May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make in regard to the business for next week?

Yes, Sir; I have a statement to make regarding the business for Tuesday and Thursday of next week. On Tuesday, which is the 26th Allotted Supply Day, it is proposed, at the request of the Opposition, that the debate on Traffic Congestion and Road Accidents should last until 9.30 p.m., and that the debate on Food Hygiene, previously announced for the second half of Tuesday, should now take place during the second half of Thursday.

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

I endeavoured in Committee to move a similar new Clause, but I did not succeed because I did not put it in a form which amounted to an alteration of substance. I have now added the word "either" to the new Clause as previously drafted, and I am glad to know that it is now in order.

This is a mere tidying-up proposal to alter Section 2 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, so that it will read in fact as it is indeed construed by the courts, who have taken a common sense view of the Section. If the proposed new Clause is accepted, the courts will no longer be under any embarrassment in doing that. This is of some practical importance because it will help those practising in court of summary jurisdiction where, I am told, a lot of argument has been devoted to this point. In future perhaps we shall save the courts that argument.

I beg to second the Motion.

As the hon. Gentleman says, the proposed new Clause does not alter the law as the Section has been construed by the courts. Nevertheless, it makes much clearer to the layman and to benches of magistrates what, on the face of the statute, the correct reading of the Section is. For that reason Her Majesty's Government are pleased to accept the proposed new Clause, and so advise the House.

I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out lines 11 and 12, and to insert:

"(aa) as to quality grade distinctive character."

This is the only point of substance, I think, which is left unresolved. It is a difficult point. It is a controversial point, but it is not a controversial point in the usual sense, for I think we would all agree that everyone in the Committee on either side tried to seek the best possible definition of something which it is very difficult to define. I still feel, and my hon. Friends still feel, that the amended definition in the Bill is not really satisfactory. I do not think it would be helpful today to redeploy the arguments we advanced from both sides about this question of how it is best to define quality for the purposes of this Bill, but the main disadvantages of the present definition, it seems to me, are these.

It is going to be extraordinarily difficult to decide what a classification is. It is going to be very difficult to determine what a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade is. I still feel that the Parliamentary Secretary really put his finger unwittingly on the difficulty when he said that we had to bear in mind the fact that there were sales within industry and sales to the public. That is the very difficulty which, to my mind, makes this present definition unacceptable. There has been quite recently difficulty arising on this very point about certain definitions of some textiles, particularly woollen textiles, where a description is well known in the trade but is not well known outside the trade. Indeed, it is quite misleading outside the trade. For that reason I should like the Government even at this late stage to look again at the definition which they accepted when we were considering this in Committee.

I feel—I put it as bluntly as this—that if the Bill goes through as it stands at present this particular subsection will not be used at all. The Bill will serve a useful purpose by providing the additional subsection (ab), which will be very useful, but my own feeling about this, and it is the feeling of at any rate some of the practitioners who specialise in this type of case, is that the new subsection (aa) now in the Clause will not be relied upon because it will be difficult to succeed in a prosecution which depends upon it.

Another difficulty is one I have mentioned before. It is more of a practical difficulty. It is a very real one, and it is that if we rely on this subsection we inevitably have expert witnesses called, and if we call expert witnesses on the one side we call them on the other side in defence, and we have a long protracted proceeding. Many of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite raised the point of the costs of these proceedings, and if the prosecution should feel bound to rely upon this subsection they will inevitably run into increased costs. For these reasons I think we should still try to seek an alternative definition.

What my hon. Friends and I propose by this Amendment is to reconsider the matter in the light of the discussions we had on Second Reading and upstairs. We from our side would jettison some of the words we have previously suggested. They appear attractive, but we attempt to rely only upon those which seem to get the largest measure of support. Therefore, we are relying upon "quality, grade, distinctive character." I would say a few words about those words that we think should go into the definition.

I remain convinced, unlike Lord Lucas, that Lord Mancroft in another place was right and that "quality" colours the whole of the new words brought in. I think he is right, too, when he says that this is, after all, a matter to be interpreted by the courts, and that it is best to leave it to their common-sense to interpret "quality." This word has been used in similar Measures before, and as far as I know, and I think as far as Lord Mancroft knew, there has been no difficulty about the actual interpretation of it. This is one of those cases where it is easy enough to anticipate difficulties, but in which in fact the word is well enough known and the purpose is well enough known. I think that if we leave it to the courts we shall get a reasonable interpretation of it. That is why I should like the word "quality" itself to remain. I think it is attractive to make it quite clear that one of the purposes of this amending legislation is that misrepresentation regarding quality should be an offence.

I can only hope that the Government have reconsidered all that Lord Mancroft said and the persuasive way in which he said it, and will say that on balance there is more on his side than there was in the equally persuasive words of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Attorney-General. I think if we ignored the weight of legal opinion on either side and asked, "What really are we trying to do and what impression are we creating by this amending legislation? "it must be better then to say" We will leave 'quality' in."

There was a point I raised upstairs to which, if I may say so with no disrespect, the Parliamentary Secretary did not attempt to reply. It has been backed up by this pretty recent practical experience. There is this feeling that it is not good enough nowadays to have a description that is understood within an industry and to fob that off on to the public. After all, the main purpose of the Government by this Bill is to protect the consuming public. I think we should not allow this loophole, which would be a very real one. Perhaps it would not be a practical one because I think the subsection as it stands will not be relied upon, but I think it would be far better to allow the word "quality" to stand.

The second word we seek to bring in is "grade." I should have thought the Government would have welcomed our ingenuity in thinking of "grade." It is one of those simple things often overlooked by the draftsmen when drafting a definition like this. When my hon. Friends moved an Amendment upstairs which, I think, was open to drafting criticism but whose purpose was agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, the Government said, "Of course, we agree with it. We want to bring in here that very conception of grade. We want to make it an offence to have a false and misleading description relating to grade," and the Parliamentary Secretary said, "Let us have an economy of words. Let us use as few words as possible." It therefore struck us, on reconsidering this matter, why not use the word "grade"? It is a well known word; it is commonly understood. Let us allow the courts with common sense and reasonableness to interpret it.

When my hon. Friends were trying to bring within the Bill the word "grade" the Parliamentary Secretary said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler):

"The hon. Member … used the expression 'grading.' I agree with him, and so does the whole Committee, that that is our idea."

He said also:

"What we want to do is to achieve our object with precision and with as few words as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 9th July, 1953; c. 18.]

So why not try to achieve this by using the word "grade" and leaving it to the courts to interpret in it a reasonable way? The Attorney-General took the same view. He criticised that particular Amendment, but he said that they sympathised and wanted to bring in the idea of grade within the Bill.

Finally—and this is a little more difficult—we bring in "distinctive character." I agree that there are difficulties about this, but, at the same time, I feel, as I have said before and, therefore, I will not redeploy the argument, that the main objections which were raised by Lord Mancroft to similar words are really in favour of these words. I think it is about time with regard to things like paint and cosmetics that we did have proper descriptions so that people know what they mean. The particular reason which my hon. Friends felt in putting forward these words again was a political one.

These words, as those who sat on the Committee will remember, were supported by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who felt that they would be helpful. I regard him in a sense as an umpire. This is a matter in which we are trying to seek agreement and the best means of stopping up a loophole in the existing law. He felt that these words would be helpful, and I think that we should pay regard to the fact that he felt so. He was thinking especially about a particular industry in which he has constituency interests. The hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied me that there is sufficient protection at present but that is not an adequate reason for excluding the words. They may not, strictly speaking, be necessary, but if it is generally conceded that they would be helpful, I think we should accept them.

We are still not satisfied with the attempt which has been made to improve the definition as it comes to us. We feel that the new definition which we are now proposing is a better one than that which appears, and we hope that the Government in the difficult position of having to resolve between different opinions in the Government itself will resolve them by taking the middle course and accepting the definition we now propose.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I, too, very much hope that the Government will feel able to look at this matter again. It seems to us on this side of the House that the Amendment we now propose is obviously shorter than the one actually in the context, and that the words we propose do cover all the words which it was proposed should be left out. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply, will feel able to comment on that.

I have discussed with retail organisations the actual words we propose should be left out, and I raised with them the point as to whether or not what we actually propose now to be put in would meet any case that would be raised. They felt this would be so. They said that in any prosecution relating to a false trade description, whether in respect of quality or any other characteristics which were described in the Act, it was necessary to prove what characteristic it is which is described, and we feel that point would be met by the Amendment.

During the Second Reading debate, I mentioned that representations had been made to me through various associations concerning the actual word "quality." I put it then to the Parliamentary Secretary, without wishing to enter into any discussion as to whether or not the word "quality" should remain, that these associations felt that perhaps it should be expanded or omitted. I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I have since then read once more the discussions in another place and that was put forward by the Government speaker on this particular matter. I arrived at the conclusion reached by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who has proposed this Amendment, that the word "quality" should remain. It seemed to me that it did, as the Government say, cover the whole aspect of this particular position.

What I want to go on to from there, quite briefly, is a small, and I imagine, legal point. The Parliamentary Secretary will know, and I made it quite clear, that I have had the benefit of advice from the Retail Trading Standards Association, and I think that what they have to say is of interest, as the Government know that this Association has carried out a good many prosecutions under this Act which really should have been carried out by the Board of Trade, or at least the cost should have been borne by the Board of Trade. The secretary of that Association has asked me to raise this point with the Government. In the Bill as it now stands before us and on this particular Clause we have now paragraph (aa) and paragraph (ab) to take the place of the previous paragraph (aa). The point which I am raising for clarification by the Parliamentary Secretary is this.

The Retail Trading Standards Association did say that they were wondering if under the Bill as is now proposed it would be necessary for them to bring a case either under paragraphs (aa) or (ab) but that they would not be able to bring it under both. In other words, are the two subsections mutually exclusive? They felt that previously the whole of this description was raised under the one subsection and that made their position very much easier. They asked me, for the purpose of clarification, to make plain to the Government that it was their opinion that if in a case which they have to bring forward it had to be brought either under one or under the other, it would make it very much more difficult to bring prosecutions. I am asking for clarification on that point, but I would like to stress that this Association, which has brought a good many prosecutions at its own expense under this Act, support this Amendment of ours and feel that it would cover the words proposed to be left out. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept it.

I hope that my hon. Friend is not going to accept so readily this Amendment as he did the last one, because I feel that although it is another brave effort to solve the difficulty that we have been confronted with throughout the discussions on this Bill, the Amendment would in fact take us back to where we were at the beginning so far as the word "quality" is concerned.

Throughout the discussions in this House, in Committee and in another place, the word "quality" has been a bugbear, and the difficulty is because the word "quality" is so wide and sweeping. What we agree is needed in this Bill is precision—something that can be understood and is definable to such a degree that a prosecution will have to be aimed at a particular thing and not at some general failure to be accurate in describing goods.

The Amendment which the Government accepted in the Committee stage is not, I think, in itself perfect. There is this difficulty about the use of words which are well understood within a trade itself but cannot be equally well understood by the public.

The textile case most frequently quoted is that of a garment consisting of 15 per cent. of wool which is described as a woollen garment. Apparently that is acceptable as being within the understood meaning of "wool" in the trade. It is obvious that there may be other cases of that kind where a description is understood in the trade but may be very misleading to the public. If that is so, one would hope that there might be some means of dealing with it, but I am certain that the way to deal with it is not to go back to where we were and leave "quality" in the Bill without any qualification. I hope the Amendment will not be accepted.

There is no need to reiterate the case stated during the Committee stage because both the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary were present and took a great interest in what was said. I would remind the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) that the purpose of our Amendment during the Committee stage was to introduce precision. Seeing that the President and the Parliamentary Secretary were so sympathetic towards those who moved the Amendment, one would have thought that even if the Amendment could not be accepted, they would have devised a suitable form of words to insert at this stage. However, that has not been done. My hon. Friend and those who have worked with him in drafting the words have made a good attempt to insert in the Bill at this stage what we expressed a desire to have during the Committee stage.

