I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

On a point of Order, may I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether this proposed new Clause falls within the scope of this Bill? The Bill, according to its Title, is to

"Enable certain Government Departments to obtain more readily the information necessary for the appreciation of economic trends and for the discharge of their functions."

There is nothing in this Clause to indicate in any way that it is to enable the Board of Trade more readily to obtain

"information necessary for the appreciation of economic trends,"

and nothing in it to indicate that it is required to enable the Board of Trade to discharge any of their functions. This is called a "Statistics of Trade Bill." The obtaining of information from passengers arriving in this country by air, or wishing to depart from this country by air, would appear to have little relevance to the furnishing of statistics necessary for the information of industry, or necessary for forming a proper appreciation of economic trends. I am told there have been reports in the Press to the effect that this Clause is required to stop smuggling by air. If those reports are accurate, that is a very desirable purpose, but it would still not justify the inclusion of a penal provision designed for that object in a Bill intended to deal with the obtaining of statistics, and the discharge by the Board of Trade of their functions. I submit that the stopping of smuggling should come within the purview of another Government Department.

I think it would be a little unfortunate if we were to judge our proceedings by what appeared in the Press. The object of this Clause is in order to get certain migration statistics which are an integral part of the statistics required in regard to planning trade.

The President of the Board of Trade may try to defend this Clause on that basis, but it was quite clear to anyone who read the Press last night that it was an inspired statement, no doubt by a P.R.O., giving the greatest detail of what is happening in smuggling by air, and of the steps being taken to try to prevent it. This Clause was specifically referred to in great detail, showing how, when passed into law, it would stop smuggling by air. I suggest that there is a prima facie case to be considered.

I am quite impartial in this matter, because I have not seen what appeared in the Press. As far as I am concerned, it seems that the Clause is relevant to the main subject of the Bill and, therefore, the arguments might be used as arguments perhaps against the Clause. But, I think the Clause is quite in Order.

Whatever may have appeared in the Press—and I am in the same position as you are, Mr. Speaker, not having seen it—such statements, by whomsoever they were inspired, were certainly not inspired by the Board of Trade. As my right hon. and learned Friend stated, this information is required for a purpose which we regard as relevant to the rest of the Bill. At the present time, there is no information about the movement of passengers by air, except about the total numbers moved. Information is desired about the age, sex, and occupations, of migrants by air, so that the Board of Trade, the Registrar-General, and other Departments, may know the extent and nature of movements in and out of the country. It is particularly important to know what kind of people are leaving the country, and a simple record of total numbers of people leaving the country, without details of what type of people they are, is not satisfactory.

It may be that the absence of this information at the present time is not really a serious matter, but there will be, in the future, a development in air transport. With that development we may have a serious gap in our knowledge of the people coming into and going out of the country. Therefore, we are taking this opportunity, in this Bill, of closing that gap. When we deal with movement by sea on vessels going beyond Europe and the Mediterranean, under Section 76 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, the Board of Trade has the power to require a return of passengers carried by ship into or out of the United Kingdom. I think it will be generally agreed that a provision under an Act of 1906 which was desirable in relation to people travelling, by ship, in and out of this country, cannot be regarded as objectionable if we now desire to bring air transport, a later development, into line with sea transport.

The conditions in civil aviation are very different from those in shipping. It is impossible to put the same obligation upon the pilot of a plane as on the captain of a ship. The plane journey may be much shorter and the pilot does not normally have the assistance of the staff which is possessed by the captain of a ship. Travel by air is already surrounded by quite a large number of formalities, and the various Departments responsible for them, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Home Office and the Ministry of Health, are naturally reluctant to add to them. The Home Office is able, under the Aliens Order, to collect any information that may be required about the movement of aliens into and out of the country.

Information is required, however, about British subjects, but just as the Order made under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, does not require information to be furnished about individual movements of migrants by sea to and from Europe, we shall not be seeking information by Order, under this Bill, about migration to the Continent by air. Migration to and from Europe by sea or air is believed to be quite small, so far as 'British subjects are concerned, but there is considerable in and out movement in relation to more distant destinations. It is important that we should be able to match the statistics of movement by sea with similar statistics for air transport, when air transport becomes sufficiently large to justify the setting up of machinery to collect the information.

We have not yet decided the precise manner in which the information will be collected. It is not envisaged that it will be necessary, in the immediate future, to collect this information, but as air transport grows, we can see that this might become reasonable and desirable. All that we are seeking to do by this new Clause is to make it possible, when a reasonable, efficient and not too onerous procedure has been evolved, to collect the information which we need. Hon. Members opposite may say that there is already too much form filling, too much formality about travel by air. That is possibly so, and we recognise the necessity for reducing the formalities to the very minimum.

11.15 a.m.

The Clause is straightforward. Subsection (1) gives the Board of Trade power to make an Order, although the essential idea is to provide migration statistics, the Clause should not be limited to migrants, but should cover other passengers travelling by air, as the Merchant Shipping Act does for passengers by sea. The penalty in Subsection (2) corresponds to that in the Merchant Shipping Act for a similar offence, and that Subsection (3) is in line with that provided under Clause 4 of the Bill if undertakings make false statements in their returns. There is nothing behind this Clause except to make it possible, when it becomes necessary, to collect information about passages to and from this country by people using air transport. The principle was recognised as long ago as 1906 under the Merchant Shipping Act, and I hope that the House will recognise that this is a reasonable request.

I think that anyone reading this Clause would regard it as confirmation of the view expressed on this side of the House during the Second Reading Debate that this Bill was intended to be used, not merely for the collection of statistics for the use of industry, but for penal purposes, and as affecting the liberties and rights of individuals in this country. It is really an astonishing Clause, quite apart from the limitations which the Parliamentary Secretary has sought to put upon it, because there was a wide discrepancy between the terms of the Clause and what he said. From Subsection (1) of the Clause, one sees that there is absolutely no limitation to the extent of the information which the Board of Trade may, by Order, require a person leaving or entering this country by air to give, or, if he does not, be guilty of a criminal offence.

As far as one can see, anything could be prescribed, and in seeking to justify this new Clause the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Board of Trade wanted to know the age, sex and occupation of persons leaving the country by air. If that is all that this new Clause is intended to achieve, why is that not specified in the Clause? It is perfectly easy to draft a Clause to provide that information on those particular points shall be given. The Clause as it now stands contains no such limitation. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the advisability of limiting the objects of this Clause in accordance with what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, so as to avoid, in future, the misrepresentations which have apparently appeared in the Press, from what source one knows not, as to the purpose which this new Clause is intended to achieve.

Nothing has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary as to the use of this new Clause, with regard to people arriving in this country by air. He has not sought to justify that in any way. Does it mean that every person arriving in this country by air, whether he be a diplomat, whether he be travelling on a Government mission, whether he is only arriving in this country with a view to flying on to some other country at the earliest possible opportunity, will be required to give such information as the Board of Trade prescribe? I should like to know for what particular reason the Board of Trade is seeking to exercise this function. Why not the Home Office? I should have thought that the Home Office was the proper body to deal with population statistics and statistics with regard to migrants.

If it is so important to have the figures of those migrating to the British Empire from this country, their age, sex and occupation, is it not equally important to have the figures of those who migrate to Europe? What is the reason for that exclusion? Is it the belief that in future there will be no migrants to Europe, and no persons arriving in this country by air from Europe? Are they to be excluded too? We ought to be told about that. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to Section 76 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, but there is an important distinction. There the burden of providing information in regard to passengers carried by shipping is placed upon the master of the vessel. In that Section all that is required is that:

"The master …shall furnish to such person and in such manner as the Board of Trade direct a return giving the total number of any passengers so carried, distinguishing, if so directed by the Board, the total number of any class of passengers so carried, and giving, if the Board of Trade so direct, such particulars with respect to passengers as may be for the time being required by the Board."

I have not had an opportunity to ascertain whether the Board of Trade require particulars to be given by the master of the vessel as to the age, sex and occupation of the passengers. I should have thought that all that information could have been obtained from the forms which people have to fill in when they apply for passports. There the destination and the full particulars of the individual are given. The Parliamentary Secretary has produced no further adequate reason for placing this burden on each individual who is seeking to come to or leave this country by air. It may be that the pilot has now a multitude of forms to fill in but surely, in relation to every aircraft, there is another official at the airport who could see that this information, it was really necessary, was obtainable. I suggest that provision should be made for it to be done in that way, following more closely the model of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, rather than placing the obligations upon each individual.

The Parliamentary Secretary drew attention to the fact that in Subsection (2) the penalty was the same as in the Merchant Shipping Act. However, he did not seek to justify the heavy penalty provided by Subsection (3), a penalty which is vastly in excess of that provided in Section 76 of the Merchant Shipping Act, in the case of a person giving false information. In that Section the penalty is precisely the same whether the person refuses to give information or gives false information. I suggest that before this new Clause is read a Second time, we should receive from the Government an undertaking that the objects of this information will be specifically limited in the Clause. A more precise definition of the objects and purposes for which the information is required should be given. Nothing has been said explaining the purpose of requiring information from people arriving in this Island.

We on this side of the House are completely puzzled, befogged and unable to see the reason why this Clause should appear on the Order Paper. I listened carefully to the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary. We did not get very much explanation of the real object behind this. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has said, already in passports and under a whole variety of enactments we are obliged to furnish information in regard to our passage whether by air or sea. This new obligation would be asking a great deal from ordinary people attempting to carry out their ordinary everyday duties. In many respects the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is doing his best to enlarge and extend the activities of our export trade. He is not helping the export trade, however, by putting this rather frustrating condition upon people travelling between this country and abroad. I endorse everything said by my hon. and learned Friend. We ought to know something more about the real object behind this new Clause before it is accepted.

I think that we have heard far too little about the immigrant or intake side of this new Clause. It appears to me from what I heard and from what one can see in the Clause itself, that we are being asked to put it into the wrong Bill and that it is being dealt with by the wrong Ministry. To take a practical case, are we not trying to centralise into the hands of the Home Office the duty of watching over those who come into this country? I should have thought that it was only common sense that we should do that. Would it not be only common sense for the Board of Trade to request the Home Office, if need be, to ask for certain information which could be given by the passenger on arrival by air? Surely, it is not beyond the wit of man to imagine that occasionally the Home Office might speak to the Board of Trade.

Of course, that may not be the position. I do not know. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will tell us whether there is any exchange of information. Perhaps they do not speak at all, though I hope that they do. Let us encourage them to get together. Let us encourage the Departments of Government to work together. To attempt to put this Clause into the Bill would appear to be a fantastic over-complication of some of the steps which have to be taken already by people who want to visit this country by air. Is it suggested that in order to put this Clause into effect a special staff will have to be maintained at airports by the Board of Trade, wearing a uniform designed by the President of the Board of Trade and his Parliamentary Secretary? Who will handle this matter? Will it be sub-contracted to the caterers, or the Home Office? Will it be let off to the Ministry of Health, who, undoubtedly, will come along sooner or later and ask if anybody has got a cold when they arrive? If we accept this new Clause we are adding to the number of fences which must be jumped. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider the matter.

It appears to me that this new Clause undoubtedly is redundant. It is one of the rather typical Clauses that we are getting accustomed to receive, based on the idea that possibly something more might be wanted at a later date— In actual fact, at present, if the information required is as the Parliamentary Secretary says, it must be obtainable automatically from the moment when a passenger leaving this country by air arrives at the airport. He or she must give up a passport and in it there is contained his or her age, sex and occupation. Possibly the ladies arriving may feel a little nervous in future that a large penalty may be imposed if they do not give their ages correctly. It is worth noting that at the beginning of the passport the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs requests everybody to allow the holder of the passport to arrive without let or hindrance anywhere in the world. Possibly he might address his appeal to the President of the Board of Trade. This seems to me to constitute quite an unnecessary hindrance.

There is not the slightest doubt that this information can be obtained, if it is confined to the three points made, from the B.O.A.C. who make returns of their passengers in any case. The information is there. The passport is given up and details are taken from it. It appears to me quite unnecessary to have a Clause duplicating work which already exists. Of course, if there is a wider and large target in view than that which has been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary—and he did make some reservation that that was all they wanted at present—we might yet find ourselves in the position when we go to America of having to fill up an enormous form saying whether we want to assassinate the President and whether we are Communists. We might be asked why we want to leave this country— I suppose, to cease to be one of God's frozen people, after what we heard yesterday. In any case, everything that the Parliamentary Secretary has asked for is already obtainable by reason of the fact that the passport is given up at the airport. The three points can be copied down without any further fuss and without any need for a Clause of this sort.

I am also rather puzzled by this Clause and I do not see what it contributes that is not already in the Bill, The rest of the Bill is inviting traders to give information. Could not exactly the same result be obtained by asking the Corporations and charter companies to give this information? I appreciate that that would not cover the matter of the penalty on the individual giving wrong information, but what advantage is there to be gained in any case? As often as not it would be difficult to recover from the individual and very often it would be difficult to pin the matter down.

The only advantage I can see is that this Clause puts a security provision into the Bill; it is, therefore, different in character from any other Clause in the Bill. If a security provision is required, this is not the right place for it; it should be in a different Bill. Even if it is for ordinary information, ought it not to be in the Civil Aviation Act, or in the Air Navigation Act, which is comparable to the Merchant Shipping Act? The only other cases to be covered are of individuals flying their own planes, with or without passengers, abroad from this country. When an individual takes off, it will be quite easy for him to give wrong information as to his destination, and I, therefore, take it that if he gave wrong information that would be a security matter. If he went to the Continent when he said he was not going there, completely different remedies are available. I would like a much better explanation from the Government than we have already had to justify this Clause.

I was quite unable to make up my mind whether the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was one of great innocence or great cunning. It was certainly nothing between the two. He made out that this Clause, which is a very wide one and may at some time be of very great importance, was just a small thing tucked in in case sometime or somewhere a little bit of trouble might arise arid the Government might want it. His whole case was that it was not very important and nothing to worry about but that the Government might want it for some useful purpose sooner or later and were really looking miles ahead in case they could prosecute someone at some other time. It is interesting to note that for a precedent they went back to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906. In all probability that has been a fairly effective Act, but since that time there have been certain developments which have today come to the notice even of the President of the Board of Trade, such as wireless and other things, which make it very much easier to detect anything which is going wrong. Also the efficiency of the Home Office in dealing with these matters has increased considerably. I should hardly have thought that it was necessary to go back to such an old Act for a precedent.

