would be free to do so if they felt that British industry was not serving them properly.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom will allow me to explain my point. The point I was trying to make was that it would be almost, as it were, mandatory if they wanted competion. There could be no competition from this country; and if they want competition they must go abroad.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I do not think we can deny them that right, other things being equal. Possibly there would be occasions when the position of the United Kingdom economy was such that one would not want to bring in foreign contractors. But we hope that its present delicate state of health will pass, and that British industry, which shows such promise, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bank-side, will in fact stand up to competition from the outside world strongly and without fear. Thinking about this problem, I am wondering whether it is not the crux of the matter.
My Lords, in this country we now have one single major aero-engine industry which has been brought about over the years by the fusion of the various aero-engine manufacturers under the umbrella of Rolls-Royce. I have not heard any argument related to this particular merger of interest. It is quite clear that Rolls-Royce is facing strong competition the

1543
whole time from firms like Pratt and Whitney and General Electric of America, and they have reacted most successfully to this foreign competition. I think that the same competition would be brought to bear on a unified British industry. My noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones made the valid point that competition is not really between the consortia but between ideas; between the concepts of what a reactor should be and how it should be made. I believe that, with the insatiable curiosity of the scientist, this is something which will continue, so long as we are building this type of source of energy.
Having said that, may I say that out of the debate have come two or three points in the argument in favour of having two consortia, or two design organisations, rather than one—points which I may have missed in this Report, and which I missed in earlier arguments, though they nevertheless have validity. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, mentioned the damage to individual promotion prospects if there were only a single organisation within which a person could rise. The noble Viscount, Lord Mills, mentioned the possibility of two consortia forming a relationship with firms abroad and that these joint Anglo-European consortia, two altogether, would have a double chance of obtaining a share of the European market. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, mentioned this aspect in reverse: that if European firms wished to form a partnership in this country, we should be twice as able to get, or it would be twice as probable that we should get, such a relationship if there were two consortia here.
These are, I think, valid arguments, and they will be considered by the Government, together with other advice which they receive. I know that this debate, in which so many scientists and administrators have taken part, cannot be ignored. I shall make certain that my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology receives a copy of the debate and I know that he will study it. My Lords, I think that is all one can say at the moment on this question of whether we should have a unified design team or two consortia, on which the views of your Lordships have been most helpful.
1544
The other recommendations which have been referred to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation are less difficult. They include the ending, or rather the reorganisation, of the fuel-producing body. In my speech I pointed out that in fact this seems to be working satisfactorily and that the Government are in no hurry to change the present situation. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, made a most interesting point, and he seemed to compare the fuel manufacture in relation to the generator construction as being rather like the Gillette razor: we sell the razor cheap and the blades expensively. The noble Lord was perhaps suggesting that we sell the British reactor very cheaply and then gouge the consumer in future by a good profit on the fuel that we supply for the reactor. That is an important factor, in strictly commercial terms, when determining our commercial policy towards future stations that we shall be selling abroad.
Talking of selling abroad, I think your Lordships will probably agree that the British Nuclear Export Group has been blamed for shortcomings which were not really its own fault. It was set up at a difficult time when it had not very much to sell; and while, as I said in my speech, it has done very valuable market research, it has not yet landed a major order. It is still in the running for one major order in Finland and "travelling hopefully". I think your Lordships would agree that it would be foolish to wind up this organisation before we have decided what the future structure of the nuclear industry should be.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, pointed out that the steam generating heavy water reactor which is now viable—it has been commissioned and I believe is producing electricity—may be the answer to the needs of the exporter. It does not have to be of a very large size. I believe it could start at about 125 megawatts, which is not possible with the advanced gas-cooled reactor, and it is thus more suitable, for instance, for export to countries like Greece which have not the enormous demand for base-load that we have in this country.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is not there one other point which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has not mentioned,

1545
the fact that other countries do not tax the oil which goes through their power stations, and therefore nuclear energy has a much tougher competition again oil in those countries?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. We have an expensive oil policy in this country, and there are other factors as well. One of the complaints I have heard expressed is about the royalty payments to A.E.A., which somewhat raise the price of British designed nuclear power stations when we are competing abroad against systems of generation which do not pay royalties to a central Government authority. But the fact is that we now again have something to sell. We have an organisation which, although it has not yet produced markedly successful results, is nevertheless in being and trying very hard, and I think we can be hopeful that with these new types of station coming on the stream foreign buyers will not only be able to study their operation in theory but also to go and see the hardware on the ground.
I have been interested in the reactions of noble Lords to the proposals of the Committee to set up a technical assessment unit and a body similar to the United States Joint Congressional Committee to deal with all aspects of energy policy. This did not find a great deal of favour in your Lordships' House. Obviously in the light of to-day's debate the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and other noble Lords that there should be a Joint Committee of both Houses is a point which must receive serious consideration. Probably there is more expertise in this House than in another place. I should have thought—and this is also the view of the Government—that the creation of additional secretariats and secondary bureaucracies is not desirable. After all, a Select Committee of another place has produced an outstanding Report of a scientific nature using the existing facilities of the Table Office of another place. That Office might have to be increased, but I do not see the need of another bureaucracy designed specifically to service a Joint Committee. So far as the technical assessment unit is concerned, such units already exist. The Central Electricity Generating Board, for
1546
example, does not have generators simply imposed upon it. It is subject to pressures from other sources of energy—coal, oil and so on—and has a very competent team making assessments for it. It is my view that these proposals are somewhat redundant.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I will try to answer quickly some secondary points made during the debate. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, was pulling my leg slightly about marine reactors. I think the House should not forget that this country has built and is operating a fair number of marine reactors—after all, we have the nuclear submarine programme. I am speaking from memory, but I believe that when the programme is complete some 13 reactors will be operating of which 12 will have been built in this country, the last of which will be of an advanced design. We have very good maintenance facilities for these ships, and your Lordships will be aware that maintenance facilities for nuclear ships are of the greatest importance, because the rods have to be extracted from the reactors without radiating half the dockyards in which they are operating, and that needs very sophisticated handling equipment. This equipment exists in this country.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether the Polaris reactor would be suitable for commercial ships?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am afraid that I have not the expert knowledge to do that.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, they would not be commercially economic.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are working with Belgo-Nucléaire on the Vulcain reactor, which already exists. A lot of thought is going into ways and means of using marine reactors of this sort. The problems of marine reactors are the same as those of nuclear stations; the reactors have to be kept functioning most of the time. A reactor cannot be allowed to lie in port while a ship discharges and then be started up again when the ship goes to sea. We are experimenting with a power-pack which can be attached to a whole series of ships—tankers, oil ships and container