Our ideas have been reinforced since the Committee stage by correspondence which we have received from representative and well informed people in a number of industries which are interested in the matter. It is their desire that something should be done to bring precision into the Clause and to define the various grades under the heading of quality. Since the Committee stage I have learnt something which I did not know before. I understand that the United States has voluntary standards which are generally accepted and have produced good results. I hope our Amendment will be accepted, but, if it cannot be, can more be done by the Board of Trade on the lines of what is done in the United States in defining standards and quality?

We must face the fact that we have sought precision and failed to find it. That is the stage that we have now reached. We discussed the matter on Second Reading and at length during the Committee stage. Some of my hon. Friends and I attempted to draft an Amendment, but we saw its shortcomings and realised that we had got back practically to the point at which we started. We must face it that we cannot find a precise definition of quality which is of universal application, although we can provide precise definitions which would apply to certain industries. Basing ourselves on the pottery industry, some of my hon. Friends and I sought to insert reference to grades A, B and C or 1, 2 and 3, but that would not be of universal application and so it is not acceptable.

I hope the House will accept the Amendment which we have now moved. The hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) has shown how the definition accepted during the Committee stage will weaken the Clause and the Bill because it will provide a defence in the courts for trade descriptions which are obviously misleading to consumers. The hon. Member gave the example of goods described as "woollen goods" when they contain only 15 per cent. of wool. That is an example of a standard commonly recognised in the trade as meaning that the article contains only 15 per cent. of wool which is obviously misleading to the consumer.

We could produce many other examples from many other industries and trades. A number were mentioned during the Committee stage, one being "full fruit standard" which means one thing in the trade and another thing to the consumer. Apparently, it is misleading to the consumer, but it could be argued in the courts that it is a term commonly recognised and used in the trade and not misleading to those in the know.

Consequently, I hope the Government will accept our Amendment. We believe that "grade" should be inserted. During the Committee stage the Attorney-General complimented us on bringing forward the point, and I believe that my hon. Friend has made the case for it this morning. It is applicable to a great number of industries. There is something quite definite and measurable about trade descriptions over a certain range of goods. I hope that the House, facing the fact that many attempts have been made to get precision but we have failed to get precision which would be universally applicable, will be prepared to insert the words that we recommend and leave it to the good judgment of the courts to carry out the obvious intentions of the Bill.

I did not have the advantage of being on the Standing Committee which considered this not unimportant Measure and so I do not know exactly what transpired on this issue, but, on the whole, I do not think it would be wise for the House to accept the Amendment. It is agreed on all sides that we are up against an almost insoluble problem, and there is no advantage in pursuing precision of definition to a point which might make the task of the courts more difficult than it is.

By what we have already achieved in the Bill we have lessened the difficulty of dealing with misleading descriptions, which has been the general desire of the House and the country. But we are not merely left only with the provisions of the Bill. The real prospect of eliminating misleading descriptions lies in the acceptance of standards. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) was correct in saying that there are much more specific standards in the United States. In the course of my business the other day I looked at the catalogue of a United States manufacturer of clothing and I was amazed at the precision of description. An article was described in a certain manner because it contained a certain percentage of material. It is conceivable that we could apply such standards in this country.

The matter is already being discussed by the B.S.I., and I consider it very much better to have specific standards for as many items as possible, which will have ready acceptance by the trade and will in the end have statutory enforcement, than to aim at the impossible, which is a general definition to preclude the possibility of there being misleading descriptions. I hope the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), whose purpose is the same as ours, will realise that the proper course is to improve and increase the standards issued by the B.S.I., which will, without any doubt, give precision, instead of pursuing the attempt to get perfection and precision where perfection and precision are not admissible.

None of us on this side of the House wishes to make heavy weather of this, but those of us who were on the Committee are perturbed, because in the past, for instance in the pottery industry in North Staffordshire and the silk and rayon industry, in which a section of my constituents earn their living, we were concerned about foreign competition. If we leave in this Bill the expression:

"… the standard of quality of any goods, according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade …"

we believe that it will create trouble in the future. We feel that the phrase:

"… quality grade distinctive character"

would be much nearer to a definition, which we could appreciate and approve. Later on some of us may have something to say about this difficulty, especially when we face foreign competition in the silk and rayon industries and in the pottery industry.

Only yesterday I was reading in one of the numerous leaflets and pamphlets that are sent to Members of Parliament that in the brewery industry the term "liquor" is treated as representing water. That upset entirely my idea of the brewing industry, and we believe that this phrase:

"… commonly used or recognised in the trade.."

would not be in the interests of the consumer who knows nothing about the recognised terms in any trade. In the furniture trade there are all kinds of terms used that do not mean the real thing at all. For instance, oak veneer is called oak, but it is nothing of the sort.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at these things and to consider this question in the light of that. I fully appreciate that he must have these abstract phrases like "quality of any goods" which are difficult to define and that they must be related to something. But here we are concerned with protecting the skill and the genius of industry and of the best manufacturers and workers in the country from those who would undermine the standard and quality of British production.

As I say, we must have these abstract phrases, but let me take such phrases as "works of art" and "works of genius." One can understand that if Tennyson took a piece of paper and wrote a poem on it for which he was paid £1,000, it is genius. One can understand that if Rembrandt took a piece of canvas and painted a picture on it which became worth £5,000, it is art. One can understand that if a Rothschild took a sheet of paper, writing his name on it and making out a cheque for £1,000, it is business. One can understand that when a man in the Mint takes a piece of metal and prints on it, it is money. One can understand that when a cabinetmaker takes a piece of timber and turns it into a beautiful table worth £50, it is skill. But what one cannot understand is a working man taking a voting paper and putting an X opposite a Tory candidate: That is stupidity.

I fully realise that we have to have these abstract phrases, but we are of opinion that the phrase which we have included in our Amendment should be in the Bill as giving a clearer definition than what is already in the Bill. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will be able to accept this Amendment, because if he does he will improve the Bill.

I must not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), except to remind him that Rembrandt never got £1,000 for any picture that I know of.

I said "if."

In this discussion we are referring, of course, to a Bill which is an advance on previous legislation because it deals with terms which are misleading, and in that way it strengthens or is said to strengthen past legislation. Already we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) a description as to how a term like "full fruit standard" in jam can be misleading, and we all agree with him that it is misleading to the public and to the consumer. The fact that the Ministry of Food are the delinquents in this case does not make the matter any less serious.

When we heard from the Minister the other day the confession that there is almost no vitamin C in jam of this type, which is clearly marked "up to full fruit standard," because it has to be boiled so long to get the sulphur preservative out of it. This jam in fact is less useful to the consumer than stale turnip or swede would be. We know that the public has been misled for years and it is time we did something, even against Ministerial Departments, to get a better definition.

In the pottery trade we used to describe our pottery as "first," "seconds" and "lump." I remember well a patient of mine telling me many years ago how they worked in the great firm of Wedgwoods. He said that he spent a considerable part of his time with a sledge hammer smashing up anything that was not first grade quality. That was the practice of the best of our manufacturers. They let their work people smash the "lumps" and sometimes for a copper or two they allowed them for their personal use to take home with them what they called the "seconds." I am sure that both the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary, looking at those "seconds," would think they were absolutely first-class. They would not be able to find any fault with them. We are not accustomed to seeing the tiny faults that they would never pass and which they rejected entirely.

I am also told—and here I may be wrong and stand to be corrected—that a long time ago, and not necessarily in Britain, if a pot were cracked some people would stick it together with glue and sell it. The words "Yours sincerely" really mean "without glue." That refers to the fact that there was a guarantee as to the quality of the product, and we want all our pottery and all our manufactures to be sincere products without glue.

There is nothing here to prevent people outside sending us goods which are not sincere in quality because they could conform to

"the standard of quality of any goods, according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade."

I am not sure that we are safe in this matter and we are right to press upon the President of the Board of Trade and the Government for a closer definition.

Fifty years ago in the rag flock trade when mattresses were being made it would have been reasonable to follow the common, ordinary practice in the trade and not clean the rag flock. Today there is a different attitude. We have the British Standards attitude, which demands that the rag flock should be clean. Nevertheless, about two years ago we had to pass an Act of Parliament called the Rag Flock Act in order to make quite certain that everybody subscribed to the British Standards' technique. We were told that 90 per cent. of the people complied with that, but because a small proportion did not an Act of Parliament had specifically to be passed for this purpose.

Cannot the President of the Board of Trade change his mind about this matter, even if we do get into trouble because the words we offer are too narrow. It is better to get into trouble for a good reason than leave the door so wide open that a piece of legislation is no use at all. That is what we are inclined to believe is the case here.

I shall resist the temptation offered to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) to chase after one of the many hares he let loose from his bag when he talked about the classification of water that may be sold by one important trade in the country. I shall resist that temptation because I have something else on my mind.

The House on both sides seems to be doubtful about the effectiveness of anything we are doing this morning. My hon. Friends who have put down this Amendment seem to be in doubt as to whether they will carry it to a Division and the Government are equally in doubt about the Clause. I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary has a great brief which he is studying carefully for our benefit——

On the next Bill.

Then he seems to be looking for inspiration in the next Bill because he finds none in the present. At any rate he is studying something, and I am waiting to hear what it is he has to say.

In one part of our discussions on this matter his difficulties were reduced to the old Latin tag that we should always beware of the seller when we are dealing with merchandise on which we are asking for a precise mark to be placed. "Caviat emptor" he told us not long ago. That is really what is being done in the Clause as it stands; we are really leaving to the sellers in the trade who have any process of making a mark, what shall be done for the protection of the public. Of course if the sellers, as in the case of woollen goods, chose to tell us that from their point of view 15 per cent. of wool is pure wool, then we are governed by the action taken by the sellers.

I admit that there are great difficulties in the matter and for that reason I hark back to another process which might be adopted by buyers for their protection, since we are in such a difficulty in the House over providing proper protection. I am referring to the protection we provide in the Co-operative movement. The Co-operative Wholesale Society grades and defines its commodities in such a way that they come to be known amongst a large buying public as meaning the same thing as the definition placed on the carton or the canister in which the goods are sold. The problem is not solved entirely, because in the Co-operative movement goods of other traders are still being sold because the buyer is prepared to take the risk of purchasing what he thinks may serve his ends.

The President of the Board of Trade might take into account this fact, that the purchaser might be persuaded to rely upon the graded commodities of established wholesalers, such as the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which cannot afford to whittle down the quality of its goods since in the long run it will suffer in consequence. The Co-operative Wholesale Society, therefore, either under the definition of the Government or under the definition suggested by my hon. Friends, would be able to meet the requirements of the buyers in the Cooperative movement.

12.15 p.m.

I know that at the women's Co-operative conference they were very much interested in this matter and insisted that the protection which apparently cannot be offered by the Board of Trade and by the law, and which we on these benches do not seem to be able to offer, could be obtained by many buyers if it were left to their own organisations to buy commodities which have been graded and which they can be sure will be of the quality stated on the canisters and cartons. I suggest that as one solution although, on the whole, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) that it is just as well that we should try, even if we do not succeed entirely, to make a better definition than we have and I would support my hon. Friends in their efforts.

I think that the Committee upstairs and hon. Members when the matter has been before the House have all had one end in view, to get the most suitable words possible into the Bill because we have a common purpose in this matter. I can assure the House that, if my right hon. Friend and I thought that the words proposed in this Amendment were more suitable for common purpose than those already in the Bill, false pride would not prevent us from adopting them. Frankly, I cannot advise the House to adopt them. Indeed, when I first saw these words on the paper I had not the vaguest idea what they meant, and I am still not very clear. I will say why. As they appear on the paper, there is no comma anywhere. The Amendment simply says "as to quality grade distinctive character." I thought that was a single phrase——

rose——

Wait a minute. I will yield to the hon. Gentleman in a minute if he wishes to interrupt, but I think he may wish first to hear what I have to say. If that were a single phrase, I could not attach any meaning to it, but when I heard the hon. Member opening the debate, I thought he meant to put a comma after "quality", another comma after "grade" and thus to make three things—quality, grade, and distinctive character. Perhaps he will tell me if that is so?