The Parliamentary Secretary said he did not require this as far as the Continent was concerned, but I noticed that he very carefully left out Ireland. I would like to know whether the Government really need this Clause for some purpose in connection with Ireland. That point was diligently left out, and I wonder whether that was because he was cunning or innocent. The Parliamentary Secretary also said, obviously with sincerity, that the Government did not want to use this in the immediate future. That being the case, why bring in this new Clause now when the Government are telling us that because of the pressure of legislation they have very little time available? Even a Clause of this kind must take a little while to draft.

What really does astonish me is that we already have a complete passport system and we already have under Treasury control and exchange control a tremendous power for the purpose of dealing with people coming into and going out of the country. We, therefore, already have powers under two Government Departments to effect precisely what is needed under this new Clause. What is the good of giving a third Government Department very stringent powers when there are already two Government Departments using them? Is it because there is mistrust between the three Government Departments? Is it the case that the Government are going to abolish the other two Departments and that this is a preparatory measure, or what? Then there is this further extraordinary matter. The President of the Board of Trade seems to wish to speak. If he wishes to interrupt me I will quite willingly give way. However, it seems that he does not.

I feel sure that this must be the direct doing of the very clear legal mind of the President of the Board of Trade. In Subsection (2) we lay down penalties which apply in much the same way as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906. That may be all right or not, but under Subsection (3) we are putting down an entirely different set of penalties. I believe that these are found in the Exchange Control Act. For very much the same object we apparently have two different sets of penalties, one very old and out of date and the other newer and more punitive. Surely it would be just as well to have one set of penalties running right through the whole of these crimes?

We really must look at this Clause. I nave been driven to look at it with grave suspicion, though on the surface it appears to be comparatively innocent. After the general proceedings on other matters, what leaps to my mind is that such Clauses are now being inserted in almost every Bill by almost every Ministry. They find that by this system they can get a little bit more power and add a few more civil servants to their staff. There also seems to be a growing dislike on the part of the Government of people migrating. There is a natural dislike of the free passage of people from this to other countries. That is a system which, under another regime, is known as the iron curtain, and this new Clause is really a preliminary fold in the iron curtain which the Government are endeavouring to build up to prevent ease of access between this and other countries. It will add to people's difficulties if they have to pass through one, two, three, or even four Ministries with the requisite number of forms before they can get out of the country.

That is contrary to the old spirit of what I believe to be the constitution of this country and the wishes of the people, that there should be freedom of movement at the present time for people in this rather congested island to go out into the world and develop it, as they have done so well in the past. I regret that there is no Subsection in this Clause which would enable people to go freely, without any interference, to and from the British Commonwealth and the Empire. Those are some of the reasons why I oppose the Bill, and why I think it is a pity that this new Clause should be moved giving such terrific powers to the Government and that they then come and say that they do not want them at the present time. I notice that the Chief Patronage Secretary is not here, and so does not know how our time is being wasted.

This a rather remarkable Clause to find added suddenly to this Bill, which was intended originally for quite a different purpose. The heading of the Bill says it is to

"Enable certain government departments to obtain more readily the information necessary for the appreciation of economic trends and for the discharge of their functions."

Now the hon. Gentleman is introducing something which he himself agreed is for quite a different purpose, and therefore t is entirely inappropriate that this Clause should be put into the Bill. I should have thought, at a time like this, when our invisible exports are of such importance, the Government would do everything in their powers to encourage the tourist traffic. I do not think people will be encouraged to come to this country if they know that, on their arrival, they are likely to be subjected to the sort of cross-examination permitted under this new Clause. With regard to the penalties set out in Subsection (2), there is the usual abhorrent practice, which this Government has introduced, of throwing on to the accused person the onus of establishing his innocence. The wording chosen here, and it occurs similarly in another part of the Bill, is that it is an absolute offence unless the traveller himself establishes that he had reasonable excuse. Why the ordinary form of throwing the onus on those who make the charge has not been adopted, I am not able to under-stand.

I do not know where in the Bill it is proposed to insert this new Clause, because that will make a difference. In Clauses g and 12 there are various consequences which follow on words relating to the "foregoing provisions of this Act." If this new Clause comes before those, the consequences may be very different from what they will be if it comes afterwards. If this new Clause comes before Clause 12, then Clauses 9 and 12 will cover this new Clause; if, on the other hand, this Clause comes after Clauses 9 and 12, it will not. I put that forward as being a point of considerable importance in the interpretation of the new Clause, and also to show how inappropriate it is to add suddenly to a Bill of this character a Clause which is of quite a different purpose and nature from the Bill itself. If the hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to have these powers, I suggest that the right way to do it is in a proper Bill which would be debated in quite a different way, rather than on the Report stage of a Bill of this kind.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to reply to some of the points raised. I cannot help feeling that, as usual with Measures of this kind, a great deal more appears to be read into the Bill or into the new Clause than is there. I tried to explain the reasons why we wanted this new Clause and, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) I do not see any great difficulty about where the Clause is to be inserted, It is a self-contained Clause and can go in at the end of the Bill.

May I point out the difference it makes? Clause 9 says:

"no information relating to an individual undertaking, obtained under the foregoing provisions of this Act …"

That refers to an undertaking as defined in the Bill, but I want to know whether information obtained under this new Clause comes within Clause 9 or the penalty Clause in Clause 12. In Clause 12 there is no reference to an undertaking, and it might well be that the penalty Clause in Clause 12 would apply to this new Clause.

I think I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that his doubts on that subject need not remain with him. This not an undertaking we are referring to, it is to an individual. I do not know whether you could describe the individual as a body corporate. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) wanted to know why the Board of Trade is seeking these powers. The answer is simple. The watch over migration has hitherto resided in the Board of Trade, which is the authority responsible under the Shipping Act of 1906. We foresee that in the future there may be a considerable volume of migration by air, far more than there is at the moment. Further, it is desirable to have information about movements of population in and out of the country in order that we may be able to plan our economic future. The country has already decided that it requires its economic future planned, and without the fullest possible information—and every economist is agreed on this—about movements of population from one country to another, it is impossible to do that properly.

Then the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to know why we propose to exclude Europe from our considerations. There are two good reasons for that. In the first place, there is hardly any emigration at all out of this country into Europe and, secondly, there is a large number— and I imagine there will be an increasingly large number—of people who wish to travel from this country into Europe for many purposes. It was suggested by several hon. Gentlemen opposite that this information is already available, or could readily be made available, either from the records of B.O.A.C. or by reference to the passport application form, or to the passport. I am advised that the information required is not in the possession of B.O.A.C. at the moment, and a passport application form, so far as I am aware, does not indicate the precise ultimate destination of the person who applies for or uses a passport.

The hon. Gentleman says it is not in the information of B.O.A.C. at the moment, but as far as the passport is concerned, the power to obtain information is in their hands.

Surely the passport is examined by the Home Office at the time of departure or arrival, so the information is obviously available.

I am not quite sure, I do not think it is examined by the Home Office at the time of departure or arrival. In any case, the copying of the information from the passport would take at least as long, if not longer, than the filling up of a simple form.

There was some discussion about the penalty Clause, and it was said that while Subsection (2) of this new Clause adhered to the principle laid down in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, Subsection (3) had a heavier scale of penalties. Of course, they deal with two separate offences. Section 76 (3) of the 1906 Act deals with the failure to make a return. Subsection (3) of this new Clause deals with the far more serious offence of knowingly or recklessly making a statement which is false in a material particular. In those circumstances, surely, no hon. Member would be prepared to argue that there should not be a higher penalty for knowingly or recklessly making a statement which is false in a material particular, than there should be in the case of an individual who does not make a return.

I was asked who will do the job. It is not envisaged that this shall be a job to be done in the immediate future. That is one of the details which can be worked out. But it certainly will not be done by an individual dressed up in a fanciful uniform either of my right hon. and learned Friend's design or of my own. I am sure hon. Members opposite would not desire a uniform of that kind. We are already accustomed to receiving assistance from other Government Departments to enable the Board of Trade to collect the information which it requires. We might use the Customs and Excise; we might ask B.O.A.C. to do it, but B.O.A.C. could not collect this information unless it had behind it statutory power to ask for that information. That is one of the reasons why we seek these new powers.

The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) wanted to know why we seek to introduce this Clause into the Bill if we do not require the information immediately. It is a perfectly sound and wise thing to do, to take this opportunity of introducing into a statistical Bill this power, even if it is not to be used immediately, rather than wait until the need does arise and then have more legislation. I thought it was the desire of hon. Members particularly on the other side of the House, to avoid legislation and, surely, it is far better legitimately to bring into a Bill of this kind a Clause to meet a future need, rather than wait until later and introduce a new Bill.

On the subject of information to be required, I am prepared to agree that possibly Subsection (1) is wide. [Laughter.] I do not think hon. Members opposite should laugh when I am prepared to be reasonable. I did mention three particulars which might be required on the form to be supplied; they are age, sex and occupation. We should also want to know the last permanent residence and the future permanent residence for migration purposes; but we are prepared to have a further look at this point and if, in the light of the discussion which has taken place today, some different form of words can be devised, we will be prepared at a later stage in the passage of this Bill to do what we can to meet the legitimate desires of hon. Members in all parts of the House. Having given that undertaking, I hope the House will be prepared to assent to the Second Reading of this Clause.

I think we on this side of the House made a tactical error this morning at the commencement of the proceedings, Mr. Speaker, in inviting you to rule that this Clause was outside the Title of the Bill. I am not asking you, Sir, to commit yourself now, but I have a shrewd idea that if we had allowed the Parliamentary Secretary to make the speech he has just delivered, before raising this point, you might have been more inclined to consider that this Clause was definitely outside the Title of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary was very ingenious, but I am afraid that, not for the first time, he has fallen between two stools. He has been trying to argue that this is a most innocuous Clause, because all it does is to ask for some very minor particulars from intending migrants. He wants to know their sex, occupation, marital status, last place of residence and where they are going. If one is to believe him, that is all the information which is required. Quite clearly, those particulars are well outside the Title of this Bill; not only that, but I suggest they are completely outside what the Parliamentary Secretary himself, in his final speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, defined as the object of the Government. He then said:

"I am quite prepared to give the assurance that the only reason for seeking the powers is in order that we may be the better able to survey and plan the industry of this country in the interests of full employment."

Can any reasonable member of the public or of this House say what possible connection there can be between the interests of full employment in this country and knowing whether a particular person on an aeroplane is married or single? He went on to say;

"At this stage we are concerned with establishing a principle—the principle that the Government require power to obtain information about the state of trade in this country in order that both the Government and industry shall be able, more effectively, to deal with the various issues which arise." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1947; vol. 432, c. 141.]

So far as migration is concerned, the Parliamentary Secretary said he would not ask for these statistics in respect of traffic to and from the Continent. He was apparently concerned only with people who were migrating from this country. I suggest that in the future, and, possibly, in the comparatively near future, it will be just as important not only to manpower but also to industry to have particulars about immigrants as well as emigrants. If we are talking about immigrants into the country then, surely, if we pay attention and respond to these compassionate appeals which have been made that to all countries of the United Nations, Europe is the one place from which we shall be expected to draw migrants into this country and open our doors to them. It is clear, therefore, that in this respect, the Parliamentary Secretary is talking with his tongue in his cheek.

What is the real object of this new Clause? I suggest it is something quite different, and is revealed by the obviously inspired comments in the Press last night which refer to the new "Customs snoops." I will not weary the House with the whole of it, but it says:

"The new. Cripps quiz for air travellers is to be put into the super-snoop Bill, the Statistics of Trade Bill, providing for census of production and distribution, which requires a great deal of form filling. Sir Stafford in the Commons tomorrow will ask for wide powers for the Board of Trade to question anybody.… The Customs comment today on the use of search warrants.…"

I might interrupt, the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the statement he is reading, and which I have not had the pleasure of reading, is an inspired comment. I think he said it was obviously inspired. Does he think that an inspired statement from the Board of Trade would refer to "super-snoop powers "?

No, but I suggest it is inspired because it refers to "Customs comment today." It is the result of discussion between the Press and some department of the Government—presumably the Customs—who pointed out that, owing to the difficulty of dealing with smuggling they wanted additional information. The position would be very different indeed if the Government would accept an Amendment drastically limiting the powers of demanding information to the broad points which the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated. If they do that, it will very largely reduce our objection to the Bill.

12 noon.

There is one final point with which I should like to deal in regard to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. At the beginning of his speech he suggested he merely wanted, in respect of air travellers, the same powers as were exercised under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, in respect of passengers going by sea to overseas destinations. When he came to answer a point made by my hon. Friend he suggested it was perfectly right and proper that there should be a differentiation in penalty between a person who failed to give information and a person who recklessly made any false statement. I think that was the point he was making. But if we examine that argument, it will be seen to be inconsistent with his earlier argument that he merely wanted the powers of the Merchant Shipping Act. If he looks at Section 76 (3) of that Act, he will see it reads as follows:

"If the master of a ship tails to make a return as required by this section, or makes a false return, and if any passenger refuses to give any information required by the master of the ship for the purpose of the return required by this section, or gives any false information for the purpose, the master or passenger shall be liable for each offence on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."

Therefore, the analogy of the Merchant Shipping Act is not applicable to this Clause, because in the case of that Act the penalty was the same for both, whereas we are being asked to make an innovation by a differentiation of the penalty.

On a point of Order. I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. In this Session, a few weeks ago, the House passed the Air Navigation Act. Under Section I (2) of that Act:

"His Majesty's Government may, by Order in Council, make provisions—

(f) as to the conditions under which passengers and goods may be carried by air."

Under that, therefore, the Government can order the Corporations, their Corporations, to demand these particulars which are given by would-be passengers. The point upon which I should like your guidance is this: is it in Order for this House to be asked to legislate twice in the same Session for the same purpose? Should not the rule against repetition apply?

I have had only 30 seconds' notice of that question, but I should have thought it was up to the House whether or not they legislated twice in respect of the same matter.

I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) for what he has said. We do not want this to be misunderstood in any way or to embarrass anybody. However, there are certain material statistics which we wish to get in regard to migration. Perhaps it could be left to another place to put this in a form which is less embarrassing, or which will not be quite so wide. We should be quite prepared to leave the matter to be discussed there, and then the House could consider it when the Bill comes back.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman withdraws the Clause?

No. I suggest that we pass the Clause, but that those in another place could consider any form of Amendment which might be suggested.

I appreciate that suggestion. I should only like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would not be more convenient for the Clause to be withdrawn, and a new Clause embodying Amendments which may be thought necessary as a result of this discussion inserted in another place.