1547
ships—so that the nuclear power pack could be in constant use at sea and not lie about in harbours where it would be costing a tremendous amount of money and would also perhaps cause some disquiet in the ports in less sophisticated parts of the world where everything nuclear is considered to be dangerous. This is not a subject that is being overlooked, but it is one which is very difficult to take to the point of economic success.
The noble Earl also asked me a question of importance relating to fusion research. Perhaps we hoped too much when the first indications of the possibilities of fusion research came to our notice. The position is that the A.E.A. appointed a working party to review the present effort at Culham. After considering the views of the working party, the Authority have advised the Minister that the effort should be reduced over the next five years by about 10 per cent. a year. The reason for this is that the less "way out" systems of generating electricity are making such progress that it is felt that the scientific effort should be concentrated on them rather than on something that might bring us benefits in the year 2,000, when we want benefits in the 1980s.
It is in particular the fast breeder reactor which shows real promise, as a result of the work done at Culham, and the enthusiasm of the team is high—indeed, this is internationally recognised. There will be a rundown during the next five years and by the end of that time research should be going on at about half its present level. Interpreting this information, I would say that none of the work would be just stopped short; it would be brought to a certain conclusion and then some scientists would transfer to other fields of research, leaving half their number to carry on research towards the end of the century. I do not believe that rapid results will come from this, because it requires long-term analysis to find out whether this extremely complex source of energy can be controlled.
Finally, the noble Earl asked me about the development of the high temperature reactor, the steam generating heavy water reactor and the fast reactor. The recommendation of the Select Committee is that all these new forms of reactor should have
1548
substantial resources devoted to them. We should try to bring them to a point of commercial exploitation, and the proper resources should be devoted to it. This would be one of the reasons for cutting back the rather long-term research going on at Culham.
My Lords, I think this is as rational and tidy a response to your Lordships' debate as I can make without keeping your Lordships to some inordinately late hour. I have enjoyed the preparation for the debate, and I have enjoyed even more listening to your Lordships' views. As has been said, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for making this discussion possible, and the Government also are grateful to him for enabling the views of this House to be brought to the attention of the Minister.
6.22 p.m.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, I need say only a few words in closing this debate. First, I would echo other noble Lords and add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, on his maiden speech. He will be aware that it is the custom in this House to congratulate maiden speakers on all sides, but I am sure he will have been impressed by the very real sincerity and warmth of the tributes to what he said this afternoon.
Then I should like to thank other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I think that I owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for not mentioning the South of Scotland Electricity Board—an organisation for which I have always had the highest regard. I should also like to assure him that I did not regard his remarks as equivalent to proposing the dissolution of the Atomic Energy Authority.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for what he was able to say on behalf of the Government and for the clear replies he was able to give on a number of points. It was useful to have official confirmation that the problem of the reorganisation of the industry has been referred to the I.R.C. Personally I think this is a good move; indeed, it is one that might with advantage have been taken earlier. Few people know the elements of this problem better than Sir Frank Kearton—one of the veterans of the development of nuclear

1549
energy in this country. I wish him and his colleagues every success in their efforts, and I am glad that they will not be tied down to a single solution. I hope and believe that nothing that has been said in this debate will make their task more difficult, and I quite understand why the Government spokesman was unable to be more specific.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that it is better to get the right solution than an instant answer, provided—and this is an important proviso—that the decision is not long delayed. We must not forget that this problem has already been under consideration for nearly two years.
I was aware, of course, of the political undertones in the Select Committee's Report, but I did not think it appropriate to deal with them from these Benches. However, I am encouraged by what has been said to hope that no considerations of political theory or Party controversy will be allowed to impede an agreed solution for the future of the industry and for the relationship between the firms, the A.E.A., and the Generating Boards, if one can be found through the good offices of the I.R.C. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (MERSEY RAILWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL UNIVERSITY OF WALES INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BILL BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  POLICE POWERS OF SEARCH IN GLASGOW
  POLICE POWERS OF SEARCH IN GLASGOW