What I want the hon. and learned Gentleman to do is to continue this debate as hitherto we have been discussing this matter, on its merits. As I said before, I would welcome any assistance from the hon. and learned Gentleman on matters of draftsmanship.

I am not dealing with draftsmanship.

If I may finish, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had any doubts about this matter and had had a word with me beforehand, I would have told him exactly what I had in mind. I hope we shall not continue this debate in any arid form. Both sides of the House have been anxious to reach a definition to meet a purpose which we commonly share. I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he has been misled. I have not carried out any research but this may well be a typographical or printing error because I believe the words should have three commas.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman interrupted me so prematurely. I definitely want to deal with the merits, but first I want to discover the meaning of what is proposed. After his speech I assumed that he wished to put a comma after "quality" and a comma after "grade" and to have three things. Why I doubt whether that was his meaning is because he mentioned, as did other hon. Members, the Amendment proposed in Committee by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) that is very much in point in this discussion. What the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme talked about was "quality standard," with no comma between the two words, and I wanted to know to which matter I was to direct my attention; to the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) who put two alternatives or to that of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. Whichever it is, I can assure the House that the words which they wish to insert, however they are punctuated, will not be any better for their purpose than what is already in the Bill. In fact they will be very much worse.

A fear was expressed by hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who said that these words now in the Bill, to which he objects, provide some sort of defence to the use of a misleading description. Of course, if that were so, there would be a very substantial objection to those words, but that is not what these words do at all. These words are additional to everything else in the Bill. What they say is that if there is a

"standard of quality … according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade,"

then to use a description which is false or misleading as to that standard of quality is an offence.

Those words do not mean that, if people in the trade agree upon a misleading description, that will prevent the courts convicting under the principal Act as amended. I thought that I had satisfied the Committee on that point. I believe that when that fact is once realised by the House, a great deal of the apprehensions that have been expressed will be removed.

The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said, quite truly, that I had praised the idea lying behind the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who mentioned "quality grade." I said that the idea in his mind about grading was precisely what we had in mind but that I did not think he had expressed it with precision. I think the words "standard of quality" express with precision the idea of grading which was in his mind.

I agree with those hon. Members who say that the word "quality" must appear in this Bill, but I also think it is important that we should make clear the way in which we are using it. We are using it here to express standards of quality, or what the hon. Member says is very often referred to in ordinary language as grade.

The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), who has long taken a great and informed interest in these matters, asked me whether, in our opinion, the fact that we had separated these various new characteristics into two groups would make it more difficult to combine them in a single prosecution or charge. I am advised, and I believe, that that is not so, and that there is nothing to prevent a charge of a trade description being false or misleading as to a number of these characteristics, and it does not matter in which group those characteristics appear; nor indeed, as I pointed out in Committee, are all these characteristics mutually exclusive of each other.

I think that I have dealt with all other points that have been raised. I assure the House that any fear that the words

"according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade "

provide a defence to an undesirable practice is a misapprehension of the law as it will be after this Bill is passed. I assure hon. Members also that I believe that the words already in the Bill as amended in Committee carry out the intention that so many hon. Members had in mind when putting down their Amendments.

I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity to give the Parliamentary Secretary notice of a question that I should like to ask him. Does he think there is anything in what I have said about the American standards and so on? If he is not aware of the position, will he investigate it and consider what I said?

With the leave of the House, I had meant to deal with the hon. Gentleman's remarks on this point. I would rather not, without notice, comment on the practice or the legislation of another country, but, in my view, the work that the British Standards Institution is carrying out in this country with the good will of all will make the practice here at least as good as that in any other country.

With the leave of the House, may I say that we appreciate this search for the most suitable words, but we are not satisfied that we have succeeded. The main difference between us is on the word "quality." We agree with Lord Mancroft that "quality" is a good "sweeping-up" word. We do not think it would have been difficult to interpret it in the courts. We were endeavouring to save the Government from the embarrassment which the Lord Chancellor and Lord Mancroft will suffer when this Bill goes back to another place.

I only rise, as I think I ought, to thank hon. Members in all quarters of the House for the contributions which they have made, and to thank the Government for honouring the undertaking which the President of the Board of Trade gave on the Second Reading that consideration would be given to all points of view which were put forward in an endeavour to improve this Bill. Although we have not seen eye to eye on one matter, it would be ungracious of me if I did not express the thanks of my hon. Friends for the way in which the Government have met us on other points.

I think we have improved a useful Measure, and when this Bill goes to the Statute Book it will strengthen the law about merchandise marks. Although the Government have not gone as far as we wished, they have at any rate gone some way.

I should like to assure the Government that we on this side of the House are very glad that they have brought forward this Bill, which is a considerable improvement on former legislation.

There are two points that I should like to make. First, I think that associations connected with the textile industry believe that the Bill will help a great deal, but so far as the furniture industry is concerned there are various points outstanding. It was not possible to allow an Amendment on this point to be discussed and, therefore, I would not be in order in referring to it now, but I should like to make this point in respect of the furniture industry.

I am sure the President of the Board of Trade knows that British Furniture Manufacturers, representing employers, and the Furniture Development Council, representing employers and furnishing trade operatives, are bringing certain matters to his notice. We have not been able to do so in discussions on this Bill, but it is a matter on which the trade feel strongly. I hope the President may be able to meet them on this question as both sides of industry feel that something should be done in the matter. I hope, furthermore, that the Board of Trade will then bring an amendment to the House which we have not been able to introduce in this Bill.

I do not suppose that many hon. Members would feel like challenging a Division on this Bill, although some of us had an idea of doing so because we wanted a stronger Bill—not because we were opposed to this Bill—and also because we thought the Government ought to have introduced it in this House and not in another place. We thought that because it was introduced in another place that was a sign that the Government did not regard it as so important, but now consideration which has been given to the Bill at all stages has brought out the importance of this matter.

I hope that the Government will use this legislation when it is on the Statute Book. I am being quite unpartisan when I say that the Board of Trade themselves have been rather lax in this matter over recent years. Figures were given in Committee which showed that the Board of Trade were more active before the war than in recent years. I hope they will take responsibility for trying to suppress misleading trade descriptions and not leave it to outside associations and individual citizens. There is a definite need for this Bill. There is in circulation a host of misleading trade descriptions of one kind and another. There is no doubt that consumers are being defrauded and misguided in a number of ways. We hope that when this Bill becomes law it will do something to put a stop to such practices.

The fact that other countries have not been so enlightened as to pass legislation like this is demonstrated by the fact that the Board of Trade have had to take up 330 cases of complaints about infringements and false and misleading trade marks in 50 different countries in the last two years. I know that is not a matter we can discuss now, because it is not contained in the Bill, but we should like to see similar legislation in other countries because we feel this is part of an international problem. We welcome the Bill and hope that when it is an Act it will be fully used.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) said that he would have liked to have seen a stronger Bill. We are all with him to the extent that we want to make the way of the transgressor as hard as possible in the matters dealt with by this Bill, but there is another aspect which some of us have tried to keep in mind. We have been reminded of it by a number of trade and professional organisations which are interested in and very much concerned about this Bill. It is the interest of the honest trader who wants to get on with his job knowing where he stands and not being exposed to unnecessary and unfair risks through a Bill which is, perhaps, too wide in scope and too difficult and abstruse in wording.

What we have had to do is to try to balance those two requirements. On the whole, I think the Government are to be congratulated. If I may say so, the House are to be congratulated on having managed the job very well in this Bill as we now have it.

A matter which I greatly regret is that I was unable to get support for an attempt to amend subsection (3) of Clause 1, the objection being the extremely abstruse and difficult wording of the subsection. After it had been referred to on Second Reading, some of us hoped that the Department would be able to look at the wording again. In the interests of traders, these things ought to be precise. Where we are creating new crimes or extending old crimes it ought to be done in words which the prospective criminal can understand and which can be understood by those who may find themselves exposed to a criminal prosecution without having any ill intention of any kind. Therefore, I think we cannot allow the President to take this Bill away with too great a sense of self-congratulation.

It is not a perfect Bill but I agree that it is the best we have been able to do and a great advance on the old merchandise marks legislation. It will be welcomed not only m all quarters of the House but in all quarters of the country in which honest trade is carried on.

I wish to draw attention to Clause 3 of the Bill. Those of us from areas which in pre-war days suffered from foreign competition are concerned about the designs on imported goods bearing United Kingdom certification trade marks. In Committee some of us drew attention to the fact that it is important when goods come into the country to see that "foreign made" or "imported" is not printed in microscopic dimensions on the commodity.

The House noted the warning of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer some weeks ago when he said that there is a rebirth of energy and life among our old competitors, Japan and Germany. We do not want to go back to the days when goods of dubious origin were coming in without the British public knowing clearly from whence they came. There fore, although I welcome the Bill, I re serve to some other time criticism and suggestions which may be made for something which would extend this type of legislation into international spheres. There seems to be no power in inter national law to prevent a foreign country in any part of the world from naming a part of its country "Great Britain"——

The hon. Member cannot pursue that interesting topic on the Third Reading of this Bill.

I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot pursue the topic that international law cannot stop a foreign country calling one of its towns "Great Britain." I hope that at some time or other that kind of question will be looked into in order to prevent false competition from abroad.

On the Third Reading of this Bill we are in very calm water as compared with Second Reading and Committee stage. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the Committee because I was in another Committee sitting on the same days.

I am sure that now we have reached this stage we are happy for any advance to have been made on existing legislation. I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) in the basis of his contention. We do not want ever to legislate for the sake of legislation; that is the last thing we want to do. Equally, I am sure the hon. Member will agree that the honest trader in this country has not really had much to fear from legislation by this House. It is for his sake as much as for the sake of anyone that we are anxious to get an improvement in the law which can protect the consuming public and the honest trader. That I think may be said to have been achieved to some extent by the advance in this small Bill. For that we are grateful to the President.

My main concern has been about the term "misleading" and I am not at all sure that my apprehension has been adrift. The President must know that there is a whole spate of stuff passing into the hands of consumers which is still misleading. The best way to give us assurance and protection would be for his Department to go forward and prosecute and not leave it to the consuming public themselves to take action. The reason is obvious; it is that so often when people have been, as it were, made fools of and deceived they are loth to go forward themselves; indeed very often they have not the money or the knowledge which is necessary, so they say nothing about it. It is caveat emptor, a phrase which we do not like about this type of thing.

Lastly, to give a short example, the reputable newspapers will not accept advertisements from people who sell goods the descriptions of which are misleading. Such advertisements creep into the pulp magazines. I have one in my hand which, if its claims were true, would be most helpful to the Government—to Departmental Ministers, and especially Cabinet Ministers. It says that at 80 one can be "as young and virile as at 30." All one has to do is to pay a few shillings for some tablets, one type if one is a male and another type if one is a female. Astounding things are claimed, one being:

"At 76, I am experiencing the joys of life to the full."

I do not know if the President of the Board of Trade knows what that means; if he does not, I will explain it to him afterwards.

It is all very well to put such advertisements into these magazines, but they must cost an awful lot of money, which is extracted from the public in addition to the profits on the product. Is there anyone who agrees that people should push the sale of glandular products which may be dangerous to elderly people when we have a National Health Service under which people can get everything of this sort which they need free, or virtually free? Should we not do something about it and give the protection which should be given? I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will keep this in mind. If he does not, I shall have to write him a fairly long letter. Apart from that, I feel as satisfied as perhaps I can be on this matter.

In accepting this Bill, I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade to make it abundantly clear that it is the intention of the Board of Trade to see that the terms and conditions embodied in the Bill are to be enforced. I do not think it is realised by the general public what considerable powers reside in the Board of Trade. These powers have been increased to some small extent by the Bill which we are now discussing. I hope that in those circumstances the Board of Trade will not hesitate to take whatever legal action is necessary to make sure that the contents of this Bill and the other powers that the Board of Trade have, some of which seem to be falling into disuse, are exercised in future with vigour in the interests of the consuming public.