I think the method I have suggested would be the more convenient way of doing it. We have gone a long way to meet the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure he appreciates.

I listened with great care to the criticism of this Clause. I had a not unfamiliar experience. I was only half convinced by the criticism at the time, because I thought there must be something more to be said in defence than had appeared. It was only when I heard the Parliamentary Secretary that I felt convinced that the Opposition had made a strong case. I was brought up, under a cautious and restrained Administration, when Parliament's control was very real and effective, and I still find it difficult to believe that there is not some reasonable explanation of something which, on the face of it, looks to be foolish. However, I recall a remark of that wise political observer, Mr. J. A. Spender, when discussing a similar problem. Someone had said, "It cannot be as foolish as that," whereupon he replied, "After the experience of a long political lifetime I have come to the conclusion that, after all, things usually are as silly as they seem.' 'When I heard the Parliamentary Secretary I thought to myself, "This really is as silly as it seemed before he spoke."

What in effect did the Parliamentary Secretary say? He said, "We do not know yet quite what information we shall want or when we shall want it. We are therefore asking Parliament to give us powers which we may use later within a wide, and indeed"—as the Clause stood—" practically unlimited and undefined sphere if and when we want that information. This will reduce the volume of legislation of which everyone is complaining." On that argument, how much better it would be if, in order to reduce the volume of legislation, Parliament passed one simple Act saying that the Executive could on any matter do anything they wished. That is an effect not so very far from what I suggest the Government are asking us to do in a series of spheres in successive Acts with regard to particular matters with which each Department may wish to deal. Is it necessary to have these additional powers? My hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) has shown that in fact powers already exist to get the information which is essential for the declared purposes. Once the would-be acquirer of statistics has developed his appetite there is nothing at which he will stop. I remember once when I had to apply for a driving licence in Paris I was asked, in a form which I had to fill up, in what parish my grandmother was born. I confess, I could not remember, but I filled up the form on the assumption—as it proved, happily a justified assumption —that those to whom I sent the form would have no better information on that question than I had. It really is not right to introduce a Clause as widely drafted as this, when it looks as if there are already sufficient powers and machinery elsewhere for the purpose for which it is designed. The only answer we have had to the reasonable criticisms which have been made is: "Oh, well, we will see what we can do about it in another place." Is that really satisfactory at this stage of the Bill in regard to so fundamental a defect?

I should like to add a few words to the very eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford Univer- sity (Sir A. Salter). Will this Clause really achieve the object for which it is designed? Apparently, it is not intended to deal with the tourist traffic, or to see what dimensions the tourist industry has reached. It is intended to deal with migration. Will it achieve the objects which the Government have said it will carry out? I do not think it will for a moment. Individuals leaving this country can put down anything they like on the form, because they are not coming back, so the fear of a fine or penalty will have no influence with them at all. Immigrants can only come to reside permanently in this country if they have a proper visa, and if other arrangements have been made for them by the Consul in the country which they wish to leave, so that the information is already available in the Consulates of the various countries granting visas to the immigrants. Therefore, I cannot see that the Clause will achieve the object for which it was designed.

Furthermore, we are told that no reference is to be made to short travel distances between this country and Europe. What about Ireland? I understand Northern Ireland is covered by the Bill. What about Southern Ireland? Anybody can go to Southern Ireland, and go on from Southern Ireland to some other part of the world. I understand that the Mauretania, now that she is recommissioned, is to resume her prewar calls at a Southern Irish port. What is to prevent a would be emigrant from taking a short trip to Southern Ireland and catching the Mauretania at the Southern Irish port? I should like to see the rejection of this new Clause for the following additional reason, namely, that it altogether fails to achieve the purpose, the very dubious purpose, for which it is intended.

By leave of the House, I should like to express my thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the attitude he has adopted. I understand that he is going to put in words for the limitation of the information required, in accordance with the Parliamentary Secretary's statement. Y would merely ask him if he would also consider the question of bringing the penalties into line for travellers by sea and by air. The majority of immigrants will, presumably, travel by sea. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider that question. If that is the case, we shall not divide against this new Clause, or move the manuscript Amendments to which I have referred.

We shall certainly consider both those matters.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find it possible to incorporate this new Clause in the Bill, because I believe it is a Clause, not only of considerable importance, but which accords with the true intent of this Bill, and will lead to a much more efficient collection of statistics, and avoid the danger of duplication by competent authorities, as described in the Bill, asking for the same thing on many occasions. The report of the Census of Production Committee stresses the desirability of centralisation in its introductory observations. It states:

"In the collection of statistical information it is of great importance that duplication of work between different Government Departments should be avoided."

There is, as I see it, in the Bill as it now stands, an appreciable risk that that duplication will occur. If this new Clause is adopted we shall have the Board of Trade as a sort of clearing house for statistics. The Board of Trade will receive all the periodical and other estimates and returns furnished under the Bill to other competent authorities, and will have the power, under Subsection (2) of this new Clause, to add to that information if it requires it for the purposes of the census. The new Clause makes the further stipulation to avoid overlapping, that before any person is required to furnish any periodical or other estimates and returns, the other Government Departments shall notify the Board of Trade of the information required by them, and that then the Board of Trade shall inform that authority whether that information has already been obtained; and if it has, it shall furnish it to that other authority.

It does seem to us on this side of the House a matter of some importance that there really should be this centralisation in the collection of statistics, so that all statistics which are collected go to the Board of Trade, and so that all these returns, which, we hope, will be of great value to industry, may be centralised, to ensure, so far as it can be ensured, that the burdens upon industry, which are already very extensive, shall not be considerably increased by the necessity of having, from time to time, to furnish to one Government Department information which is already in the possession of another. I hope that, in moving this new Clause as shortly as that, I have made its object clear to the House.

I beg to second the Motion.

There is no doubt that the form filling by industry has become one of its most serious impediments. Particularly, it affects the small manufacturer who has not access to large clerical staffs, and who, hitherto, has not found it necessary to maintain a large statistical organisation for the successful management of his work. He is more and more finding that his time, and that of his clerks, is taken up with endless form filling on behalf of a multitude of Government Departments. I would add, in parenthesis, that the same vice has extended to the National Coal Board. Some firms making mining machinery, for example, are having to send returns not only to one divisional office, but to headquarters as well. So that we are getting overlapping and duplication within a single Government monopoly. How much that is going to be increased, when we have a number of Government Departments with powers to request information from individual firms, we can only surmise.

We are frequently told that it is not the intention of the Government to cause any duplication. We know the intentions of Ministers, and we know, also, that their acts do not always work out in accordance with their intentions. We are having numerous examples of one Government Department asking for information which has already been collected by another. This inevitably arises through there not being a properly constituted, centralised statistical department. It is an intrinsic principle of sound business management, wherever one has a large industrial organisation, that there should be one central statistical department. We suggest in this new Clause that the Government might well take a lesson from industry, and establish one centralised statistical organisation—we think, preferably, under the Board of Trade—to which all other Government Departments would apply for information, and by which additional requests for information would be sent out, only if the information were not already in its own possession.

It is not only within the industrial sphere that this principle has found ready acceptance. It was early discovered in large military headquarters during the war that a central statistical department was a necessary adjunct to efficient staff work and proficient military planning. It saved smaller formations, divisions and brigades, clerical work in that one return only, upon a given matter, was sent to one place, namely, the central statistical office at headquarters. What applied during the war in military circles, and is known to apply to industrial circles, could be equally well applied to Government Departments. We have put forward this new Clause because we think it is the right thing for the Government to do. We know we have a considerable measure of support from hon. Members opposite, as they indicated to us at an earlier stage of the Bill. We hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider the new Clause and all that it implies.

I rise to support the proposed Clause. It seems to me a very modest proposal. Indeed, if I have any criticism of it, it is that it goes scarcely far enough to meet the dangers it is designed to meet, that is, of duplication of, or of excessive demands for, information. I sympathise with the President of the Board of Trade in desiring adequate information for the general purposes stated in the Preamble of his Bill. I speak not altogether as a layman in these matters. I have had for many years to use statistics, partly as an official and partly for the purposes of economic study. Moreover, I was head of the Economic and Financial Section of the League for some 10 years, one branch of which under Mr. Loveday, developed a series of statistical publications, which I think have had a very considerable reputation throughout the world. The President of the Board of Trade will be aware of these publications. In both these capacities, I have often wished that certain gaps in the information received could be filled up, arid occasionally, that certain powers which did not exist for the purpose of acquiring information could be obtained. At the same time, I have been very conscious indeed, especially in recent years, of the great danger of a series of separate authorities having powers to acquire information from the same business firms.

If we look at this Bill, we find, in Clause 16, that about 20 competent authorities can separately demand information from industry. That, however, gives an inadequate picture of the real situation, because, in each of these Departments, there are probably a number of officers at the head of separate branches, each one of whom, though not formally and legally, is, in fact, practically, also a separate competent authority who can launch a new inquiry. It has long been a very serious defect in the machinery of Government in this country that there is no single person or office, and no single mind, which has to weigh against the admitted desirability of obtaining a particular piece of new information the burden it means to industries of all kinds to whom the demand for that information is sent; which has to consider what will be the effect when another extra task is added to the work already demanded of them. I do seriously suggest that the cumulative effect of all the demands made on industry, small as well as great, is becoming a very grave, almost fatal, factor, in the conduct of their business. The dangers are that the demands for information will be duplicated; or excessive, if one has regard to the work involved; and also that the demands will be made in a form which is unnecessarily complicated. I could give a dozen examples, but every hon. Member will know of the extremely and unnecessarily complicated forms in use.

There is a further difficulty inherent in this problem. It is that, when a demand for information goes out from some Whitehall office, it goes in the same form to industries which are as different in the scale and size of their equipment and operations as the Imperial Chemical Industries, on the one hand, and a quite small firm, on the' other. It is extremely unlikely that the kind of form which might be suitable for the one kind of industry would be at all applicable to the other. I remember that, when I was an official in the National Health Insurance Office in 1912, we had to collect information and give instructions for carrying out the Insurance Act to the approved societies and branches, numbering some 20,000, and varying in form and character from a great society like the Prudential down to a little village society run by the local blacksmith. It was extraordinarily difficult to find a form of instruction which would be reasonably appropriate to the Prudential, on the one hand, and to the village society, on the other. In that office at that time, we arrived at a device which, for its own class of work, was very effective. We chose a certain officer in the Department through whom every demand for information and every instruction to an approved society, no matter from what branch in the office they emanated, had to go before they were circulated. He had to read them all through and ensure that they were easily intelligible to himself before they were circulated and allowed to go out to the approved societies. I may add that, as a secret bit of office technique, we deliberately did not choose the most intelligent or quick witted of our officers for that crucial point in our organisation.

That was a problem which it was easy to solve for one single Department. But, we now have, impinging upon industry of every kind, scale and size, demands for information from some 20 competent authorities, and, in fact, as I have suggested, from very many more. There is no machinery in Whitehall which requires that the demands should be centralised, and not only centralised for the purpose of seeing that there is no duplication, but also for the purpose of ensuring that there is some human mind which is weighing up the total burden of all the demands that are made on different industries and the work which they will involve. We are coming to the point at which, desirable as it is to have extra information, we may have to stop, because we are breaking down a large proportion of business enterprise. We are usually accustomed in this House and in the country to assess the effect of bureaucratic control as a burden on industry by taking the number of officials and considering them in the proportion they bear to people outside. That, however, is a most inadequate measure of the burden on industry which is involved. There is a greater invisible element, in the system of bureaucratic direction and control, which consists in the people dispersed throughout industry who are the counterpart of the demanding and controlling officer in Whitehall, who have to fill up the forms which Whitehall demands. If we think of all these, we get what becomes a terrifying total of the full burden now being thrown upon commerce and industry, particularly the smaller concerns, which are not already equipped for supplying statistical information. I do not think that this new Clause will go the whole way towards achieving our object, but it would be an important contribution to it.

Of course, we should all agree that the danger of overdoing it in the business world is a great one. Everybody is most anxious that, on their particular technical questions, they should get all the information they possibly can, and to get the tidiest lot of statistics possible, so that the public, the Minister or whoever it is who is concerned may have the most accurate information. We are very conscious of that danger, but this new Clause, I think, would cause a vast amount of extra labour and a degree of centralisation which would be most undesirable. It must not be overlooked that there is a Central Statistical Office, which does not carry out the executive work in regard to statistics, but is charged with the co-ordination of the different statistical services.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me? Surely, it only co-ordinates the results of the information which it obtains—not the demands for information?

It also has the task of advising and assisting the Department as to what they shall get, and as to whether the material they want to get is already accessible from other sources. We hope that the Central Statistical Department will gradually grow in influence. After all, this very large statistical organisation which has grown up is a very new one. We are really still in the experimental stage, and, during that stage, we do not want to be too rigid in our centralisation. The House should bear in mind that if this Clause were put into operation, it would mean that my Department would have to keep copies of every statistical return. If I may say so, God help my Department if it had to do that.

There are masses of short-term reports with which the Ministry of Food have to deal, concerned with the day-to-day movement of stocks and with day-to-day supplies, and so on, which have no relation to the overall and general statistical picture that wants to be drawn from some central point.

Surely, those short-term statistics are not collected under this Bill, and would not come under it at all?

They are collected under the Defence of the Realm Act, but they will be collected under this Bill as soon as those Defence Regulations lapse. This Bill will be the permanent structure under which statistics will be collected. It would be a terrible duplication if those forms had to be supplied to the Board of Trade, as well as to all the Departments who were utilising them.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I are both at the disadvantage of not having served on the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill. But, as a matter of fact, in dealing with a similar Amendment which we on this side of the House put on the Order Paper, the right hon. and learned Gentle- man's Parliamentary Secretary definitely stated the opposite to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been good enough to say. He said:

"There is a standing instruction that all statistics collected by Government Departments should be sent to the Central Statistical Office."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, Thursday, 27th March, 1947; c. 176.]

I said that they were not sent to the Board of Trade, and that it was the function of the Central Statistical Office to co-ordinate all of them. As a matter of fact, they only get the statistics in summary form; they do not get the actual forms. If they were to get the forms, it would be a most embarrassing thing for them, becaust they would be snowed under with them, and would not know what to do with them, except, perhaps, to summarise them themselves, and that would be duplication. The general practice is for the Central Statistical Office to send Departments the summaries, and then, of course, they help them to bring them into their eventual form, the monthly book of Statistical Returns.