I feel that the House is perhaps now ready to proceed to give this Bill its Third Reading. If it does so, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) that I shall not go away with any undue feeling of self-congratulation. I feel that the House can (congratulate itself upon having given what is, I believe, a very useful Measure a thorough and proper examination through its various stages and upon having produced at the end a Bill which is better than when it started out on its course.

I would not exaggerate the extent of the measures which we are now in process of bringing into law. The standards maintained by the traders of this country are as high as or higher than the standards maintained by any other traders in any other part of the world. The vast majority of traders in this country are absolutely honest and scrupulous in the descriptions which they give to their goods. The purpose of this Bill is perhaps to bring the practice of all a little nearer to the practice of the best. To that extent I think it will satisfy both the traders of the country and the customers. It is in that light that I hope the House will give the Bill its Third Reading.

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

This is a Bill of 18 rather complex Clauses, but though some of the Clauses are complex the purpose of the Bill is clear. I shall seek to expound its purpose as briefly as I can and make some reference to the detailed provisions in it. The Bill is really an essential step in winding up one part of the consequences of war. Its object is to confer an indemnity on certain persons—private individuals or commercial or financial institutions or even Government Departments—who took action with regard to the property or rights of persons who were enemies or who were believed to be enemies, as a result of which action those persons or institutions may now be liable to legal proceedings.

The purpose of the Bill is that those people or institutions who took those actions should be indemnified and protected. To summarise the rather complex provisions of the Bill in a sentence is not easy. Clearly one cannot be comprehensive, but if I might state the general effect, it is that, provided that what was done was done in good faith and in furtherance of legislation or the authority of Government, the person concerned is not liable to action in the courts.

It might be useful if I said a few words about the background to this matter. When these events happened we were of course at war; we were in the middle of a desperate emergency. The national interest at that time dominated any private interest. Certain obligations had been laid on the public, who co-operated wholeheartedly in carrying them out. Men at that time were compelled to take action quickly, quite regardless of the private rights of enemies, and there would have been—and rightly been—very serious criticism had they taken any other course.

There is nothing novel about the principle of an indemnity in circumstances of this kind. Peace treaties in general include provisions for indemnity, and normally in a peace treaty an ex-enemy Government agrees to waive claims on behalf of its nationals. Such waivers were given, for example, after the 1914–18 war. They were included in the Peace Treaties with the satellite Powers in 1947, and more recently, as I expect many hon. Members will recollect, they were included in the Peace Treaty with Japan which was signed in 1951.

Parliament is normally invited to enact legislation enabling effect to be given by Order in Council to the provisions of a peace treaty, and by that Order in Council the terms of such treaty are translated into the legal protection which is given in the courts. The situation with which we are dealing in this Bill does not differ in its main essentials from the type of situation about which I have been speaking, which was dealt with by these other methods. It does differ, however, to the extent that it is one of almost unparalleled complexity—of such complexity that the normal procedure is neither possible nor applicable.

I should like to outline some of the difficulties that we are up against. Take the question of Germany, which is divided, that is to say, there is no one authority which can speak for the whole. Then, there is no peace treaty with Germany in the way that there is a peace treaty in those other cases which can be dealt with on the basis of single Orders in Council. There are also various problems of time and place. The length of the period of hostilities; the occupation of large parts of Europe and the Far East by former enemies; the continual migration of peoples which took place during the whole period—all these have resulted in a situation of very considerable complexity.

With it opportunities have arisen for many claims to be put forward, some of which seem of very doubtful validity. The British companies or individuals, or even Government Departments, who may be the object of these claims may now find it impossible at this distance in time to accumulate the evidence with which to put forward any defence.

I will now turn to what the types of claim might be. There are two categories of claim. The first is the trading with the enemy type of claim, and the second deals with other rights in property. I should like to deal with this matter in those two separate categories. Trading with the enemy is, of course, illegal in common law, but it has been the practice to embody the terms and conditions of the law into statutes in recent times. In the last war there was the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939. The purpose of that Act was to deny property to the enemy and prevent dealings for his benefit. It was an important weapon of economic warfare. All holders of enemy property were required to report such property. They were not allowed to deal with it, except with permission.

May I here say something about the word "enemy" which was defined on a territorial basis, that is to say, it included anybody resident in enemy territory, no matter what was his race. "Enemy territory" included the territory occupied by the enemy, that is to say, when Germany advanced into France that became enemy territory. So the House will see that the definition is wide. Moreover, during the course of the war it was constantly changed, and it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know where an individual was resident at any particular point in time, as successive countries were overrun and occupied. Because of that, the area of trade affected by this legislation was constantly altering and enlarging throughout the whole of those years.

Patriotic citizens loyally co-operated in carrying out the statutory requirements which took the place of the pre-war relationships. Goods were no longer dealt with under contract, but were reported to the Custodian of Enemy Property. Money normally held by a bank, at the disposal of the customer, was paid to the Custodian. Securities were reported as enemy property. All those actions were perfectly right and proper, and above all perfectly legal, provided always that the owner of the goods or securities or the money, was in fact an enemy. Sometimes he was found subsequently not to be. The information available at the time the action was taken was not always complete and accurate.

For example, the customer of a bank might have left enemy territory, or have died and left the deposit or securities, or whatever it was, to someone who at no time was an enemy. Not only the banks or individuals are affected. The Custodians of Enemy Property are also open to action. Under the legislation they were only allowed to deal with enemy property, but of course they could only act upon the information available to them in the circumstances of those times, which were circumstances of war. Often they had no means of verifying the facts.

I would emphasise again the background to this matter. Action had to be taken quickly. There was no means of communication with the territories concerned. Very often goods had to be cleared from ports which were subject to air raids, and I will say quite frankly that there were times when the goods were sold before the necessary machinery for vesting had been complied with. So much, therefore, for the first category of cases.

Apart from the types which I have been talking about, there are other kinds of property which have been prejudiced or infringed at the instance of Governments and persons and firms, who may therefore be liable to action. During the years immediately after the end of hostilities, much technical and scientific information about German industrial processes was collected. Indeed, teams of scientists and industrialists went to Germany under Government auspices for the purpose, both from this and other countries. The results of their inquiries were issued under the authority of this Government, or the previous Government, and under that authority manufacturers are using them. Inevitably there has been an infringement of German copyright.

Finally, there is the question of reparations. Holders of property allocated as reparations might be liable to action in the courts. Though it has all been done under proper international arrangements and the like, there is no formal Act, no formal treaty which has vested the title to those goods in the present holders who purchased them in good faith, and they may be liable to action.

It may be asked why we cannot deal with this problem as we have dealt with other problems of the same kind—by the process of peace treaty and Order in Council. I wish it were possible to do so, because that would be much simpler than this Bill. We have conventions with the German Federal Republic which, though ratified by Her Majesty's Government, are not yet in force. Those conventions contain certain waivers on behalf of the German nationals under their control. But the Federal Republic is not able to bind all Germans. No settlement based on those waivers can, for example, commit residents in the Soviet zone.

There is another difficulty, that those waivers are not relevant to cases of formerly occupied countries, and the Government have decided, therefore, that the only course open to us is a comprehensive Measure, which this is, and of which the detailed provisions are necessarily a little complex.

Before turning to those provisions, let me say again that the general effect is the same throughout. It is that, provided the original action was taken in good faith, in furtherance of the legislation about trading with the enemy, or under the authority of the Government, such action shall not be the subject of proceedings in our courts. That does not mean that persons who were allies or British subjects cannot get their property back. It does mean that they cannot bring an action for damages.

May I now turn to the provisions of the Bill? Part I deals with the general provisions as to enemy property and property treated as such, Part II with certain special provisions regarding Germany, and Part III contains a number of supplementary provisions. First, as to Part I. The general effect of Part I is to validate various transactions relating to enemy property or property treated as such in excess of the powers conferred by law. Clause 1 defines the circumstances in which the indemnity can be given, and lays down certain conditions to which transactions, if they are to qualify for the indemnity, must apply. First of all, the action must have taken place between 3rd September, 1939, and the passing of the Bill; secondly, it must have been done in good faith; and thirdly, it must purport to be taken under or for the purpose of the Trading with the Enemy Act.

The next two Clauses really apply the principles laid down in Clause 1, in the case of Clause 2 to cases where money is either paid or withheld from payment, and, in the case of Clause 3, to dealings with other types of property. I want to make plain the scope of the indemnity. Where a man never was an enemy, he can recover property and be repaid the money, though in neither case can he pursue an action for damages for the action taken at the time.

How does he get it, if he cannot pursue by action?

He can get the property back. The situation differs slightly in the case of Clause 2, which deals with money arrangements, from Clause 3, which deals with property. In the case of Clause 3, as I understand it—and these provisions are somewhat complex—he can take proceedings to recover the property, but he cannot bring an action for damages for the action taken at the time. In the case of Clause 2, where money is concerned, he cannot bring an action for the money, but there is power to repay the money, and it is not the intention not to exercise that power in normal circumstances, but in neither case can he bring an action for damages. There is a distinction here, the details of which I would rather leave to more detailed consideration of the Bill, between dealings with money and with other property.

Clause 4 deals with the problem of investment. The Custodian of Enemy Property derives income from the investment of funds in his hands. Mostly, they are invested in Treasury bills and Ways and Means advances, and the policy is that this income should be paid to the Treasury. There is some doubt as to the legality of this course. In cases of capital held for a period by the Custodian and released to claimants, there is some doubt whether or not the interest earned during that period should be paid as well.

These are cases mainly of repayments to Allies, generally in agreement with various Allied Governments, and there are, in fact, over 100,000 such cases where money has been paid back. To pay the income on the investment in these cases would require a very considerable administrative undertaking and a considerable accounting staff, and in any case to calculate the precise share of the income attributable to each portion of capital would be by no means easy. I might say that the amounts involved in some individual cases would be trivial.

The Government have given careful consideration to this point, and we propose to modify the existing practice, which I may say is based on the precedent of the last war, of paying interest to the Treasury in one case. That case is the interest of a person who was never an enemy, even in the technical sense which I have been describing. If his money was wrongly paid to the Custodian, he can claim interest at the rate of three-quarters of one per cent., which represents the interest in general earned by the Custodian.

I now turn to Part II of the Bill. The object of Clause 6 is to protect people against claims by German owners of copyright. It deals with that type of property to which I referred earlier, namely, the collection of information, plans, drawings, specifications and the like at the end of the war, and making all such property available to manufacturers here. The same kind of thing was done by the Americans. British industrialists were encouraged to take full advantage of these combined operations, but these industrialists, and, for that matter, the Crown, are or may be open to action for infringement of copyright, and it is essential that they should be protected. The purpose of Clause 6 is to give protection in these cases.

Clause 7 deals with the using of German patents. There were at the outbreak of war many German patents on the register here, and, in fact, some remained on the register until they were vested in the hands of the Custodian quite late on. During that period, if they were used, action might lie for breach of patent, and to allow such claims would be not only intolerable but illogical, having regard to our international obligations in the International Accord on the Treatment of German-owned Patents. Clause 7 deals with that situation, and provides the necessary indemnity.

Another aspect of the same problem is raised in Clause 9, which deals with the case where a manufacturer has passed on secret information. The passing on of secret information in war may be, and probably often was, a breach of contract, but it would, of course, be an intolerable thing that information which was in the national interest should not be passed on at the time just because some contract existed to prevent it, and protection is to be given to manufacturers who acted in that way in the national interest.

Clause 10 deals with reparations, and most of the equipment allocated here was, in fact, disposed of by the Ministry of Supply to firms who needed it for post-war reconstruction, and the object of the Clause is to protect the present owner against proceedings and to confirm his title, because there is no clear confirmation of his title at the present time.

Clause 11 deals with property which was physically taken away from Germany. We have dealt with the question of documents, and this Clause deals with the physical problem. Just as in the cases of patents, documents and technical information, so with some of the property removed, such as prototypes of machinery or something of that kind, actions might lie, and protection is given in these cases, too.

The only Clause in Part III of the Bill to which I need refer is Clause 17, which deals with the date of the operation of the Bill. It dates from its introduction. Actions taken earlier than its introduction are not affected, but protection is afforded against claims made after that date.

In general, the problems with which the Bill deals are complicated and very wide. They are probably too wide and complex to permit of any perfect solution. The circumstances today are very different from those in which the actions were taken, and it may be that some hardship will result from the solution itself. It would be an intolerable hardship if British citizens, acting in good faith, were proceeded against by ex-enemies on the basis of an action taken in furtherance of the national interest.

We are anxious to avoid unnecessary hardship, however, and there is one case to which I should like to make reference. It might happen that a British or Allied national might find that his property had been taken in good faith, in the belief that he was an enemy. Under this Bill, such action would be barred, and in some cases really grave hardship might result, even though the property were recovered. It would be very difficult—indeed, I believe it would be impossible—to write into this Bill provisions dealing with all the complex variations of a situation of that kind. I can, however, give the same assurance as was given by the Lord Chancellor in another place about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to these cases.

Unlikely though the need may be, Her Majesty's Government do not wish to rule out the possibility of ex gratia payments of compensation being made in exceptional cases to British or Allied subjects where serious wrong has been done, resulting in grave hardship. Should an exceptional case arise, therefore, in which the provisions of the Bill are found to work harshly and to do injustice I am authorised to say that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider making an ex gratia payment of compensation, provided that Parliament agrees to the necessary funds being made available for the purpose.

The Bill serves a useful but limited end. It is designed to protect people, institutions or Government Departments who acted in good faith in the country's interest at the time. Indemnity Bills are never simple, and very seldom popular, but this Bill is necessary in the complex circumstances which we have to face.

There is one point about this Bill upon which we can all agree, and that is its extraordinary complication. I had the greatest difficulty in following and understanding it, and I should rank it, without hesitation, with those statutory monstrosities, the Workmen's Compensation and Rent Restriction Acts—and they have caused sufficient trouble in their time.

I appreciate that it is extremely difficult to draft a Bill of this kind so as to be precise, obtain exactly the effect required, and, at the same time, make it understandable. I recognise that difficulty immediately, and I am not going to attach any kind of blame to those hard-working Parliamentary draftsmen whom I have found extremely helpful in the past, but it would be of assistance, within a Bill of this kind, if the Government were to adopt the course which was suggested elsewhere, namely, that the Memorandum should be a full explanation—something rather on the lines of a White Paper—of what is included in the Bill and what are its objects.

I am most grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for the very full and fair explanation which he has given, but the Bill requires a little study. It is an advantage to see these things before we reach the Second Reading stage. I am in the fortunate position of having been concerned with this Bill at an earlier stage, elsewhere, but that is merely an incidental advantage, which does not apply to those hon. Members who have not been concerned with the grinding process of preparing Amendments, and so forth.

There are two principles with which this Bill is concerned. I trust that there is no kind of disagreement on either side of the House as to the first principle, which is that there should be no right of action in respect of something which has been done in good faith to prosecute the war or to reap the fruits of victory. It was on that aspect of the case that the President of the Board of Trade insisted throughout his speech, and I shall not reiterate what he has already said, because he justified it up to the hilt.

There is, however, another principle with which we are also concerned, and which is that no non-enemy—nobody friendly to this country—should suffer for what has been done, even though it was done in good faith and in prosecution of the war. I hope that that is a principle which is equally acceptable to all hon. Members. What has been the subject of dispute elsewhere, and what we are concerned about here, is the application of that second principle. The first principle is perfectly clear, but when the second comes into operation it is a different matter.

A partisan, or somebody who comes within the definition of "enemy"—because the definition of "enemy" is a territorial definition and therefore includes people who are friendly to our country and people who are in fact our allies and friends—ought not to suffer individual hurt as a result of the application of the principle that what has been done bona fide in the prosecution of the war should not give rise to a right of action. In other words, where those two principles are in conflict, they should be reconciled in such a way as to safeguard the position of the friendly or non-enemy person who has suffered as a result of what has been done.

That was one of the reasons why the Opposition, elsewhere, proposed that where money had been paid to a custodian, and that money belonged to a non-enemy person, then when that money was repaid it should be repaid with the interest which it had earned. That was obviously a just proposal. I was a little shocked that the Government should have held out against it for so long, but I am very pleased that they have now accepted it.

I recognise the administrative difficulties of calculating the precise amount which has been earned by some particular parcel of money, or investment, over some period of time, and working it out separately in each individual case. The proper course to take is that which has been taken, of calculating the all-over, average interest which has been earned by that money whilst it has been in the hands of the Custodian.

This is an illustration of how important it is, in dealing with Government Departments, to see that administrative convenience does not override the claims of justice. Here we had a just claim for the payment of interest to the non-enemy persons to whom the money belonged, and it was proposed by the Government that no interest should be paid—not because it was unjust, but because of administrative inconvenience. That is an intolerable argument for any democratic government to put forward as justification.

I am very pleased that the Government have at last accepted the provision which avoids the administrative complexity of calculating separate amounts in the case of each individual claimant and has accepted a suggestion that there should be an all-over average payment. That is a very definite improvement, which is accepted by a Conservative Government on the proposal of the Socialist Opposition against the confiscatory effect of Conservative legislation.

The other Amendment which has been proposed, and been accepted by the Government, makes it clear that the indemnity provided by the Act is limited to those who acted in good faith. There are a few matters of substance with which we are still concerned, and several matters of drafting and other points which will require probing when we get to the Committee stage. Each of the Clauses will have to be very fully explained before it can even be understood, let alone before we consider what appropriate Amendments can be made. Let me say, for the benefit of the Leader of the House and to avoid any repetition of the kind of trouble we had earlier in the Session, that it looks as if we shall take some time in dealing with the Bill on the Committee stage.

Perhaps I may deal with this question of justice to the innocent non-enemy. This is the second principle to which I referred as being a matter for concern in the Bill. The innocent non-enemy should not suffer, as the result of action taken in the wrong belief that he was an enemy. I am not saying that action for damages should lie, but he should not suffer. The President of the Board of Trade referred to the provisions of the Bill as being what would be in a peace treaty, but I think he recognises that a peace treaty would not cover persons who were not citizens of the enemy country, and these are the persons we are concerned with. Therefore, it is no argument against us to say that we are only doing what would be done, and has been done, in the past in a peace treaty.

Another important matter which has a bearing upon our concern for the non-enemy nowadays is that during the last war great expanses of territory with vast populations were over-run while the people in the territory were firmly adhering to the allied cause. Many of them were running the utmost risk as partisans, and suffering most from the Nazi tyranny which they of all people had most reason to abhor. We must take the utmost care in passing legislation through this House that we do not deprive these people of rights and interests which they would otherwise have. I am sure that the Government will consider this point sympathetically in the Committee stage. I will mention briefly two matters of substance which illustrate the kind of difficulty which arises.

Let me take the effect of Clause 2 on money belonging to a French partisan in occupied territory. His money was in an English bank. The bank pays the money to the Custodian. The bank does not get protection, unless it acted in accordance with what it conceived to be the furthering of our war effort, in which case it is right that it should be protected. The money is in the hands of the Custodian, but the Bill gives the Frenchman no right to recover the money. It says merely that there is power for the Custodian, if he thinks right, to pay the money to that person.

Why should there not be a right of payment, if the money is in the hands of the Custodian? Why should it rest with some civil servant in the exercise of his discretion to say: "Yes, you shall have it," or "No, you shall not have it"? This matter involves questions of liberty and rights, and of the honour of this country in dealing with men who were friendly and who fought on our side. Why should they not have the right to payment?

Let me take the matter a stage further. Suppose the Custodian paid the money to a third party after the war is over, in the belief that the third party was entitled to it. That payment had nothing to do with the furtherance of the war effort, or with reaping the fruits of victory, but was like a payment by an ordinary civilian to a third party in the mistaken belief that the third party was entitled to it, perhaps without taking adequate trouble to verify the position. There would be no right to recover from the Custodian, and it might be completely impossible, for practical or legal reasons, to recover from the third party.

Whose responsibility is that, in justice? Surely it is our responsibility and the responsibility of the Custodian, who is an instrument created by an Act of Parliament. Why in that case should the innocent partisan suffer? That is the kind of case we have in mind. It is the application of the second principle which I mentioned, and we are insisting as far as we can that the second principle should prevail.

Take one other matter by way of illustration. Take the definition of "enemy." We have here in Parts I and II of this Bill different definitions of "enemy." This, perhaps, raises a wider question, but one which, I think, will be within the ambit of this Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the definition of "enemy" is a territorial definition. It does not depend upon nationality. It does not depend upon friendliness to this country. It covers the partisan who is in enemy occupied territory. It includes also a company which is registered according to the law of an enemy country.

So take the case of a company incorporated in Germany, of which the sole owners, in which the sole shareholders, are two persons who may be refugees here, who fought on our side in the war—Poles, perhaps, who joined the Air Force and played such a distinguished part during the war, or in enemy occupied territory. It is a company formed according to the law of enemy territory. In that case that would be enemy property. It would be treated as enemy property although the only persons who were interested would be two persons who fought on our side in the war.

Let me say at once here that I appreciate the difficulties of administration that are involved. I am not at all blind to them. I appreciate that when we come to company law there are difficulties in piercing beyond the legal entity and saying the decision shall be taken according to the nationality, or what you will, of the beneficial owners. I appreciate that, but it is quite unjust, on the other hand, that the two persons who are the sole owners of the company should be treated in precisely the same way as a hostile German—a Nazi, perhaps—who fought against us during the war.

I understand that in the United States of America they have in fact pierced beyond the legal entity as their test for what course they take in a case of this kind and look to the beneficial ownership. I appreciate that in our own prize law, although we do not pierce legally beyond the legal owner, nevertheless, we do have regard to the beneficial owners when it comes to making ex gratia payments. I was very glad to hear the President of the Board of Trade make some reference to the attitude that has been adopted towards beneficial owners of this kind, but I was a little nervous when he said something more.

I did not take down his precise words at the time, but it seemed to me to be as careful and niggard a statement as could conceivably be made. If I remember aright, it went something like this. The Government would not rule out the possibility in exceptional individual cases of making some payment. That really is an unworthy course to take. I am not sure—I do not know yet—whether we can properly deal with this by an Amendment which will ensure that regard must be had as a matter of law to the beneficial owner, and that the criterion should be in all these cases the beneficial ownership rather than the legal ownership. I do not know. I appreciate the difficulties, as I have said, but, at any rate, I trust that before we eventually part with this Bill we shall have a very much more forthright statement and far more satisfactory statement from the Government on ex gratia payments, if, indeed it is to be left to the ex gratia method of dealing with this problem.

I have said enough at any rate to show the difficulties and complexities of the Bill, and while we are wholeheartedly in support of giving indemnity to those who have acted bona fide in the furtherance of the war we are at the same time deeply concerned that innocent persons should not be hurt without remedy as a result of our action, and if it is our action, action for which we are responsible, which has caused them to be hurt I hope we shall be big enough to see that they do not suffer in consequence.

I suppose that this Bill is the epitaph, legislatively speaking, of those two bodies who have served us so well, the Trading with the Enemy Branch and the Custodian of Enemy Property, because although their functions will, no doubt, continue a little bit longer, I suppose that really this House by this action is substantially parting with the matter and winding up a history of some 13 or 14 years. I do not think the occasion should be allowed to pass without a tribute being paid to those bodies. I have myself had something to do with them on the other side of the counter from time to time, and although one gets occasionally annoyed and maddened by what one conceives to be unworthy and unnecessary delays, at the same time I think everybody in the House will agree that they have fulfilled a very thankless task very well.