It would not be an advantage, therefore, if my Department were put in as a fifth wheel in this coach, which is already running quite satisfactorily as between the Central Statistical Office and the other Departments. We can, of course, at any time get from those Departments any statistics we desire. If v e want the actual forms, we can get them. As a matter of fact, we generally only want the summaries, in order to assist us with such central statistics as we get. I think that the analogy which the hon. Member gave about industries does not really carry him all the way. He will find that in many of the great industries, like I.C.I., for example, statistics and forms are not sent in to the head office. They get summaries from their different branches of the material points with which they are concerned at head office. That, really, is much the same way in which the process at present works within the Government itself. It is rather more complicated, but it is, roughly, on the same sort of basis.

From the point of view of the control by this House, it is very essential that Ministerial responsibility should remain in the operative Department. I should be very unwilling to be made responsible for the statistics of all other Departments. I do not think that that would be satis- factory, because I should not be in a position to give full explanations to the House, whereas, if the House feel that too many statistics are being collected by, say, the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Ministry of Health, or whatever Ministry it may be, they are entitled to question the Minister as to why he wants those statistics. That is a good check upon the work being done.

Therefore, I feel that, though the fundamental objective behind this Clause is one with which we have great sympathy, the form in which it is suggested is wrong. It should not be a legislative form, but an administrative form. It is quite clear that it should be a matter of good administration, rather than legislation. I can assure the House that, as this develops, we shall try to get as good a centralised form of administration for statistical services as we possibly can. I am sure that we shall always be most anxious to receive the assistance of those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, have had a great experience in the collection of statistics. With that explanation, I hope that the right hon Gentleman will be good enough to withdraw this Motion.

When we came to draft this Clause, we were, as the right hon and learned Gentleman will realise, in a considerable difficulty. I agree with the right hon Member for the Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) that, in some ways, it is defective. But we were faced with the fact that this House had given a Second Reading to the Bill, and that it had been considered at considerable length in Standing Committee upstairs. Clearly, it was impossible, or so we thought, to ask this House on the Report stage to make a complete and drastic revision of the whole machinery which it had previously approved. Therefore, we were bound to try to see how we could fit in this idea, which I think meets with general approval on all sides of the House, of a more centralised collection of statistics, and the prevention of duplication.

My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Committee upstairs attempted to put down an Amendment which would have had that effect. In opposing it. the Parliamentary Secretary said:

"If the Amendment were adopted, the collection, for instance, of the monthly figures of coal production would have to be under- taken by the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Agriculture.…"

In short, the Board of Trade would have to deal with the whole range of industrial production. He went on:

"All we ask in the Clause "—

that is, the Clause as it stands—

"is that Government Departments who are in the best position to deal with their own industries shall acquire the information in a way which will suit not only them, but the industries with whom they deal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 27th March. 1947; c. 169, 170.]

Of course, we agree with that. But what we want to be sure of is that there is no possibility of duplication. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Durbin), who is now a junior Member of the Government, in the Debate on Second Reading gave an account of some of the difficulties he had met with in the duplication of statistics. Under this Clause, we do not want the Board of Trade, except in so far as it may be responsible for the Central Statistical Office, to do the collecting. All we want to ensure is that, before a Department starts to ask for new statistics, it should, at least, be compelled to go to some other Department, whether it be the Board of Trade, technically, or the Central Statistical Office, and ask whether they had already got the desired statistics.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see from the later Amendment which we have on the Order Paper, we want to make it a complete defence against prosecution for failure to return statistics, for a person to be able to say, "I have already furnished the statistics, or their reasonable equivalent, to some other Government Department." It is unfair that the same person should be asked to give the same statistics to three or four separate Departments. I quite agree that it is to some extent a matter of good administration, but I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not think me rude if I say that we on this side are not altogether happy about the excellence of the administration of his and other Government Departments. [An HON. MEMBER: "No Opposition ever is."] No doubt, if we were in power, we should not need this Clause; I do not think that even the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself in his heart of hearts would say that the administration of some of his colleagues is as good as that of some of his colleagues of Coalition days.

It would accordingly be as well to lay down in statutory form an obligation on Government departments to consult the Central Statistical Office. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to insert some other Minister instead of himself, or some other words in another place, if our wording is not quite right to achieve the object we have in view, that is a different matter. Perhaps we might do with this Clause as we have done with his Clause, pass it formally and agree to amend it in another place.

I have hesitated to intervene in this Debate because I have been unable to follow the procedings on this Bill in its earlier stages in the House, entirely because of the regrettable weight of legislation which means that one has to spend all one's time on another Bill. I have, however, the most intense interest in statistical problems, and though I should hesitate to repeat the arguments which may have been put forward before, I may find it difficult to avoid doing so as I have not been able to follow the proceedings upstairs. Listening to the discussion on this proposed new Clause I have been very much impressed by the argument for it, and I am perturbed because, if I have correctly understood it, there is no provision anywhere in the Bill for one central authority to decide what kind of information shall be collected.

My particular reason for being disturbed about this, is my own experience during the war years. Previous to the war I must say that I had a hearty contempt for statistics; I thought they were a nuisance, and just things that people liked to play with, but it was brought home to me when I was working on matters which required careful planning that you cannot begin to move without knowing what you are talking about. The second thing I learned was that if two people are talking about the same problem they must be doing so in the same terms. I will quote one magnificent example of this. I remember that at one stage in the war the shipping authorities, with which right hon. Gentlemen sitting in front of me were concerned, were under very heavy attack because, in the United States. it was claimed that they were failing to move the available production that had been allocated to the United Kingdom Particularly in question were 300 locomotives, and the British staff here also accused us of failing in our duty. They said that there were 300 locomotives shown on their records as being available for movement and we had not moved them. We immediately made contact with our executives in New York and asked if this was true. They looked up their records and said there were no locomotives. So we started to hunt the thing down, and we found that both sides had beautiful records but unfortunately they presented entirely different answers, although dealing with the identical commodity, locomotives We ultimately found that the reason for it was that on the one hand records showed every locomotive which had been allocated and which might be right back at the works, not moving down to the seaport, while on the other hand the shipping statistics showed those which were available alongside the quay ready to be moved into a ship. In point of fact a serious issue depended on it, because we might have lost all the locomotives if it could have been shown that they were in fact available and had not been moved.

That is precisely the problem that may arise here, because the President of the Board of Trade said he did not particularly want a lot of detail, he wanted summaries; but the summaries, particularly if they are to be used for obtaining information necessary for the appreciation of economic trends, must surely be prepared on a common basis. How on earth can that be achieved if each Department is left to prepare statistical information on its own and send up a summary? I do not believe that the Central Statistical Office can get the correct story in that way. It is the old question, which must be very well known to the President of the Board of Trade and to every hon. and right hon. Member, namely, the problem of finding out what is available and of knowing just where to make a cut in the pipeline to determine the position.

That was another difficulty we met with in dealing with supplies, say, to a Dominion. The most conflicting stories would be going round of how much was available for shipment, and it took months of work and finally the creation of a central statistical machine to be responsible for the form and presentation of the information before we overcame the difficulty. No two Departments would ever agree on precisely what was available, but all that was required was to say that at some given point of the pipeline you start counting what is on this side of the cut. I do not see how far this Bill can achieve this purpose unless there is a central authority which will define where each Department starts and stops. I should be most grateful to the President of the Board of Trade if he would say how these difficulties are going to be avoided.

This Bill of course is to authorise the collection of statistics. It does not purport to lay out the administration by which those statistics will be dealt with. That is an administrative matter which could not satisfactorily be dealt with by legislation. The principle is that the Central Statistical Office is the general advisory body to the Government upon the use of statistics, upon the sort of statistics required, how they can be collected and so on, but the actual collection of these statistics is in the hands of the Government Department which is currently dealing with the persons from whom the statistics are to come. That Department knows much better the form in which the statistics can be provided, what is the convenient thing to ask for and the convenient way to get it; it is in consultation with the industry itself, and can therefore arrange matters for more conveniently. This Bill is to give them power to get these, as well as the central statistics which I will not deal with for the moment. It seems to me that that provides the raw material. The question is how that raw material is to be worked up—

The Central Statistical Office may advise, but it depends how co-operative the Departments are, and who is to do the working up of the raw material. No one can do it, if it is to be used for a common purpose when it is worked up, unless it is prepared on a comparable basis. Only a Central Statistical Office can give guidance on that.

Working up the raw material is a job for the Department, but the method by which it should be done, and the form, are obviously matters on which there must be consultation between the Departments and the Central Statistical Office—and the planning authority as well, for that will be a vital factor in this matter. If that is left to be handled administratively, as a matter upon which Ministers can be questioned in the House, it is an easy way of doing it. To try and put it into the hard-and-fast form of legislation is, I think, the wrong way, and I am sure the House would not be wise to pass this Clause.

We have listened to the explanation given by the President of the Board of Trade about the administration of this device to secure statistics, but I am afraid that what he has told us is not altogether satisfactory, because what is necessary surely is some device, or some authority, to be responsible for limiting the expenditure and vetting the extension of the demand made for figures from industry. It is true, as the President of the Board of Trade said, that the Central Statistical Office has some sort of advisory function. Surely what is required here is not an advisory function but something which is much more rigid than purely advice. It is not sufficient in my view that the central office should say to a Department that it should present its applications in this or that form. There should be definitely some authority established with the power to limit the demands on industry for these things. I do not think that any question of good administration or bad administration will put this matter right.

There must of necessity be some central authority, and what is more convincing evidence of the need for a central authority than the action of the Government themselves? As the President of the Board of Trade mentioned in his speech, they are proposing to set up a central authority, and it naturally follows from that that a central planning authority is the same sort of thing as a central statistics authority. I cannot see how the President can justify, on the one hand, the establishment of a central authority and, on the other, leave the collection and collation of information to the mere device of individual Departments. Surely there is no sense in that at all and in his own words the President stands ready to support the Clause which we have on the Order Paper. I hope that the Government will once more look at this Clause, because it is designed to get over a real difficulty. It will remove much of the anxiety which many people feel about the duplication of authority, and I believe it will make for the smooth running of this Bill if they accept what we are asking them to accept today.

I beg to move, in page r, line 6, after "trends," to insert:

"and the provision of a statistical service for industry."

The object of this Amendment is to fulfil a promise made by my hon. Friend during the Committee stage of the Bill when he promised to put in some words in order to show that the Bill was not merely for the purpose of providing the Government and Government Departments with statistics but also with a view to providing statistics for the use of industry itself.

We regard this Amendment as making an improvement in the Bill. It was a defect to which I drew attention in the course of the Second Reading Debate. There was no provision whereby information obtained under Clause I could be made available for industry to whom such information might be of the greatest value. I would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give a little more information about the manner in which this statistical service will be furnished in regard to periodical or other estimates or returns which might be called for by no less than 21 Government Departments. There must be some method of centralising information obtained. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman contemplate the provision of any further statistics in addition to those already contained in the most valuable Green Book?

There may be a considerable gap between the information obtained under this Clause and information disclosed to industry subsequently. Can the President of the Board of Trade give an assurance that a11 the information obtained by means of these returns and estimates will be used for the purposes of this statistical service for industry? Or will some of that be excluded from being taken into account for the purposes of furnishing statistics? The Amendment we have on the Order Paper —in page I, line 6, leave out from "and," to "it," in line 7, and insert:

"of providing general surveys of and information as to the state of trade and business,"

covers two points, the second of which is for the very thing for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman provides here. The first point remains. While I welcome this Amendment, I should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or the learned Solicitor-General, could give a further indication as to the manner in which the information obtained will be made available to industry.

Will this information be produced in a way which will help the individual firm, or will it merely be available to trade associations? What provision is to be made, in view of the time lag which must take place, if the full provisions of the Bill are carried out, for ascertaining that the information obtained is of real value to industry? A full census might take a considerable time, and in view of that time lag, I would like to know how the President of the Board of Trade thinks the information can be made of value to industry. Will the information be split up? Will there be a service so that any firm can write in to the Board of Trade asking for the latest information on a particular point, or will they be told that they can only ask within the terms of reference of any particular census? In other words, is there to be a pool from which any industrialist can get information to meet his immediate requirements?

We welcome this Amendment because it means that industry is going to get out of the Bill something for which it has a very real need. But, unless the President of the Board of Trade can tell us something more about it, rather more perhaps than a promise given in Committee, we may feel a little dubious of its effect. If he could give more information, it would be of great help.

I always understood that one of the objections of hon. Members opposite was that we were to get information some of which might not be in the general interest of the trade if it were made public. I hope that totals of any additional information which can be given without in any way injuring individual firms, will be so given, because there are existing gaps in the main statistical service. But I hope at the same time adequate caution will be used in disclosing information which might be prejudicial to individual firms. We have to be very careful how this is done.

The hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) is quite right. Under no circumstances should we accept an Amendment from this Government without grave suspicion. I congratulate the hon. Member on his forethought on this occasion. It is most necessary when we have these methods of collecting trade statistics, that we should safeguard trade secrets, which are of value to firms, and which should be protected. I have an idea that that is covered in the Bill, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the worthy way in which he has looked after the interests of the nation as a whole.

I join with my hon. Friends in thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for meeting us on this point. Originally, the idea was that the statistics were wanted for the good of the Government. Of course, the Government have lots of time to waste, and lots of officials, and they can absorb as much statistics as they like. But, if we are forcing individuals to collect statistics, at least it is fair to the individuals themselves that that information should be available to them, if it is of any advantage to them, apart from trade secrets. In many cases, it may be of very real service to them. It may be that anyone developing, say, for example, the sale of engines might wish to know whether they have a good market in South America or South Africa or wherever it may be. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on having brought in the Amendment. Has he any idea as to the approximate cost of these arrangements, because unless the Government are to give these statistics free to people, there will be a charge of some kind? We might be told whether the cost will be comparatively negligible or whether it is intended to flood every sort of trader with every sort of figure that is collected from all over the world, which would cost a great deal of money and use a lot of paper?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is frightfully busy providing pains and penalties throughout this Bill. He is a tremendous believer in compulsion which he can inflict. Will it be compulsory for people to read these statistics? If this is just a preliminary to some other Bill to make people read these statistics and pass an examination, I do not think that this Clause is as good as we think it to be. This provision was not in the Bill originally. It was not intended to let the traders have the knowledge. The Govenment are correcting what was either a gross mistake on the part of the Government in drafting the Bill or a deliberate intention that these people should not have this knowledge. It would be of great advantage if the House were told why this point was not in the original Bill. Have the Opposition always got to put these provisions in to secure that fairness is preserved under this Bill? It is rather remarkable that this provision was not in the original Bill. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to explain how the mistake arose, and that also he will be able to give us a word or two as to whether this information is to be free, or whether it is to be paid for, and whether there are any penalties for not reading the information. The President of the Board of Trade looks awfully severe at that suggestion. I hope that I have not nipped in the bud a scheme for making traders everywhere read these statistics of trade. We have to look at these matters with great caution.

Could the President of the Board of Trade clarify the position, because these words, by themselves, are quite valueless? All they say is that certain powers shall be given for the purpose of providing a statistical service for industry. I do not know whether there are other Amendments later in the Bill which make that information available, but merely to collect information for thepur- pose of providing a service, and making that information available, are quite different matters. I would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance that there is some means by which this power, having been taken, can be implemented by the service being made available.

With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the permission of the House, I will reply to points which have been raised. The information was always intended to be available but hon. Members opposite said that it was not in the Bill and they thought it advisable to have some phrases included to cover the point. The purpose is that the Statistical Digest should be greatly extended to cover a wider and wider area. Inevitably there will be a lot of specialised information for specialised industries which will not be of interest to readers of the Statistical Digest, which might be dealt with through the trade associations, development councils and bodies of that kind. There may be information which is only required administratively and which would not help traders if published. The purpose is to give as wide a statistical service as possible from which traders can benefit as much as, if not more than, the Government. It is not intended to set up a consultant statistical service—that would be far too complicated and expensive—but to provide the country and industry as a whole with as wide a range of useful statistics as we can.

The only information available to industry would be that published by the Board of Trade?

Published by the Board of Trade, or published to industry, if not of general interest.

Will the information be available to the House of Commons?

If the House of Commons asks for it, no doubt it will be made available.

I am sure it is the intention that where this information is obtained periodically, it will be made available to industry at the earliest possible moment?

Certainly.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page, I, line 6, to leave out from the end of the words last inserted, to "it," in line 7.

This is a slight variation from the Amendment which appears on the Order Paper, the reason for the variation being that we have accepted the previous Amendment. I regard the point raised by this Amendment as being one of considerable importance. I appreciate that the Amendment has come up for discussion at a time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be present, and I am not complaining that he is not here, but I am sorry. I should have liked him to hear the arguments that we shall put forward from this side of the House. In his previous reply, he indicated the various categories of statistics which it is intended to collect under Clause I. In the course of doing so he referred to administrative statistics. I am somewhat in the dark to know what he means by that. It will be appreciated that under this Clause the statistics can be obtained for two purposes, for the appreciation of economic trends, and for the discharge, by Government Departments, of their functions. The statistics are for those two purposes only.

In the course of the Committee stage the Parliamentary Secretary made the statement, which I have read, and which has left me completely confused, that the statistics which would be collected under Clause, r would be of two kinds; there would be those which would be collected for administrative purposes and those which would be collected for their own value. Does he mean by "those collected for their own value" those collected for the purpose of obtaining information necessary for the appreciation of economic trends? What are the other statistics he wants? I ask this question, because if Clause r is considered together with subsequent Clauses of this Bill, it is making a vast change in the criminal law of this country. One of the competent authorities under Clause I is the Home Office, a Department which is concerned with the maintenance of law and order. That is one of its functions. Under this Clause it can require any person

"to furnish, in such form and manner as may be specified in the notice, such periodical or other estimates or returns, about such of the matters set out in the Schedule to this Act as may be so specified."

The Schedule is virtually all embracing, and so one arrives at the position that, without the leave of anyone, the Home Office can serve a notice, if this Bill is passed in its present form, upon a person saying in effect, "You must give me this information. If you don't, you will be guilty of a criminal offence and, if you do, we can use it in evidence against you." I have said before in the course of our discussions upon this Bill that the presence of those words, which are so vague and general in their character, arouses grave doubts in my mind as to the manner in which the powers conferred by this Bill can be applied.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider, if it is not intended to use these powers in that way, whether the position can be cleared up. For instance, the Ministry of Food could serve a requirement upon a person to give all sorts of information about where he last was able to get a chicken from under the counter, or a pound of cheese, or from where he gets his eggs. The Board of Trade could require information regarding prices paid for particular articles. If it is not intended to use it in that way, arc there really any other administrative statistics which come within the heading:

"Information necessary for the appreciation of economic trends?"

If I am right in putting forward the suggestion that the statistics necessary for administrative purposes are also statistics which will be necessary for the Government to have for the appreciation of economic trends, then the presence of these words:

"for the discharge by Government Departments of their functions."

is entirely unnecessary, because the Government Departments will be entitled to get all that they require to have for that purpose under the words which are already in the Clause.

Therefore, I say that the Government must make it quite clear what is the object of having in the Bill this very vague phrase. Is there any intention to use that power, by any Government Department, for the purpose of obtaining evidence compulsorily which may be used against an individual in the event of a criminal prosecution? We ought to have the clearest possible assurance upon that point. If there is any intention to use it in that manner, as I pointed out on the Second Reading, it is making a tremendous change in the existing law of evidence in this country. It is rendering a complete farce the policeman's warning that, "You need not say anything unless you care to do so, and if you do, it may be used in evidence against you." I hope that the Govern- ment will agree to the deletion of these words. If they are not prepared to do that, I hope that at any rate they will undertake to consider the inclusion of words to make it absolutely clear beyond doubt that not one of these 21 competent authorities can use the powers conferred upon them by this Clause for the purpose of obtaining evidence for use in criminal prosecutions in a manner in which it could not now be obtained under the law of our land.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This is a matter upon which the Government must make their position clear. Earlier today we discussed the introduction of a new Clause which was so wide in its application that it could have meant anything or nothing. After protests from this side of the House, the Government have decided to introduce in another place limiting words. We are now faced with an exactly similar position. Are we to view this Bill as a means of helping industry, of promoting the welfare of industry, for which both sides of the House stand, or alternatively is this a preparation for the introduction, at any stage where it may be required, of penal legislation? In other words, are the Government out to do what they have stated, to fulfil the pledges of the Coalition White Paper of 1944, or is this a Measure to prepare the way even more directly, as many other Measures have done in this present Session, for siege economy?

I would like to remind hon. Members of what was said in Committee upstairs on this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary said:

"May I first reply to the hon. Gentleman …who has correctly quoted the White Paper and points out that we are proposing to go a good deal further than it was suggested should be done by the Coalition Government. It is not at all surprising that we are proposing to go a good deal further than the Coalition Government in many respects."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 18th March, 1947, C. 29.]

This was followed by one of those extraordinary statements, which alas the Solicitor-General makes on too many occasions. He said:

"First, I think that everybody in the Committee will agree that one starts from this general position, that it is in the public interest that criminal proceedings, where they ought to be brought, should not be hampered through the want of any information that is available. That is in the general public interest and I would suggest to the Committee—"

And then he was interrupted.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman really suggest that that is an astonishing statement?

If I may be allowed to continue what I am saying, I shall be able to prove it. The Solicitor-General was interrupted there by his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Then he went on:

'' I am much obliged; the hon. Member allowed me to deliver myself of about three sentences before getting up to interrupt."

The Solicitor-General has offered me the same courtesy this afternoon:

"I started from what I conceive to be the general principle that public interest…"

And these are the vital words:

"…requires that, where an offence has been committed, those who are charged with the duty of instituting proceedings should have at their disposal such information as there is to have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. 25th March, 1947, C. 105.]

indicated assent.

I am glad that the Solicitor-General stands by that. Surely, the House will realise that that is a complete contradiction of all the known - rules which we have had up till now. The Solicitor-General knows far better than I do in how many cases the police have not been able to bring prosecutions because the evidence has not been available. I think he will agree that it is a tradition of which we should be proud that, in this country at least, we are not forced to give away through the imposition of Measures such as this, through the secret police, or whatever it may be, information which subsequently is used to convict us. It would seem to me that the Solicitor-General, particularly after what he has said this afternoon, stands by the view that if any law is now broken it is the duty of the Government to impose legislation to make it as easy as possible for the offender to be caught, and that where it is possible, as apparently it is under this Clause, to use information forced out of a man, it is only right and proper that it should be done. If he stands by the two passages I have read, it is a complete negation of everything for which we in this country stand.

1.30 p.m.

If it is the intention by means of this vague phrase to institute a means which will undermine our whole criminal law system, I can only reinforce what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that the Government should make their position clear. What do they mean by the phrase concerning the execution of a Government Department's functions and by administrative statistics? We know how over the last 15 years slight and ambiguous phrases have later been used when it happened to suit somebody's purpose, and we know how phrases can be twisted, developed and turned. If this is a Bill designed solely to help industry and purely to implement a high and stable level of economy, there can be no need for these things. On the other hand, is this Bill—this particular Clause and others—designed to promote first of all the power of the Government to prepare for siege economy and, in the words of the Solicitor-General, the reverse of the age-old saying that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty? It is up to the Government to say on which side they stand.

The Opposition are making tremendously heavy weather about this thing They are working up a case, but there is nothing in it all—or practically nothing. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) comes forward with some idea that the Home Office would use these statistics. These statistics will be primarily used by the Departments that are dealing with industry. I cannot imagine for one moment that the Home Office—

It the hon. Member looks at Clause 16 (2) he will see that the Home Office is one of the competent authorities.

I agree

May I point out secondly that there is absolutely no limit to the questions the Home Office can ask under Clause 2 (1)?

I do not dissent at all from what the hon. and learned Member says. What I say is that one must obviously apply the thing reasonably and sensibly, and the Home Office are not going to do what he suggests. If the Opposition will look at the Government's Amendment to Clause 9, page 5, line 17, to leave out "criminal proceedings," and to insert:

"proceedings for an offence under this Act."

—they will find that to some extent at any rate some of their arguments are being met. The Opposition are trying to say that the Government should use these statistics for purely academic purposes. That is not the case. Obviously we want to collect the statistics and to use them. I was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) refer to the 1944 White Paper on Employment Policy. That is exactly the kind of thing this Bill is intended for. It is designed to enable statistics of the national income to be collected in order to enable the Government to carry out a definite full employment policy. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take a very strong line about this because what the Opposition are suggesting is virtually a wrecking Amendment which would gravely impede Government Departments in carrying out their functions under this Bill.

If this is a wrecking Amendment as the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) suggests, it is only wrecking in a sense that it is preventing Government Departments from using powers which they ought never to have. There is a pathetic simplicity in his belief of the way Government Departments act. He says that the Clause will only be used for certain purposes. Why does he object to us ensuring that those purposes are in the Bill? The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the purposes for which these powers will be used are limited to the purposes for which he believes they will be used. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) did not overstate the case when he said that this was a very important Amendment, because it goes to the very root of this Bill. What is the object of the Bill? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make this clear. On the Second Reading the President of the Board of Trade, in referring to the object of the Bill, used these words:

"It is intended to bring up to date the central collection of statistics by the Government so that reliable information may be provided for industry, for merchants, for financiers and others who are interested for their livelihood in these matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January 1947: Vol. 432, c. 36.]

As it stands, inquiry may be made not merely for those purposes but for any purpose any Government Department may require. There is no question that cannot be asked. It does not matter whether it is in relation to the economic trends of the countries, which I understood to be the main intention of the Bill, or not. If some Government official who comes within the authority of the Bill wakes up one morning and says, "I will ask so and so where he went last weekend or where he is going next weekend, or where he dined last night," there is nothing to prevent him doing so. Does the Minister want that?

At the time of the General Election hon. Gentlemen belonging to the party opposite spoke in terms of scorn when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) used words identifying the present Government with the Gestapo, but is he not now fully justified? These are exactly the powers which the Gestapo had of inquiring into any matter which they chose to inquire into and having sanctions to enforce an answer. I never expected any Government Department to seek powers of this kind The Home Secretary, who has just joined us. is probably not yet aware that under this Bill he will have powers considerably in excess of any which any Home Secretary has ever before possessed. In the inquiry into criminal proceedings, for instance, he will be able, if he likes, to enforce answers which may be used against people in a way which has never before been known in our legal history

The hon. Member for Accrington drew attention to a subsequent Amendment of the Government's and seemed to feel that there was something worthy about it. He is not perhaps aware that that is our Amendment which was rejected by the Solicitor-General on the Committee stage. Such limitations as are contained in that subsequent Amendment were put in by the Opposition. The hon. Member for Accrington should not think that the President of the Board of Trade has of his own volition done anything to limit the powers under this Clause as it now stands. This is a montrous Clause, empowering Government Departments to go snooping and prying into the private life of anyone they like. It is a matter of fundamental importance, and ought not to be allowed.

I find it difficult to believe that the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and his hon. Friends regard this Clause as being quite so monstrous as they say. It is difficult to believe that a right hon. Gentleman who has had the charge of a great Department of State should not understand how necessary it is for Government Departments to be in possession of factual information to enable them to construct their policies. I would ask him, how would he ration food or clothing or fuel unless he was in possession of factual and detailed information about the stocks of, say, fuel in the possession of certain people and about the requirements of certain individuals? How could any sensible scheme be devised for distributing what stocks there are in the country unless there is that information? That information is required for administrative purposes, not for general statistical purposes; not for statistics for their own sake, but to enable a Government Department to do its job. I would suggest that, if this Amendment were to be accepted or carried, it would have the effect of preventing a Government Department from acquiring the information without which it could not possibly do its job.

Does the Parliamentary-Secretary really say that information as to stocks of fuel, and so on, would not be obtainable under the beading of statistics "necessary for the appreciation of economic trends"?

I certainly do. It may be necessary at any moment, as a matter of emergency, to make an inquiry into any commodity in this country, not for the purpose of ascertaining the economic trend, not for the purpose of working out what will happen next year or the year after, but for the purpose of deciding what can be done administratively at this moment to give to the people what they require. It may be necessary to allocate raw materials. That is not a matter of an economic trend, but of deciding what is to be done with the materials at hand.

If such figures as that do not come within the definition of economic trends, do they at least not come within our own words:

"providing general surveys of and information as to the state of trade and business"?

He could have those figures on our Amendment.