From time to time hard words have been said about them—in the case of the Bank Voorhandel v. Slatford, for example. I think the amount of interest they earned came in for some criticism; this is scarcely surprising when one learns that the average interest earned on these large sums of money is only three-quarters of 1 per cent. I think that if they were trustees in the ordinary sense of the word some hard words might be said. Of course, they have to be careful, but they need not be as careful as that. Three-quarters of 1 per cent. must be the lowest interest ever earned on sums of this size.

Nevertheless, the Bill is obviously right and proper, and these persons should have indemnity, but, as the late Solicitor-General, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), said, that is a quite different matter from the other matter dealt with in this Bill, which is what should happen to the property if it can be traced, or to the money if it can be traced, of the ex-enemy who is an ex-enemy only in the most technical senses, if at all; and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us a little more about the scope of the ex gratia payment.

Was I right or wrong when I thought I heard the President of the Board of Trade say that it would be available only for persons of British nationality? Of course, there are persons of British nationality who were enemy persons for the purpose of the trading with the enemy legislation. Those who were caught in Malaya, those who were caught in the Channel Islands and places like that, became enemies. I hope it is not to be restricted to them, because it would really be the worst example to the world if we were to give those people treatment which no doubt they deserve but deny it to the examples that the former Solicitor-General instanced, the French partisans and the Polish airmen. I hope it will cover everybody who can conceivably be described as a friendly enemy and those who were not, as it turns out, enemies at all.

On this question of ex gratia payments, I would just enter this warning on the whole principle. It is very important from every point of view that this Bill when it becomes an Act should be recognised by foreign courts, because if it is not recognised by foreign courts we shall get into endless conflicts between our courts and foreign courts. Of course, if we adopt the principle that the Board of Trade have adopted, I understand, which is to say there shall be no right at all to repayment of this property, but that it shall be done as a matter of grace, there is grave danger of this Bill being stigmatised in foreign courts as a confiscatory Measure, and, therefore, not recognised by those foreign courts.

That, I think, would be a very dangerous situation and one which would not put this country in a very good light, but apart from that it would cause endless legal complications. I should like to have some sort of explanation or assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that the Government have been advised that this Measure they have adopted has not run them into the danger of having this Act regarded by foreign courts as a confiscatory Act.

Finally, I do not understand precisely the distinction between money and property as between Clause 2 and Clause 3. I understand that under Clause 3 if one's property can be identified one can have it. Why does not the same principle apply to one's money, assuming that it can be identified and traced? Of course, if it has been dispersed, then naturally one cannot have it. One cannot put one's finger on it and say, "This is my money," but in many cases these moneys are paid into separate accounts, are often not paid over at all, and merely earmarked in some bank. If money can be identified, why should it not be treated in exactly the same way as property that can be identified?

This Bill is warmly welcomed because it tidies up a very complicated part of the law, but I very much hope that in tidying it up we are not going to be so tidy as to do damage or seem to do damage to those who fought for us in the war. Those of us who have to advise people about these matters would like a further explanation of the methods of ex gratia payment.

I would suggest that if ex gratia payment is to become a reality provision ought to be provided for it in this Bill. The President of the Board of Trade said that, of course, ex gratia payment would only be possible if Parliament so decided by voting the necessary moneys. Why cannot Parliament vote the necessary moneys in this Bill? Maybe there are technical reasons why it cannot—I do not know—but if it could be put in, that would give a much better impression to us that there is a serious intention of satisfying all genuine cases by this means.

I agree that this is a very complicated Measure. I am not surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary did have another last look at the Bill to discover whether he understood it or not. He reminded me of a man at a meeting who, when called upon to speak, said sotto voce, "O God, why was I born?" and someone in the audience who overheard him said, "It is too late to worry about that, guvnor; carry on." I think that the Parliamentary Secretary is in the same position this afternoon in regard to having to speak on this Bill.

I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) had to say about it. He touched on a very interesting point and raised a question which I would like to have asked towards the end of what I have to say. It is this: Has representation been made in regard to this matter by any Government of the countries concerned? May I mention some of them?—the U.S.A., the Netherlands, Switzerland and Israel. I do not think that the Government have yet appreciated the serious nature of the Measure which they are introducing. I think it is an entirely new type of Measure, and I doubt whether there is a similar Measure in any other country in the world.

I am very worried about this matter. I appreciate that we want to do the right thing by those who have acted in good faith, but doing the right thing by those who have acted in good faith has to be weighed against doing the right thing by those to whom the property belongs, and who in similar good faith are not entitled to be deprived of it.

It would appear that the purpose of this Bill is to sanction acts of the Custodian of Enemy Property and the Board of Trade which were ultra vires at the time when they took place. As I see it, this purpose is achieved by depriving of their legal rights those persons who at the time when the said ultra vires acts were carried into effect were the rightful owners of property and the rightful claimants of debts due to them. May I give a few illustrations of what I mean? A Swiss citizen, residing at all times in Switzerland, owned a London house. The Custodian, wrongly believing that he was a German residing in Germany—I am not blaming the Custodian—sold the house in 1939, when houses were at rock-bottom prices, to a third party. I hope that the House will forgive me if I deal with these matters at some length, because I am hoping that by the time this Bill goes to the Committee stage the points will have been reconsidered in such a way as to make a very material alteration to the Bill.

A former national and resident of Germany emigrated in 1938 to the U.S.A. and acquired United States nationality in 1943. He owned shares in a London company which did not pay dividends between 1938 and 1943. The Custodian, believing in 1944 that he was still a German residing in Germany, sold the shares at a very low price to a third party, who now holds them. The third party—and this is very important—knew perfectly well that this man was a United States national residing in the U.S.A. but did not inform the Custodian of this fact.

In both these cases the effect of the Bill would be to deprive both parties of their rights of recovering their property. The only remedy left to them would be to obtain the purchase price received by the Custodian which in both cases constitutes a mere trifle of the true value of the property.

I want the President of the Board of Trade to bear with me on this. It is my feeling that this Bill does not refer to the rights of ex-enemies at all. Ex hypothesi it refers to and deprives of their rights only those persons in respect of whose property the Custodian acted ultra vires. Where the person concerned was an enemy he could not act ultra vires. The consequence of this Bill appears clearly to be that neutral nationals and allied nationals or British subjects are in many cases to be deprived of their rights.

It must be very seriously questioned whether there is any reasonable ground for this Bill in those circumstances. I do not believe that any other allied country has found it necessary to introduce similar legislation. Why should this be necessary here? Every day people acquire property from other persons who have no right to sell. Why should persons who have acquired from the Custodian of Enemy Property be better treated than such other persons? What is there to give this preference to the Custodian over, say, the Ministry of Supply, the War Office, the Post Office and other Government Departments which daily sell property to third parties? Why should persons who acquired from the Custodian be better treated than persons who acquired from private individuals who may sometimes also have wrongly believed that they were entitled to dispose of property which in fact they had no right to dispose of?

I hope I shall be proved to be wrong in some of the issues I raise, but I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to do that today. He will have to think a lot about the Bill before he can answer some of the points I am raising. I am glad the Recess is intervening for it will give him an opportunity of going into them. I am not putting these points forward in an aggressive spirit; I am trying to weigh up the rights and the wrongs of the matter in the earnest hope that we shall not find ourselves on the wrong foot when we have to face the rest of the world on these problems.

This is not a Bill granting an indemnity for civil servants who then acted in very harassing circumstances on many occasions no doubt, for the Custodian. In the main, it is a Bill to protect the purchaser. It is difficult to find anything in the nature of the position of these purchasers to justify their being favoured by an exemption from the ordinary rule of the common law, whose preservation even in time of war has always been the pride of our country. Nor is there anything in the characteristic actions of the persons who are to be deprived of their rights, which could justify such abolition of their rights as is suggested in the Bill. They are neutral or Allied nationals, or even British subjects who merely had the misfortune that, by some mistake, they were wrongly believed to be enemy nationals living in enemy territory. No enemy national can possibly be affected by the Bill.

I should like to put forward some ideas which have occurred to friends of mine and myself on the subject. First, a provision should be introduced into this Bill so that it will not operate to defeat a claim against any person who, or whose predecessor in title, was not acting in good faith at the time of the dealings in respect of which the claim, but for the operation of the Bill, would arise. Secondly, the Bill should not apply if the effect of its application would be that a person who did not at any time between 3rd September, 1939, and 8th May, 1945, possess the nationality of a State at war with His late Majesty, would thereby be deprived of any property, assets, title, right or other interest without receiving proper compensation. Thirdly, the Bill ought not to operate so as to defeat any claim by any person who during the period from 3rd September, 1939, to 8th May, 1945, was, on the grounds of his or her race, religion, ideology or political conviction, deprived of or restricted in regard to his or her liberty or injured in respect of life or health.

The purpose of my first suggestion is to make sure that nobody benefits from the Bill who was not himself acting in good faith at the time when the dealings with the Custodian took place. It is important to note that, in its present form, the Bill provides that an authority which was acting must have done so in good faith. That is not enough. I may be wrong in my interpretation of what the President of the Board of Trade said, but I do not believe it is the right point of view. I believe that the Bill is intended to protect not the authority but the person who received the property. So it is the good or bad faith of that person which should be taken into consideration.

I referred to the Swiss who was deprived of his house. The person who bought it was a neighbour of the man who owned the house and knew quite well that the owner was a Swiss residing in Switzerland and not a German residing in Germany, while the official of the Custodian who sold the house to him wrongly but innocently believed that he was a German residing in Germany. Why should the bad faith of the acquirer receive protection, as it appears to do under the Bill? I see no reason in law and equity why a person of that nature should be protected.

My second point deals with a problem of international law which arises in connection with the Bill. The Bill means that in practically every case neutrals and Allied nationals will be deprived of their properly-acquired rights, these rights being taken away from them by way of confiscation. It is a rule in international law that no State is entitled to deprive a foreign national of his properly-acquired rights unless full, efficient and prompt compensation is being paid. This rule is being relied upon in many international disputes. I beg the President of the Board of Trade to remember that there never was greater need to pay due regard to this problem than there is at present.

To illustrate what I mean, litigation is at present being conducted concerning the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The sales effected by the Custodian have not in all cases been effected against proper compensation. Is it not likely or possible that, if we open the way for this kind of action on our part, we may find ourselves unable to defend the kind of case which is put forward—rightly, I believe—on the part of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company where it is correctly stated that the deprivation has taken place without proper and full compensation? How can we continue to argue on this principle if we introduce a Measure here opening the door to confiscation without proper compensation? The point must be very carefully watched.

The third point which I raised has to do with the rights of certain people, nearly all of whom are now British, Allied or neutral citizens. The number of cases under this heading may be far smaller than that under some of the other headings to which I have referred, but we ought to make provision to help people in this category. I will give some examples of which I have perhaps a little more knowledge that some other hon. Members. Some German Jews who had long before the war emigrated to the United States, and had long been nationals of that country, were wrongly believed to be German nationals residing in Germany. It would be rather a harsh measure if these people were made to suffer for an error committed by somebody here who had failed to take note of their plight and of the fact that they had taken refuge outside enemy territory.

I could quote many other cases, but my hope is that this Bill, which I agree has been very fully discussed in another place but which was described by one of the noble Lords as not being light bedside reading, will be examined more carefully and fully at another stage when we can take all these matters into full and proper consideration. That is highly important from the point of view of our own standing in the eyes of the world, legally and morally. Not a very great amount is involved, but it is the principle which we must always have in mind.

Reference has been made to the proposal to make ex gratia payments. I would ask the Government on this occasion not to regard compensation as such, because by so doing they are, in fact, suggesting that they are not satisfied in their minds that they are doing the right thing to those who have been deprived of their rights. I am obliged to the House for having listened to me as patiently and sympathetically as they have done.

I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) that this is indeed a complicated Measure. I did not follow the reference made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) who said I had been caught napping. What happened was that an hon. Member on his side said during the discussion of the previous Measure that I had an enormous brief, but I pointed out to him that that brief dealt with the next Measure coming before the House, but I was not studying it.

I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman is not taking it in a personal sense. My remark was made in jest. He will remember that he said he had an eye on the Bill before the House and an eye on the one coming before the House.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman's jest is frightfully good, but I was not aware that I was squinting. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that there is no sort of ill feeling on any point.

That is mutual.

It has been a good humoured debate and will remain so.

The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East welcomed the Bill, and I have no doubt that it will have a unanimous Second Reading. I also agree with him and with other hon. Members that there are details which it would be quite impossible, without wearying the House at great length, to discuss today. That must be left to a later stage. But perhaps I can deal with one or two points that have been raised by various Members.

The hon. and learned Gentleman welcomed the provisions regarding good faith and the payment of interest on these sums invested by the Custodian, but I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who seemed to think that the irate of interest would have been considered a little inadequate if it had been earned by a trustee, that—and here, of course, I shall be subject to correction by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, who practises on the Chancery side—it is the duty of a trustee to invest the money advantageously, but it is the duty of the Custodian to preserve the property. When, therefore, he actually used such very safe investments as Treasury Bills, that is not something which should be held against him. In fact, it was his duty to do precisely that kind of thing.

The hon. and learned Gentleman and others were anxious that this Bill should not cause any hardship or, as he said, do an injustice, if that could possibly be avoided. I am not quite certain whether I understood precisely the classes of person that the hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind, or, indeed, whether he was dealing with the same classes throughout his speech. But let me put this to him. Both at common law and under the Statute, the enemy for the purposes of trading with the enemy is not determined by nationality. Therefore, the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West when he talked about people who may not have been of German nationality but whose property is involved or affected in our legislation should realise that there is nothing wrong in that. That was inevitable under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

The hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen put a point on the distinction between Clauses 2 and 3 as regards a right of action in the courts. There is no sinister motive lying behind the distinction, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman realises. It follows directly from the different nature of material property and a chose in action. If there was a debt by a bank and the money was paid by the bank to the Custodian, then, if the money was wrongly paid, the bank, of course, remains liable for the debt. If a right of action were given against the Custodian it would be a right of action wholly novel in law, and in the Government's submission not suitable for inclusion in an Indemnity Bill. Let me say at once that the difference is a technical one. There is no intention whatever for the Custodian not to pay out the money where his receipt of it was due to a mistake either of law or of fact.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darwen was not quite certain whether he had correctly heard the words used by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in this House, and by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in another place, in the statement on ex gratia payments. That statement included the words: "British or Allied."

Some points were raised on the way this legislation might be regarded in other countries. Let me say at once that this legislation only purports to affect action in the courts in this country. It does not purport to affect anything else. In answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West no representations have been received from other countries against this legislation.

Have we made any inquiries from these countries ourselves? It would be bad if, once the Bill becomes an Act, the countries had to make representations.

I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I regard his description of this Bill as confiscatory, and as though it contained provisions even remotely resembling what the Persian Government have done, as so preposterous that I have heard nothing like it before, even from the hon. Gentleman. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), I was unable to follow, as it was delivered, the long legal conundrum which was read out. In fact I did not hear the middle bit.

I am not surprised at that.

I do not think that great blame attaches to either of us. The hon. Gentleman gave numerous examples of Swiss and United States citizens who, he said, had suffered the most monstrous injury by the action of the Custodian and had legal rights in the matter. Is it not rather strange that they have not pursued their supposed legal rights in our courts? What was there to stop them?

Do not let the House build up a wholly imaginary state of affairs. I do not question the genuine concern of the hon. Gentleman for many people, but I beg him to preserve some sense of proportion and to examine carefully some of the provisions in the Measure we are discussing. Apart altogether from the point I have made, that there had been nothing to bar these people from taking action in our courts if they thought they had a claim, if the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 3 (5) and other provisions he will see that, if the property has now passed to a person who may have got it by means of misrepresentation or anything of that kind, it is possible for the owner to pursue his rights against the person who so has it. That is only one of the provisions to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will pay some attention. I will not, however, anticipate the matters which can rightly be raised when we consider this in greater detail in Committee.

The hon. Gentleman talked about possibly amending the Bill so that it should not have any adverse effect on various people who, though enemies by definition——

indicated dissent.

Yes, enemies by definition. If the hon. Gentleman himself did not do so, others talked about anti-Hitler Germans in an enemy or enemy-occupied country. They were certainly enemies within the Trading With the Enemy Act and at Common Law. I can hold out no possibility of so amending this Measure that the indemnity granted to British subjects shall depend in any way on the merits of the particular enemy concerned. That would be impossible. I think I am in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East when I say that we must see that the Clauses of this Bill are as good as we can make them. We cannot foresee everything in regard to these extremely complicated matters, and that is the reason why some statement was made about possible ex gratia payments.

I know I have not dealt with everything that the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind and may wish to raise hereafter. I appreciated the way in which he opened for the Opposition and I hope, after what I have said, that the House will be prepared to come to a decision.

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

This Bill has the merit of being somewhat simpler than those with which we have been dealing this afternoon but, like the other Measures, I think it will command general support from all sides of the House. There has been grave concern about the loss of life on the roads and, in particular, about the accidents to school children. In 1952, 31,000 children of school age were involved in road accidents, and, of those, 460 lost their lives. I have sought to discover what proportion of those accidents occurred to children going to or leaving school but, unfortunately, I have not been able to get any figures which I could give to the House. I think it will be generally agreed, however, that there must have been some proportion and that the House would wish to do all it could to prevent those accidents from occurring.

This problem is not a new one; indeed it is not confined to this country. As long ago as 1936 the Inter-Departmental Committee on Road Safety Amongst Schoolchildren was set up, comprising representatives of the Government Departments concerned, local authorities and teachers. It recommended an extension of the use of local authority employees and other suitable persons for the purpose of patrolling crossings where school children have to pass. It was envisaged that suitable people, selected by the education authorities, would be in charge and that they would carry some form of sign which would be approved by the Ministry of Transport. Following that recommendation the Ministry of Education informed education authorities that expenditure incurred by them for this purpose would be assisted by grant.

By 1952, in England and Wales 73 education authorities out of 155 were operating patrols. In Scotland the corresponding figures were 10 out of 35. In 1952 the Government thought that it was right to consider encouraging a wider use of these powers. After consultation with the local authorities, it was decided that responsibility in the matter should rest upon the Home Office in England and Wales, and the Scottish Home Department in Scotland. The local authorities were also informed that it was proposed to introduce legislation covering such questions as recruiting, training, organisation and the financial assistance involved.

Pending legislation, an appeal was made to county councils, county borough councils and, in Scotland, the councils of large burghs, to proceed as well as they could. In fact, very satisfactory response was made. There were 32 new education authorities in England and Wales who started this system for the first time in 1952, and other authorities have started since.

Are the 32 included in the 73 authorities?

The 32 are included in the 73.

This is, of course, an enabling Measure. It does not compel an authority; it is designed to clarify the position and to encourage further action of the same kind being taken.

The first thing I want to make clear to the House is that the Bill does not seek to set up a new auxiliary police force. I think it is important that I should emphasise that at the outset. Nor does it in any way supersede the police in the functions which are properly theirs. Where traffic is heavy and complicated at a crossing, then the control must remain in the hands of a policeman, but it is, of course, not possible to have a policeman available in every place where children cross the roads frequently going to or leaving school, and the experience of the police and the local authorities shows that the needs in these particular places can often be amply met by school crossing patrols.

These school crossing patrols have not been in the past and are not now vested with the powers of the police. It is the duty of the patrol—that is to say, the person who will carry the sign—simply to display that sign at a place where children are crossing, and the sign will in fact be of the same kind as the halt sign which is available at certain cross-roads today. Beyond that, the power of the person carrying the sign is precisely that of any ordinary citizen who is at present at a crossing governed by a halt sign and who may be a witness of a motoring offence. Therefore, in effect, what the Act provides for is that a halt sign should be available at certain places when it is needed, and that there should be someone there on the watch, so to speak.

The primary purpose of this Bill is to increase the number of patrols and so provide for the greater protection of children. But there is, of course, an important secondary effect, that there will be a number of instances where a patrol can release a policeman, and to that extent the policeman will be available for essential duty elsewhere. That secondary effect is also very valuable.

Perhaps I might say a word on the subject of what have been called scholar patrols. The question has been asked why no provision is made in the Bill for scholar patrols—that is to say, the use of older school children as what have been called road prefects, to take charge of the other children on the roads. The reason is that that is outside the scope of what is intended by the Bill. The Bill is concerned with traffic at crossings, and, as I understand the theory of the matter, the road prefects are concerned with the organisation of children perhaps at crossings and perhaps elsewhere. The purpose of road prefects is both narrower and wider than the purpose of the patrols. The Bill, therefore, does not deal with them. Their position is left entirely unaffected.

The Bill empowers county councils, county borough councils and the corresponding authorities in Scotland to make arrangements for school crossing patrols It is expected, however, that in most cases the police will be very closely concerned. For example, chief officers of police may well be consulted on the proper location of these patrols, and again the police may be asked to give help in the training, selection and organisation and so on of the patrols.

A county borough council can delegate the powers given by the Bill to its watch committee. It is not necessary, therefore, to deal specifically with that case, but in other areas some new provision is needed if it is desired to delegate to the police authority the powers given to the councils. That matter is taken care of by Clause 1 (5) and the Schedule. In London the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is already responsible for these matters and the Metropolitan boroughs wish that arrangement to continue. There has been the fullest consultation and cooperation which will, no doubt, continue and the position in London, therefore, is left as at present.

The Bill provides that county councils and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall have regard to representations of authorities within their areas, and there are corresponding provisions in that connection for Scotland. The Commissioner of Police has asked me to give this specific assurance, that there will be no diminution of consultation so far as the Metropolitan Police area is concerned, and I am also assured that county councils will continue to take full account of local opinion within their areas.

May I now say a word about finance? We hope that, as a result of the Bill, patrols will shortly be operating in all parts of the country. If that comes about, it is estimated that the additional cost of the Bill to the Exchequer will be of the order of £80,000 a year. In those circumstances, the total cost to Exchequer and rates together, of operating the patrols will be £430,000 a year, and that will include pay and insurance of patrols, the cost of signs and uniforms and everything else.

As to uniforms, many authorities operating patrols have adopted a uniform consisting of a cap and a loose fitting coat. On the whole that has seemed to be the most satisfactory type of uniform. It is intended that in due course there shall be a standard uniform for the whole country. It seems desirable that the person who acts as a patrol shall be instantly recognisable by anyone familiar with the roads.

School crossing patrols are not new. They are already operating successfully over about half the country. This Measure places responsibility on the Home Office and the Scottish Home Department. It provides for an Exchequer grant of not more than half the total expense. It puts into a single Measure provisions governing the stopping of traffic and the penalty for disregarding signs. It is a very simple Measure. There may be points of detail on which the Bill can be improved in Committee, but I feel sure that the general principles will recommend themselves to hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I hope it will be given a Second Reading this afternoon.

I wish to congratulate the Government on this Bill. I do not suppose I shall ever have this privilege again, so perhaps I ought to make it clear that this is one occasion on which I think they have produced a useful piece of legislation.

I am very glad to be able to say a few words about this Bill. As the Joint Under-Secretary of State said, in a comprehensive speech, this matter does lie very close to the hearts of all who have been concerned with road safety. There are a number of ex-Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Transport and ex-Ministers present. Those of us who have been Parliamentary Secretaries and have also been chairmen of road safety committees can never have that experience and afterwards feel quite the same about the problems of road safety once they have been brought to our notice. This has certainly stimulated in me a continuing interest in the subject.

I am delighted to see that the Government have brought forward a Bill which, as the Under-Secetary said, is based on an experiment and local initiative. In the first place, people banded themselves together. I remember a personal experience of a group of mothers in a provincial town in 1946 whose children had to get off a 'bus in a busy road. They banded themselves together and drew up their own rota of duty. Some of them went as far as four or five miles in order to serve as patrol. That is how the thing started. Now the Government come forward with provisions which will make it statutory and perhaps clear up some of the obscurities which always grow up around a voluntary system of this sort.