Yes, that particular part of the Amendment is quite unexceptional and acceptable; in fact, we have already, in bur own Amendment which preceded this one, done what the Opposition want to do, and, I think, have done it more effectively. What I am concerned with is the part of the Amendment which would make it impossible for a Government Department to acquire statistics for its own administrative purposes. A great deal of play has been made with the suggestion that a Department such as the Home Office might use information so received for purposes of a criminal prosecution, and this would be, in the words of the hon. and learned Member, a drastic departure from our practice hitherto. Attention has already been drawn to the Government Amendment to Clause 9 (1, b). An Amendment has been put down by the Government which indicates the Government's intention, and if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite feel so strongly as they do about this matter, then I have no doubt at all that, when we come to Clause 9, they will be wholeheartedly in support of the Government Amendment which seeks to put right what they have suggested is wrong, namely that a Government Department—and they quoted the Home Office—might obtain information from individuals which would be used subsequently against those individuals in a criminal prosecution and that, as the Bill stands at present, might be the case. However, if they will look at the Amendment down in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend to page 5, line 17, to leave out "criminal proceedings," and to insert "proceedings for an offence under this Act", they will see that this would be out of Order.

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman to discuss a future Amendment? Shall I be able to talk on that when it comes up later?

It is not in Order to discuss on this Amendment matters arising on a later Amendment.

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was merely trying to explain why the apprehensions of hon. Members opposite on this point were unfounded, but we can discuss that later. In the meantime, I hope the House will not accept this Amendment which is, in the words of one of my hon. Friends, a wrecking Amendment because, if carried, it would deprive Government Departments of information without which it is utterly impossible for them to do their work.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for having completely wrecked the speech of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot); at any rate, he has done that if nothing else. The hon. Member for Accrington rose in a great state of flurry and flourish and began accusing the Opposition of all sorts of wrecking Amendments. I suppose he was put up to that by one of his Front Bench Whips to try to stir up the Opposition. Well, if that was the object of the Whip, he will not move me one way or the other. Having made out that there was nothing in our case, in spite of the evidence of his present position, the hon. Gentleman then said there was really practically nothing in it. That is in accordance with his behaviour and, by saying there was practically nothing in it, he has admitted that there is something in it. That is a great thing to have got out of him. Then he went on to show his supreme ignorance of this Government, and of many other Governments, by saying that we could pass a law like this because we could be certain that the Government Departments would apply it sensibly. There have been few Government Departments that, if given power, have not applied that power sooner or later not sensibly, but in an arrogant manner. That is the danger this Amendment seeks to remove; the arrogance of Government Departments in acquiring information for what they say are the purposes for which they can use it, and then proceeding to apply that information in all sorts of ways to the detriment of trade.

Up to that point the Parliamentary Secretary has been helpful to me, and for the remainder of the few remarks I may make, I can assure him that he has strengthened considerably, as he almost invariably does, the case which, by his own remarks, he was trying to weaken. He is very effective in that, and I only wish the Home Secretary knew with what zeal he pursues the policy of destroying the Government's purposes, or rather, showing them up a little too clearly. He said the real reason was that the Government really must have factual informa- tion for the conduct of their Departments. Have not the Government enough information at the present time, with all the Orders, with which to carry on, without seeking this new line of collecting information, as they do under the few words "for the discharge by Government Departments of their functions"? They are very wide enabling every and any Government Department suddenly to declare that they can interfere with trade or anything else they like. They only have to say, using those words which we seek to remove, that they wish to do something, that they want some factual information—to use the words of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am always interested in people who use the word "factual". They think it is new; it is really very old and not even good English

To go on from that, he then became extremely helpful to us as an Opposition. He said the need for this power was because of rationing. Here again, I think he enlarged very considerably on what we thought the Bill did. Apparently, the real objective of the Bill is permanently to impose rationing on this country. He went on to say that he wanted it for the control of industry.

I am quite certain I did not say that I wanted it for the control of industry. If the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of consulting HANSARD, he will find that I said nothing at all about controlling industry.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what he said, then? If he wishes to interrupt me, I will give way with my usual courtesy. It may well be that he did not use the word "control", but I definitely wrote down the word "control". He may have said something else, and if he will tell me what he said I will accept it. At any rate, the impression on my mind was that he said the Government wanted it for the purposes of controlling industry. I am assuming from the words I took down, having listened to him with great respect and as hard as I could, that the real purpose of the Government in rejecting this Amendment is that they realise there is a great deal more in it than the hon. and innocent Member for Accrington ever imagined— although I do not think he is really as innocent as one might think. I imagine he thought that, after the muddle the Government have made today, it was about time they had the benefit of his wisdom.

The real reason that this Amendment is not accepted is because the object of the Bill is to enable the Government to collect more and more statistics and to enable any Government Department to collect all the information they want, so that they can have greater powers of imposing perpetual rationing and of controlling industry. In other words, this is an indication of the perpetual chains in which the Government wish to keep British industry.

I believe the President of the Board of Trade is correct in asking for information to be collected by means of this Bill and to be made available to Government Departments for their own purposes. It seems that hon. Members opposite do not want Government Departments to be in possession of vital information which is necessary for the future planning and development of our economic resources. Apparently, they want to go back to the old days of so-called free and unfettered private enterprise, which existed between the two wars, and which led the economy of the nation into a state of the utmost chaos, creating serious unemployment and many other problems, due largely to a lack of planned central control. Therefore, when hon. Members opposite ask us to go back to the old order of things, without any central direction or planning of our economy, they are asking us to go back to the old world which many of us knew as one of great poverty, unemployment and maladministration.

We have got it now.

I can understand why hon. Members opposite do not want a planned economy. They do not want any means whereby the future of our industrial enterprise can be effectively planned and developed. Their arguments are very fantastic. I do not think they are by any means sound, and I welcome the fact that our new Government, with a new conception of economic planning, are laying down in this Bill a means by which they can more effectively plan the economy of this country in order that we can avoid the errors of the past which were created by the policies of Governments of the party opposite.

Before the hon. Member says that, would he read the whole of the Amendment?

I have. The Amendment is designed to delete from the Clause the words:

"for the discharge by government departments of their functions."

Will the hon. Member read the next part?

Hon. Members opposite do not want Government Departments to be in possesion of this information for the discharge of their functions.

The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) said he welcomed the advent of the Government who believed in the new idea of economic planning. All I can say is, he represents an increasingly small proportion of the population who welcome such planning, as it results in decreased rations and everything else. When we were discussing the Government's proposed new Clause, the Parliamentary Secretary was absent at one point—I am not complaining—when I quoted from a speech which he made in winding up the Second Reading Debate. If I may be permitted, as the hon. Gentleman is now with us again, I will remind him of what he said on that occasion. He said;

"…the only reason for seeking the powers is in order that we may be the better able to survey and plan the industry of this country in the interests of full employment.… At this stage, we are concerned with establishing a principle—the principle that the Government require power to obtain information about the state of trade in this country in order that both the Government and industry shall be able, more effectively, to deal with the various issues which arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1947; Vol. 432, C.141.]

Our submission is that if the Parliamentary Secretary really believes what he said on the Second Reading—as I am sure he does—and if, which is, perhaps, a little more doubtful, he is accurately representing the views of his colleagues, the words which the President of the Board of Trade agreed to insert this morning, together with the words already in the Bill, but without the words which we wish to omit, amply cover that purpose.

I think we are entitled still to be suspicious about the real objects which the Government have in view in this Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to a subsequent Amendment, and I should be out of Order in referring to it in any detail. However, the mere fact that the Solicitor-General was unable, in the course of the discussion on this Amendment, to refrain from repeating what he had said in Committee—which we shall have occasion to quote later on—shows that in his mind, at all events,' he is not solely concerned with obtaining information which will be of value for planning industry and enabling industry to have a proper statistical service, but that his mind is concerned mainly with obtaining information which can be used for other purposes.

2.0 p.m.

I am sure the hon. Member for Acton would agree with us in this. We want to get a proper statistical service, both for the Government and also for industry. We really do. But we do not want to go any further. If the Government are sincere in their view that that, and that alone, is what they require, then I suggest to them that they ought to consider the acceptance of, not necessarily the particular wording of our Amendment, but similar wording to make it quite clear that the only object they have in view is what was so rightly described by the Parliamentary Secretary in the speech to which I have just referred.

Perhaps hon. Members will take the trouble to look at the Schedule. I find it very difficult to believe that the whole of this information set out in the Schedule is reasonably required on every possible occasion. Also, do not let the House forget that as far as this particular Clause is concerned, the Government are entitled to ask for any or all of this information, at any time, however often they like, and from however many or however few people they choose. I invite the House to look at the information for which the Government can ask at any time, as often as they like, and from as many or as few people as they like, as set out in the Schedule:

"The nature of the undertaking and the date of its acquisition."

It is difficult to understand why that should be put in for the purposes of fulfilling the functions of the Government. Why is the date of acquisition required for the functions of the Government?

"The persons employed or normally employed (including working proprietors), the nature of their employment, their remuneration and the hours worked."

Those, I suggest, are all reasonable things for which to ask in certain directions; we can well believe that that information would be of advantage for the general statistical service.

"The output, sales, deliveries, and services provided;"

again not unreasonable—

"the articles acquired or used, orders, stocks and work in progress;"

I pause here to remind the House that the Parliamentary Secretary said that, unless the Government have all these very extensive powers, rationing would be impossible. But rationing was instituted before this Bill, and has existed for some time. It is quite clear that, in fact, rationing can be conducted, and has been conducted, without the extremely wide powers in this Bill to which we object. He said that these powers were necessary in order to allocate raw materials. But raw materials have been allocated without this Bill, and without the possession of these particular powers to which we are taking exception. Raw materials can be allocated and rationing can be conducted by the terms of the Clause as it would stand after acceptance of the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade, and if our Amendment were accepted, too. The Schedule goes on:

"the outgoings and costs (including work given out to contractors, depreciation, rent, rates and taxes,…) and capital expenditure; the receipts of and debts owed to the undertaking; the power used or generated; the fixed capital assets, the plant, including the acquisition and disposal of those assets and that plant, and the premises occupied."

It seems to me that the only thing which the Parliamentary Secretary might add is: "age, sex and occupation of the proprietor."

I hope I have shown, to the satisfaction of any reasonable Member of the House, that the Clause as amended, without the particular words to which we take exception, will do everything the Government need. If the Government would only accept our Amendment, or something substantially like it in an other place, I am quite sure they would be doing advantage to themselves, because it would remove a suspicion which is very widely held at present, and would certainly facilitate the voluntary co-operation of both large and small businesses up and down the country, without which I seriously suggest that this Bill, even if it passes into law and becomes an Act, will not be as effective as it otherwise would be.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "manner," to insert "and within such time."

This is merely a drafting Amendment, in order to clarify the fact that the time within which these returns shall be made shall also he specified.

This is, of course, to some extent, a drafting Amendment, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said; and it is quite clear that it was due to a defect in the drafting of the Bill that this point was omitted. At the same time, I would point out that, under this Amendment, it will be possible for any Government Department to prescribe as much time as it likes. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider—I do not want to take up any time on this, because I should like us to make progress—whether, in another place, he could cause an Amendment to be put into the Bill to say something like this, "within such time not being less than 14 days." There really ought to be some provision to ensure that the industry and person upon whom notice is served shall have proper opportunity for complying with the requirements. One does not want the whole of an undertaking upset by the necessity to divert attention from production to the filling in of a form, that it must fill in within a few days or, maybe a few hours, because of the time specified in the notice, and because the Government Department concerned, had it been more efficient, could have served the notice earlier, so that the questions could have been answered without any interruption of business. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider doing something of that sort. If he would, we could, perhaps, pass this Amendment with comparative speed.

I do not think we could put such words in here. I do not think it would be quite appropriate. There may be an urgent matter—for instance, the ascertaining of stocks in an emergency—and it may be necessary to get returns within less than T4 days. This proposal would unduly tie down the administration. Quite obviously, people must be given reasonable time, except in an emergency, so that we may get good results. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman can rely on us to see that this is wisely used.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page I, line 12, at the end, to insert:

"(2) The notice shall state that it is served under this section of this Act and generally the purpose for which the estimate or return is required."

I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that progress would be accelerated if he felt able to accept this Amendment, because I hope that he will allow, after explanation, that this is a thoroughly reasonable one. I think the Parliamentary Secretary, during the course of the proceedings upstairs, indicated that he appreciated, and that his officials appreciated, that to get the best out of industry it would be helpful if industry itself were clear as to the purposes for which the returns are required. A firm asked to fill in a very complicated questionnaire ought to know, we feel, whether the competent authority is using its powers on its own behalf—as, for instance, the Ministry of Agriculture asking for agricultural returns for its own purposes or whether the inquiry is part of a general census of production.

We suggest that it will be for the long-term advantage of the Government to try, not only to retain the confidence of industry, but also to gain it. One of the obvious ways of doing that is to ensure that the particular industry concerned should have the chance of discussing with the Board of Trade or other competent authority the general lay-out of the questions on the paper that members of the industry are to be asked to answer. It is true that, in the Bill as it stands, there is provision for an advisory committee to advise the Board of Trade. But that advisory committee is mainly for the purpose, as we understand it, of carrying out a census, and we feel that there would be great advantage in industry itself if the people could be told whether the questionnaire which calls for statistics is concerned with that particular industry and is not for the general purpose of a census of distribution. It would be better if that industry could be consulted, and if an advisory committee or something corresponding to it could be set up in each industry to advise the Government on how this should be done. We gathered from the discussions held upstairs that the Parliamentary Secretary does not approve of that idea, and, therefore, we hope that the Amendment which we have drafted, although by no means the best—we would have preferred an advisory committee, and this is the next best thing—is at least a means of revising the questionnaire and providing some sort of guidance, while providing some assurance concerning the purpose for which the person concerned is being asked to go to all this trouble and expense in order to provide these statistics.

If the offer of the right hon. Gentleman for making co-operative progress is a real one, I am quite prepared to consider playing my part in that co-operation by trying to arrive at some compromise on some of these Amendments, and I must take him at his word—I would never do less—and say that I should be quite glad to accept this Amendment. I only make this reservation—that I think the new form of words should refer to estimates or returns in the plural, but that is a matter which can easily be put right in another place. We therefore, in the full faith that we are assisting the rapid passage of the Bill, accept this Amendment.

I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We ought to have seen the printer's error and put it right, because we had intended to put the words in the plural. I do not think it would be quite fair to say that I spoke of the rapid passage of this Bill; I think I used the word "acceleration."

Amendment agreed to.

I take it, Mr. Speaker, that you are calling me to move the Amendment to page 2, line 32?

Yes. I am calling the Amendment to line 32, at the top of the page.

Do I understand that the Amendment to line 24 is not being called?

No. That one does not make grammar, and, therefore, I did not call it.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, at the end, to insert:

"Where a notice under subsection (2) of this section is served upon a person by a com petent authority to which the Board of Trade have delegated any of their functions, the notice shall state that it is served by the competent authority in the exercise of powers delegated to it by the Board of Trade."

In the hope of assisting in the acceleration of progress, I will move this Amendment in a short space of time. It will be seen that, under Clause 3, the Board of Trade has very wide powers of delegation to other competent authorities, and it may be—one does not know—that these powers will be extensively used for the purpose of getting information for either the census of production or the census of distribution. This Amendment really covers much of the same point as the last, in the sense that the recipient of a notice from the competent authority, acting under powers delegated by the Board of Trade under this Clause, ought, we think, to be informed, so that he knows how it comes about that the Ministry of Works is acting for the Board of Trade, and also knows that the information is for one or other of the two censuses. It seems to me that, if that disclosure is made by the competent authority, we shall probably be able to get far more valuable statistics, because, when the forms are filled up by the undertakings concerned, they know the purpose for which they are being filled up, and, in a spirit of co-operation such as exists at this moment, they will probably be induced to give additional information which will be of great value.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Many cases will arise where it will be of the greatest importance that people in the industry concerned should know what is the purpose of the census and exactly what sort of information is desired. Very often, the Board of Trade desires to know something about industry, but the request for the information is not designed to help those who have to supply the information to understand the real purpose, and, if the President can accept this Amendment, it seems to me that he will be assisting considerably to achieve this purpose. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this ought to be a two-way movement of ideas between the Government and industry, which will do a great deal to help both sides and will assist the country in securing that stable level of employment in this country of which we read in the White Paper.

In a desire to maintain this new-found spirit of co-operation and to assist the passage of this Bill, I would like to say that we are in full agreement with the principles behind this Amendment, but we feel that the exact wording is not quite as it should be. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to withdraw the Amendment, we are prepared to see that, in another place, an Amendment will be drafted to give effect to the principle which he has expressed.

It is quite clear that, in relation to this Clause, the same problem arises whether the forms will lead to quite unnecessary duplication or excessive demands, I would again ask the President if he will consider the appointment of some officer, perhaps of the Central Statistical Office, who will be responsible —an appropriate Minister perhaps—to him, as he is the guardian of the general welfare of industry, for looking at all these demands that are made upon industry for a general purpose such as the census of production or the census of distribution, to see whether, regarded as a whole, they are suitable in form, are not duplicating any others, and are not excessive in their total burden. Perhaps the President will see that there is some single officer responsible to him and doing what has not been done up to now, that is, weighing the debits against the credits of any proposed new demands. I think that, if he did so, it would greatly relieve the anxieties of industry about these forms.

It would be quite out of Order for me to deal with the general question raised by the right hon. Gentleman on an Amendment of this sort.

In order that I may help forward, to the best of my ability, the spirit of co-operation which appears to exist betwen the two Front Benches, and with all the sincerity that I can command, I wish to make one suggestion. So far as this Amendment is concerned, the Government have admitted that it is good, but they want slightly different words. We feel that it would accelerate things if, in such circumstances, they would come along in future and say, "This is an excellent principle; we accept it, but we think it ought to be worded in a different way. Here are the words which we suggest." If that were done, the new words could be put in straight away, and it would accelerate the business. It would be a very simple thing to do if only the Government were a shade more industrious.

In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and in view of his assurance that the wording will be redrafted, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out "two," and to insert "three."

In our view, this Amendment raises an important question on which, unfortunately, there was some misunderstanding on the Committee stage of the Bill, which arose from observations made by the Parliamentary Secretary in the Debate on Second Reading. It is obvious, I think, that the time at which undertakings will be working on the preparation of returns for the census, will be a time at which they will be hard pressed in balancing their accounts, and preparing Income Tax returns, and matters of that sort. That has been fully stressed, and I need not take up the time of the House by repeating the arguments. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is familiar with them. The Parliamentary Secretary said:

"I am prepared to sentence them to three months."—

he was being humorous—

"There is no reason why we should insist on two months, and if it is going to help trade and industry to have an extra month, as far as we are concerned, we are prepared to do that. I should like it to be noted, particularly for the benefit of the smaller industrialists, that the period has been lengthened by one month, or 50 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1947; vol. 432, C. 149.]

That was mistakenly understood to be a generous and a general concession and not one applying only to the particular year then involved. It was upon that basis, and in a spirit of some optimism, that the Amendment to alter two to three was put down during the Committee stage.

To the disappointment of hon. Members serving on that Committee, it was found that their belief, which was founded on the words used by the Parliamentary Secretary, was not warranted, and that the concession was limited to the first year of operations, whereas the arguments for extending the period from two months to three applied to any year, in the course of which the census was being taken. I hope that, in this new spirit of conciliation, the right hon and learned Gentleman will be able to meet us on this point, particularly having regard to the concluding observations of the Parliamentary Secretary when this matter was under discussion on the Committee stage. He then said:

"In view, however, of the appeal and the manner in which it was made, and of the recognition by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends of the value of concluding the collecting of information as quickly as possible after the end of the year, I am prepared, if the Amendment is withdrawn, to discuss the possibilities of some compromise without, as he will realise, in any way committing myself to definite action at this moment. If the Amendment is withdrawn, I will undertake between now and the Report stage to go into it to see if some accommodation can be found."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 20th March, 1947; c. 55.]

In view of that undertaking, the Amendment was withdrawn. We are still somewhat disappointed to see that the Government have not favourably reconsidered this matter. I hope that, even at this late stage, they will do so, because, while we agree that the speedy collection of statistics, the assessment of the value to be placed upon them, and their communication to industry are important, it is also important that, if we are to get returns which will be of real value, the undertaking concerned should have sufficient time to compile them. An increase from 60 to 90 days does not seem to be too much if the result is going to be that we shall get better statistics. We should bear in mind the time of year at which undertakings will be called upon to supply such information. I hope that, in view of all that has been said in the past from the Government side, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

During an earlier stage of the Bill we put forward a variety of reasons why the period should be extended from two to three months. We naturally drew the Committee's attention to the earlier undertakings which have been recapitulated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). But we also laid particular stress upon the difficulties with which industry is faced at the present time in compiling the elaborate returns which will, undoubtedly, be required by the provisions of this Bill. Two months is not a very long time for most engineering industries working a five-day week. In addition, there are a number of returns of a compulsory character which have to be rendered by the small and overworked clerical staffs of the engineering industry. I refer particularly to P.A.Y.E.

Periodically, the Minister of Labour requires returns to be made. Then there are all the miscellaneous forms which industry must complete, such as M.I. forms for steel, W.B.A. forms for urgently needed constructional materials, and others of a similar character. In addition, the returns called for under this Bill will probably relate to a financial year, and will, therefore, be required at a time when clerical staffs are already engaged in preparing the accounts for that year, which means that, in addition, they will be asked to complete a further dossier of information within the short period of two months.

I submit that the information received will be no worse for taking one month longer in preparation. In fact, it will be very much better, because firms will have that much more time in which to prepare the information, and to prepare it accurately. I am sure that no difference will be made in the survey of economic trends if the information comes in after three months, instead of two. But it makes a great deal of difference whether the infor- mation is accurate or not. I suggest that, by giving firms a reasonable time in which to produce the facts, it will enable them to produce much more reliable and accurate facts.

There is one further matter. We are getting such a congestion of demands by the various Government Departments for information that it is becoming a serious question as to which Departments shall go to the end of the queue. If a request for information is put at the end of the queue it may, inevitably, be there for two months or more, and a firm may incur the penalty of a Statutory infringement. I think it is high time the President of the Board of Trade realised that firms are reaching a limit in the amount of form-filling they have to carry out. While three months does not make it much better, it does at least give some alleviation at a time of the year which is a particularly congested and busy time for overworked clerical staffs.

I add my plea to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider this period. I also was not on the Committee, but I have studied the history of this matter and I must say that my impression would have been that some sort of undertaking was implied in the words used that this matter would in fact get more reasonable consideration than it appears to have had. After all, it is not a very curious thing to ask for; my hon. Friend behind me has mentioned 60 days, but as a matter of fact he is quite wrong, it is not a matter of 60 days, but of five-sevenths of 60 days, for the greater part of the engineering industry at least, and that in itself should be appreciated. Then I wonder whether, in fixing this term of two months, the Government had in mind that two months at one time of the year may be an entirely different matter from two months at another time. It is not just a question of the financial year and of the special work which has to be carried out at certain times; I thought we were being encouraged to spread holidays and do all sorts of things like that, and it is very easy for a firm of even larger than moderate size to get involved in all sorts of difficulties if a time limit which is too short is put on these requests for information. I think those two grounds alone would be very good reasons to ask for reconsideration.

Why is it that the longer time is put on the first year only? Is it because people will be supposed to have trained themselves, and to have had greater practice after a certain period, so that they will therefore be able to fill in forms more quickly? I cannot think of any other reason, but in actual fact of course things will work in exactly the opposite direction. Far from there being any sign of a diminishing demand for information, there is every sign that Government Departments will require more information of all sorts. We cannot apparently think only in terms of what the Board of Trade will want; all sorts of other people have to collect information, and the whole general tendency under the present Government, and maybe under other Governments, I cannot tell, is that more information is required. We must be able to plan further ahead, so we have to have our information further ahead; information must become more and more detailed, and the points we may want to bring out can only be brought out if we get information we have never had before; the whole thing is growing, under the free hand which has been given to the statisticians, and the whole tendency is that more and more will be put upon those who have to supply the information.

Therefore, and I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman to recognise this, it is not only on the statistical, clerical or secretarial officers of companies that the strain will come. When information is asked for in a hurry, or at a greater speed than is convenient for a firm which is heavily engaged in production, that strain is passed down the line. Somebody has to be pulled out of another department, it may be costing or estimating, it may be this, that or the other, to help carry out the work. None of us are overstaffed these days with people who are really capable -of looking into a thing properly and giving correct information at the right time. We are not overstaffed, and the tendency is to become more and more understaffed with those who are really skilled. There are two reasons for that. As industries get back into production the demand for the higher skilled grades will become greater. Another reason why we shall be understaffed is that, owing to these breakdowns in the general course of production, everybody will do his best to cut down overheads, and so we should. With the lack of coal supplies, the cuts in fuel and power and anything else, the overheads in most industries, as the President of the Board of Trade knows very well, tend to rise to a very serious degree. For that reason everybody will be studying overheads, and after all all these people who carry out this form filling come under that general definition.

2.45 p.m.

I ask the President of the Board of Trade very seriously to reconsider this matter. It is not being put forward with any idea of being tiresome, or that because the Government say one thing we must say something else; far from it. It is being put forward from a perfectly practical point of view. The producer is faced with really terrific difficulties, and nobody knows and appreciates that better than the President of the Board of Trade himself. There are difficulties of supply, labour, and materials of all kinds; the producer has to adjust this and adjust that, and I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to add to the industrialist's difficulties by insisting on a period which quite obviously will be gravely inconvenient.

In accordance with my hon. Friend's promise in Committee, we have gone into this again very carefully to see what we can do in order to assist industrialists, and I think it is important to note that this is not a maximum period of time; it is a minimum. That is to say, we cannot ask for returns in less than two months, but under the Bill we can give six months, or six years if we like, so long as we do not go below two months. It seems to me that the convenient way of considering this is to see what the circumstances in the country are at each census, and if then it is thought that a longer period should be allowed, to allow it. That is why my hon. Friend said that so far as the first census was concerned we would allow three months, because of the difficulties which surround industry at the present time. When the second census comes it may be that circumstances will be easier—they may be more difficult, one cannot tell—and we therefore feel that, provided industry is secured at least two months however favourable the circumstances are, the rest should be left to discussions with industry and to administrative decision as to what the convenient period is, always bearing in mind, of course, what several hon. Members opposite have emphasised, that if one leaves it too long the results become of no value to industry itself.

The point mentioned by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Erroll) about the queue is also relevant. If you leave it too long it goes to the bottom of the queue, and you get no answers at all. One must not have so long a period that after the form arrives people put it aside and say they will start looking at it in a couple of months' time. We want something on which people will start acting at once and then have a reasonable time to fill up the form. If the House will agree that there is this minimum period in the Bill, below which we cannot go, and leave it to administrative action in the circumstances of the case to give a further period if it is necessary, we now give the undertaking that for the first census at any rate we will give a period of three months.

May I, with the leave of the House, ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it will be for the Advisory Committee to advise whether, in a particular year, the period should be in excess of two months?

Quite frankly, I have not considered that matter, but we will consider it. The hon. Member knows that in a subsequent Amendment we propose to enlarge somewhat what the Advisory Committee should do, and it would be quite competent under those words to refer this matter to them for their advice

I am sure that the President appreciates our following up the idea underlying our last Amendment which he was good enough to accept. The more we instil confidence into industry the better, and I am sure that industry would be encouraged if it were told that obviously this was one thing on which the Advisory Committee would be consulted if there were any doubt at all. It will go a long way to reassuring the people if the President were able to meet us.

I a quite sure we will consult industry, but I am not sure that the Advisory Committee is the appropriate body to consult on the matter. We should consult some of the trade organisations. I would not like to say that we will consult the Advisory Committee but we should consult industry in the particular circumstances which may arise.

All I want to get now is an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade on the question of prosecutions. Are we to take it that no prosecution will be undertaken in respect of the failure to supply figures under this Bill until three months have elapsed?

In the first census.

In all subsequent censuses?

In all subsequent censuses we must depend upon what the circumstances are before deciding whether it is necessary to give a longer period. In fact, by the time the operation and the preliminary inquiries leading to a prosecution are undertaken it is extremely unlikely that the period will be less than three months, but that would be a legal matter.

I was a little disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman. When he got up with that smile on his face I hoped that he was going to give way. He very nearly gave way, and if I give him one or two little illustrations he may give way before we are finished. It seemed to us that this Amendment was perfectly and absolutely reasonable, and the right hon. Gentleman pointed out what I think was not a very strong argument, that they are giving three months on the first census but not on the second or third. It has to be remembered that the third, fourth and fifth censuses, far from being easier, will be far more difficult for industry to deal with, and for that reason there is a great deal of weight in the plea that has been made from this side of the House.

May I put another point to the right hon. Gentleman? Certain industries have been mentioned, and I should like the Government to say that, as far as the two industries in which I am interested are concerned, they will make an effort not to send out these papers at the most awkward time of the year. It makes no difference to the Civil Service whether they send them out in June, July, August, or January. We would appreciate it if the Government would inform the Civil Service that it is not a good thing to send out forms of this kind to the farming industry during the hay and corn harvest and during the times of threshing, ploughing and seeding. If they would give me an assurance on that point that would relieve my mind to a very great extent.

The other industry to which I refer is particularly concerned with my Division, for there is a large number of people living in my Division who are interested in it—the hotel industry. Could we have some assurance before anything further is dealt with in this manner that when that great industry is at the busiest visitor period, March to September-October, the Civil Service will not flood it with forms, nor will they send them out during Christmas and Easter. If we had an assurance of that kind it would bring some commonsense into the Bill as far as those two industries are concerned. I am giving the Government a month in which to send the forms so that they will not burden an important industry in its busiest time, because if they are sent during the season those people who come to the West Country for a holiday will suffer. I would hate it if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade were having a holiday in the West Country that he would suffer because the hotel people had had to pay attention to some of these forms instead of attending to their guests. That would be just too bad and would very nearly break my heart.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, before asking leave of the House to withdraw this Amendment, I should like to appeal to him to consider in another place inserting an Amendment providing for consultation. As far as I can see from the Bill there is no provision in it to provide that the Advisory Committee, the Federation of British Industries or any other industrial association shall be consulted. It is a desirable thing that they should be consulted with regard to the period after the first year. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will consider that and, in the hope that he will do so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I really cannot put every bit of administrative practice into the Bill. These things are all administrative practice and they are not really suitable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, after "shall", to insert:

"unless he proves that he had reasonable excuse for the failure."

This Clause imposes penalties in the event of failure to comply with the requirement that a return shall be made or an estimate shall be supplied. During the Committee stage a great deal of criticism was directed against this Clause upon the footing that it imposed absolute liability and in particular the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) criticised it on that score. The Clause was thoroughly canvassed and all possible arguments were deployed, and I feel that the House will not wish me to recapitulate them now. At the conclusion of the Debate in the Committee stage I undertook to consider carefully the points which have been advanced, and in particular the points advanced by the hon. and learned Member. Having reconsidered those arguments, the President of the Board of Trade has put down the Amendment which appears on the Order Paper to give effect to the points put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There are other Amendments on the Order Paper which can be considered together with this one and the only difference between the wording of the Government's Amendment—

Even if they are strictly consequential I do not like the habit of the Government switching a lot of Amendments together so that there is no need to discuss them separately.

I am only paying heed to what Mr. Speaker said, that it would be for the convenience of the House that they should be discussed together. At the moment I am merely moving the Amendment which is in the name of the President of the Board of Trade, and I am content to limit myself to that point. The only contrast to which I am pointing is that the Government's Amendment places the onus upon the defendant because the onus cannot obviously be placed on the prosecution. The other Amendments on the Order Paper place the onus on the prosecution. That is the difference, and I merely want to make it plain that I could not accept the plea that the onus should be on the prosecution, because in some cases it would be absolutely impossible for the prosecution to discharge that onus owing to the nature of the charge. The Government by this Amendment have endeavoured to meet the point of view put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite and they hope that the House will be disposed to accept it.

The Solicitor-General has indeed changed the song in his heart since he was speaking on the Committee stage of this Bill. Then he maintained throughout that the right course was not to allow any person to avoid conviction for failure under this Clause by saying that he had a reasonable excuse for failure. He argued that the right thing was to have the conviction recorded against the individual, who might be blameless, and that justice should be done by the imposition of a small fine. The right hon. Gentleman has made some progress since adopting that position. We on this side of the House welcome the advance he has made. I do not think he has gone quite far enough. I think that the words he now wishes to put in put a heavier burden on an accused person than the words in the Census of Production Act, 1,906, and the words the Government are seeking to include in the Agriculture Bill to provide for exactly the same thing, failure to give statistical information. Putting in the words

"Failure without reasonable excuse,"

or the use of the expression

"wilfully refuses or without lawful excuse neglects "

are in conformity with numerous precedents. There has been no difficulty so far as I am aware in bringing guilt home to an accused person in a proper case where the evidence is made subject to those stipulations. But now the hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to accept that course, which has proved to work perfectly satisfactorily. He is now seeking to put the onus more on the shoulders of the accused person, and to make it even more difficult for an accused person to convince a court of his innocence. I always regard with reluctance an encroachment on the principle that a man is innocent until the contrary is proved. Here we see a clearly expressed attempt to assume, when proof has not been complete, that a man is guilty unless he can prove his innocence. I regret that the Solicitor-General has not gone so far as previous Acts, but in saying that, I welcome the great change which has taken place between the views he expressed on the Committee stage and today.

Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I welcome the partial conversion to good principles of justice in the Solicitor-General, but wish that he had gone the whole hog. This Government seem to have an unhealthy craving for putting the onus of establishing innocence upon the defendant. It is one of the most valuable principles of our English Common Law that in general the duty is laid upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused, and not of the accused to prove his innoncence. When a really compelling necessity for reversing that has existed, this House has bowed to that necessity, and permitted it to be enacted, that the accused shall establish his innocence. But, the point which the Solicitor-General did not seem to grasp is that only a compelling necessity can really justify that.

It does not seem to me that for the Solicitor-General to stand at that Box and say that it will be administratively very difficult if we do not have that provision, establishes such a compelling necessity as to justfy this House in going back on a most important principle affecting the liberty of the subject. Let us have a sense of proportion in this matter. After all, when it is still the law of this land that in cases of serious crime affecting the stability of the State, such as treason, it is still the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, what is the necessity for reversing that principle for such an offence as failing to fill in one of the forms of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? It may be of inconvenience to certain officials in Whitehall if their forms do not come back, but is that inconvenience so important as to justify this House giving to this offence an importance which is denied to treason and murder?

I wish to deal with some of the points which the Solicitor-General made when he put forward the Government's view. The whole House agrees that it is a fundamental principle of our criminal law that the onus of proof in any criminal case is upon the prosecution. The Solicitor-General's reason for the Government's attitude was that it would be inconvenient to the Departments concerned to prove, in particular cases, that there had been delay, or there had been some element in the case which made it desirable that the defendant should be prosecuted. That is done every day by prosecutors and by those who desire to obtain convictions in this type of case. All that need be done, if a firm does not render the return within the proper time, is for the Department concerned to write to them and ask for their return, and why they have not rendered it. If no answer comes from the firm, or if the answer is made, "We are not going to render your return," the case is proved. All the prosecution has to do is to go into court, and say that the return has not been rendered, and that no answer has been received.

There, by ordinary process of criminal law, is a prima facie case. There is no difficulty about it. If, on the other hand, a firm writes, and says, "We cannot do this because of sickness" or for some other reason, the country is saved a certain amount of money, because if, on investigation, that is found to be true, there will be no prosecution. If, on investigation, which can be done very easily, it is found to be untrue, a prosecution lies. I do not think that the Solicitor-General will save any Department anything by shifting the onus in this way. If the onus is left where it should be, and where it always has been, in English criminal law, on the prosecution, it can be discharged perfectly easily by the method which I have described.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) has considerably shortened what I had intended to say on this point. I entirely agree with the point that there is a deplorable tendency in the present Government to throw the onus of proving innocence on to the accused person. The other point about which I should like to be sure arises from the fact that the way in which this Amendment has been dealt with is virtually a compromise. The Solicitor- General resisted an Amendment which was intended to achieve this purpose, but he was good enough to say he would look at the matter again. I am worried about the argument that he then put forward. He said:

"we felt that it would lead to very considerable difficulty if, when returns had been requested, it became open to the person who was asked to furnish the returns to submit, in the event of a summons being issued against him, that he had for one reason or another an excuse for not doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C; c. 67–8.]

What is the Government's approach to this sort of thing? In effect, these words mean that they feel that it would be a bad thing if somebody was brought before a court and they were allowed to pat forward a defence. It is deplorable that the view should be taken by a Government—" We think it administratively convenient to bring a person before a court and we want to introduce a system which will prevent him putting forward a defence." That is what these words mean. I hope that now the Government have retracted, to some extent, and allowed a person to establish a reasonable excuse, we may have an assurance that this sort of conduct will not be repeated in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out "fifty," and to insert "twenty."

I hope that the spirit of conciliation which seems to have arisen in the House during the last hour might now be extended by my right hon. and learned Friend to one of his own supporters. I want to draw attention to the penalty Clause where in the case of prosecution a defendant may be fined up to£50 for a first offence. I am not so much concerned about large firms, manufacturers in particular, as about the distribution side of industry. I have in mind the type of small trader who today is engaged in the distribution of many of our essential commodities. Many of them are engaged in one-man businesses, particularly in the case of food distribution. They lead a harassed life dealing with customers' ration books, emergency ration cards, weekly returns, points, and that kind of thing. Many of them are not in a position to pay a staff of clerks to look after these matters.

I am well aware that there has been a tendency since 1939 to increase penalties in reference to all manner of offences. In wartime, many of these increases were justified in matters such as black market building, elicit slaughter of animals, black market food supplies, customs evasion, and currency irregularities. All those things justified the imposition of very heavy penalties. The penalty must be a real deterrent, but I feel that it borders on viciousness to impose a penalty of£50 for a first offence under this Bill for the failure to fill up a form, when the man is very harassed. These people are not criminals but harassed traders trying to do a good job of work for their customers and for the State in general. Amongst the many forms with which they deal, it may be that they may forget this one.

I know that it may be argued that these are maximum penalties. From my own experience I know that benches of magistrates can vary very much in their outlook. There may be cases where county magistrates view much more seriously a technical motoring offence than a serious food prosecution, whereas the magistrates in an urban area might take exactly the opposite point of view. The trader is in a real danger in this respect. I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend to have another look at this and, if possible, to accept my Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The constituencies of the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) and mine are neighbouring constituencies and our minds seem to be running on very close lines this afternoon. I support his plea for the small trader dealing with distributive matters, not only inside this country but also from the export point of view. There are many small businesses established on a basis of personal connection between one man in this country and people overseas. They are over-burdened in the export drive, which we would all wish to support in every way possible, by the enormous number of papers which they have to fill in. It would be a bad thing for the distributive trades if at this particular moment more people were drawn away from the productive side, but if these people are given an extra burden that will inevitably be the effect.

Many of them are extremely hard working. A great many are women, the widows or mothers of ex-Servicemen who used to support them. They have an extremely worrying and difficult time with forms. In many cases they have a tendency—I admit it is a wrong one—to put these things aside saying to themselves they will consult someone later. It will add to their worries to know that a heavy penalty is hanging over their heads. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see fit to accept this Amendment.

I support this Amendment. I also come from a constituency which is practically a neighbouring one to that of the hon. Member for West Salfora (Mr. Royle). It is more likely that the small businesses will default in the supply of information within the stipulated time than the large businesses. Over a period of years those large businesses have accumulated the necessary staff and have built up the statistical methods to enable them to provide the information fairly readily. It is the small harassed businesses which may fail and may therefore be punishable. We should therefore urge on the President of the Board of Trade the importance of a small fine appropriate to a small business. It may be argued that a small fine of£20 maximum is unlikely to intimidate the large and prosperous businesses, but a large and prosperous business is unlikely to default in a matter of this sort. Small businesses, though loyal and as willing as anybody else to try to comply with Government requirements, are likely to find difficulty through matters beyond their control, and it is so easy for a Government Department to go for the small man rather than the large organisations which are in any case less likely to default. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will accept this reasonable Amendment so that the penal nature of the Clause will be ameliorated.

It cannot really be said that the proposed penalty is excessive. It is not a fixed penalty; it is only the maximum. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged that in a particular case there might be circumstances of hardship. Those circumstances would of course be taken into account in the event of a conviction being registered and would be a reason for imposing a very small penalty. The maximum penalty would only be imposed where the worst class of offence had been committed. In view of the Amendment accepted by the House with regard to reasonable excuse, the position is different from what it was when the Clause was unamended. Then it referred to a conviction registered in the event of the failure to make a return. Now no conviction can be registered unless, not only does the defendant not make a return, but he had no reasonable excuse for not making a return. It is therefore appropriate that the maximum penalty which could be imposed should be larger than when the Clause was unamended.

When comparing similar examples, this penalty of£50 is not out of the ordinary. It is the penalty which is provided in Clause 78 of the Agriculture Bill, it appears in similar Clauses in the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill and in the Industrial Organisation Bill, and there are many examples of the Clause which we are discussing. It is really a narrow issue whether this penalty can be shown to be too much. It is the maximum penalty which can be imposed even in the case of a person who refuses deliberately to make a return. For a lesser case, if there is any reasonable excuse and the degree of culpability is less, the penalty is less, and any questions of hardship would automatically be taken into account, considered as mitigating circumstances, and would result in a much lesser penalty than For those reasons it is impossible to accept the Amendment.

I support this Amendment because I recognise that the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) moved it from his personal knowledge of how, when a maximum of this sort is put in, the whole of the penalties are apt to be graded on the maximum. I have rarely known a Law Officer who, when talking about penalties, did not always go out of his way to say that the House apparently did not know that this was a maximum penalty. The House knows that as well as he does, and that is no argument. He also said that this is in the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill and the Agriculture Bill. That is no argument why it should be here. The penalties are already much too high in the other Bills, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had said that, he would have been helpful. The fact remains that when you lay down a maximum of this kind, you tend to put up the whole scale of penalties. That is why I appeal to the Government to try to accept the broadminded wishes of one of their own back benchers. I noticed when he was speaking the obvious backing he had in fact from the faces of almost every hon. Member around him, and that they would support him in the Lobby if it were not for other facts which I will not mention here.

I will mention two sections of the community who will be affected very largely. In the first place the people who have the greatest difficulty in collecting information with which to complete these form are the smallholders, and they will come in under this in the same way as the small shopkeeper and the small businessman. For that reason I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who, if he would allow his humanity an occasional outlet, would accept our wishes at once. The other section is the fishing industry, which is also liable, under certain conditions, to come under this Bill. Fishermen have an exceptionally difficult life, and I would argue from the general West Country point of view that there are other industries not equipped with a high level machinery of crafts, and so on, which are almost Government Departments in themselves. I would appeal to the Government to keep off big penalties in connection with the small industries. The collecting of statistics from many industries, including the co-operative industry, is doing a great deal of harm to many well-deserving and good people. I hope the Government will accept the wishes of their own supporters, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who does not always treat the House with a great deal of respect, on this occasion will agree to give way to the wiser and better feelings of the House.

There was a certain lack of logic in the answer of the Solicitor-General. It is not necessary to repeat what has been said in relation to this being a maximum penalty, because it is per-