I appreciated the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary, but I thought he emphasised the regulatory powers here. I know he did not omit the stimulatory powers which ought to be exercised, but I am concerned with the 50 per cent. of local authorities who have not got patrols of this sort. Of course they are not wanted in every county; I suppose it would be idle to have them in Caithness, or perhaps even in Cardigan, but there are far too many local authorities who have not got patrols. I want the Government to stimulate local authorities into adopting patrols. That is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport. I am sorry that they have not a representative here because, although the Home Office will be responsible for administration, the. Ministry of Transport should bring the matter to the notice of local authorities.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport would have been here, but, unfortunately, he is suffering from a cold.

I am sorry; I know he has a great interest in the problem of road safety. What I am anxious to ensure is that it shall fall to his Ministry to stimulate local authorities into embarking on school crossing patrols. I do not share the legal fears expressed in another place, where the matter has been discussed, because I do not think legal sanction is of the greatest significance here.

The important thing from my experience is that motorists should clearly know that children are crossing a road; then they have not the faintest desire to get in the way of the children. This provision will be of great assistance to any motorist who sees someone stepping into the road, clad in some sort of uniform and holding up a sign of the sort proposed. That will help him to stop and will remove doubt from his mind as to whether children are crossing the road or not. From my experience there is no doubt that motorists will welcome this and are ready to observe the provision. It will remove doubt from their minds, relieve the anxiety of parents, and enable children to cross roads much more safely. For all those reasons I welcome the Bill.

The Joint Under-Secretary reminded us that a number of patrols are already serving. I wish to suggest one or two things about those to be appointed. I suggest that it is desirable that these traffic patrols should have some knowledge of how to judge stopping distances of vehicles. It is simply no use walking on to a road and putting up a sign five feet away from a vehicle approaching at 25 to 30 miles an hour. Obviously, someone who has had driving experience is best able to judge the distance. I certainly hope that when the police are training patrols they will ensure that the patrols have something in mind as to the stopping distances in which drivers may reasonably be expected to brake.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of wages. Who is to fix the rates of pay and what are to be the conditions of service? It would be helpful if the House could have some idea of that. Are the uniforms to be provided by the local authorities? Will the patrols have to pay for them? Now that we have a Bill we had better inquire into these things. There have been a variety of systems in the past.

We had better know what is in the mind of the Government on these aspects, and we should be grateful if the Joint Under-Secretary could give some information about them. I see no reason why persons who are disabled should not be just as competent as anyone to do this job. I have tried to hold up a sign and did not find it particularly difficult. I have seen fears expressed to the effect that the sign might be blown down, but I do not think there is a substantial difficulty. I hope that persons will be employed who can render a useful service in this connection provided their physical and mental capacities are unimpaired.

I accept the wording of Clause 1 that

"Arrangements may be made by the appropriate authority "

and I accept that the Minister does not wish to make them compulsory. I ask for an assurance that local authorities will be stimulated in this direction.

On Clause 1 (4) I am a little concerned about the relationship between the county council and the local authority as the case may be. This is a case where the county council will be responsible for instituting the patrol, but the non-county borough, or urban district council, may be the highway authority for that particular area. In those cases the non-county borough makes recommendations to the Ministry of Transport about the provision of pedestrian crossings, and the Ministry may accept or reject them as the case may be. Under that system I did not like deciding on a recommendation which came from 200 or 300 miles away that there should be a pedestrian crossing in a particular area.

We are in something of the same kind of difficulty here. I always felt that the decision as to whether there should be a pedestrian crossing or not should be taken as close as possible to the locality affected by the decision. Here we shall be in a position—I fully understand the difficulties of it—in which someone sitting in a county council office in the middle of what may be a large county will be deciding whether there is to be instituted a school crossing patrol in a town perhaps 20 or 30 miles away, in which the highway authority may be a non-county borough or an urban district council.

I suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary for his consideration before the Committee stage whether we should make it mandatory upon the county councils to consult other local authorities in their area before they reach decisions of this sort. The Joint Under-Secretary may tell me that anyone who feels strongly about it may raise the matter with the county council. That is no doubt true, but if a decision has been taken it is always more difficult to get it reversed than for consideration to be given if one raises the matter before a decision is taken. I am not suggesting much of an Amendment, and I have no strong feeling about it, but I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary to consider between now and the Committee stage whether it should be made mandatory on county councils to consult other local authorities in their areas.

Turning to the question of the uniform, I put it in the mind of the Joint Under-Secretary that he should avoid being too meticulous under Clause 2 (3) in prescribing the uniform. I remember when I was at the Ministry of Transport that because Regulations had been made prescribing exactly what form a pedestrian crossing should take a prosecution would at one time fail if a stud or two were missing. Some clever person is bound to find a loophole if we prescribe exactly what sort of uniform is to be worn. Our legal friends will no doubt find that the patrol has not been wearing his hat or that his Sam Browne or whatever it is is missing, and will be able to get away with it on a point of law. While it is desirable that we should be able to recognise these people clearly wherever we may be in the country, I suggest that we should not be too meticulous in laying down precisely what uniform should be worn by patrols; the matter should be left flexible to some extent.

I agree with the Joint Under-Secretary that there is no point in including the scholar patrol in this Bill. I will say, however, while I have the opportunity—we do not often have the opportunity of talking about these matters, although we are to have another debate next Tuesday—that my experience of scholar patrols in other countries is that they are highly desirable and should be encouraged in the absence of the school crossing patrol. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley), for example, who is interested in this matter, that these patrols do not control the traffic. A scholar patrol has nothing to do with traffic; it controls the children, as Earl Howe made clear in another place. The job of such patrols is to gather the children together and prevent them from crossing the road until it is clear and then to let them go across. Scholar patrols, I repeat, are in control of the children and have nothing to do with the traffic.

People have doubts about whether children are capable of exercising their judgment in this way. They are. Senior pupils do so in many countries today, and are capable of doing so very well. I strongly hope that in places where we are not to institute one of these school crossing patrols schools themselves will go out of their way to organise scholar patrols, whereby senior pupils look after the smaller ones and allow them all to cross the road together, these scholar patrols being in position five minutes before school opens and for five minutes after it closes.

Generally speaking the behaviour of our school children on the roads is better than that of their parents. For that we are indebted to the excellent work that has been done in training them by the schoolteachers, who, as I know, have since 1945 paid a great deal of attention to this work; and also to the police, who have done invaluable work and made a lasting impression on the minds of many children by going and talking to them about road safety. The standard of behaviour of children on the roads is very high. I hope it will last them into later life; it seems to me that the effect wears off after some time.

I am glad to be able to support the Bill. It is another Measure in the road safety field which we can all welcome. I urge the Minister to stimulate local authorities to adopt its provisions and to start a campaign among them so that they will know what are their powers and duties under the Bill. I wish him all success in the speedy enactment of this legislation.

I am sure that any Bill introduced in this House to try to stop many of the accidents from taking place is welcome on all sides of the House. It seems to me that a Bill can be of two kinds; it can either be positive, that is something which removes some factor which is causing accidents on our roads, or it can be negative in the sense that it places greater restrictions on those who are using the roads. I am a little sorry that the whole of this Bill is rather negative.

I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether or not he has considered, in this very necessary job of getting our children safely to school, whether it would be wiser and cheaper in the long run to build, on the larger trunk roads, either light bridges over them or subways under them. That might sound rather extreme but, in the case of the railways, at practically all stations now we have to use either a subway or a bridge if we wish to cross the lines. I remember as a small boy being taken straight across the line. Today it is safer for a child to cross railway lines than to cross our main trunk roads. After all, in most cases a train keeps to the rails and comes in only one or two ways. If we are to spend a sum, which we do not begrudge, of nearly £500,000 per year without getting anything of a positive character for it, I offer the suggestion that if some of that could have been diverted towards the construction of subways or bridges which would be permanent and would not require any one to be in attendance that might in the long run prove to be safer.

In the second case also there would be no check on a great deal of our traffic on those roads. It is wise to remember that in the morning, when children are going to school, a great many people on cycles, motor cycles and in motor cars are going to work and lorries are transporting goods needed in our manufacturing industries. I entirely agree that road traffic does not mind pulling up but the diminution of the effort of the country as a whole should be borne in mind.

My hon. Friend said that the chief constable may be consulted in the training of these school patrols. I should rather like it to be provided that he must be consulted. It is important that the chief constable, the person who is chiefly concerned about traffic control, sees that these patrols are properly trained. I have seen, as we all have, a number of these patrols operating. Most of them are good but some come out in rather a tentative manner and not with the full assurance of the policeman. It should be impressed upon them that they should not take the children across in driblets, continually holding up the traffic, but should take them across in batches.

Turning to the patrols themselves, I would ask whether these men or women are to be recruited entirely from those who are not doing full-time work elsewhere. I am thinking of people who are retired or disabled. This is a job for the discharge of which we should not take able bodied men and women away from industry or agriculture.

Or from the police force.

This is a job which would be welcomed by pensioners, and I should like an assurance that no able-bodied people are being employed, unless it be teachers, although it is possible that teachers may have been specially excluded from being so employed.

We have seen these patrols operating in white coats rather like those used by the police force. If my hon. Friend is thinking of a standard uniform I would refer him to the white capes worn by the French police when controlling traffic. When I was in Paris last year—I was there on a Parliamentary delegation—I was struck by the ease with which one can see the French police in their large white capes. Perhaps something on similar lines could be provided for these patrols, and which could be put on over other clothing. Not even the legal profession, I imagine, could argue much about the exact detail of it.

I welcome the Bill, though I wish more of it could have been positive. I am sure it will have the good wishes of those who use the roads.

I recall that it was in the recent debate upon the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) that a promise was given of the intention of the Home Office to introduce a Bill of this kind It will be welcomed in my constituency.

I am glad to see present this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) who was the Minister of Transport with whom my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) and myself discussed the serious situation which arose as a result of several fatal accidents in my constituency, and especially on the famous Birmingham-Wolverhampton by-pass road. Today most by-pass roads have lost their original usefulness because building has been carried out on both sides. Children and their parents have to cross these roads, either to go to school or on shopping expeditions, and unless something is done along these lines parents will demand that much more vigorous measures be taken, because this slaughter of children cannot go on without the social conscience being roused.

I noted with pleasure the statement of the intention of the Home Office to increase the number of mobile police patrols. It might well be better if the Home Office and not the Ministry of Transport, were the Department concerned with the road accident problem. There does not appear to be that "motor mentality" at the Home Office which seems to exist at the Ministry of Transport.

The Joint Under-Secretary was not so specific in referring to the position of the police regarding recruitment and administration of these school crossing patrols. I read the speech of Lord Lloyd in another place and I gather he indicated to Lord Lucas that the police would be responsible to the Home Office, in conjunction with the county authority, for the recruitment, organisation and administration of these patrols. I hope that is the intention. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Colonel J. H. Harrison) that it would be a good thing were that so.

I am glad my hon. Friend referred to remuneration. We would like to know what the Government have in mind concerning it. The Exchequer will figure to the extent of not more than 50 per cent. of the approved expenditure, and in those circumstances a fair wage resolution becomes an important matter. I hope the Home Office will give a lead to local authorities so that there may be complete uniformity about how these people shall be paid. I suggest they be brought within the purview of the National Joint Council for local authorities' non-trading services, who would be the appropriate negotiating body to determine their rates of pay and conditions of service.

I know that this is a Committee point, but the Joint Under-Secretary will appreciate that these people will be working during inclement weather and I hope their uniform will include some protective clothing. With those observations, I extend whole-heartedly my congratulations to the Home Office for introducing this Measure.

This Bill seems to me a happy prelude to the more far-reaching debate which we are to have next Tuesday. I hope that a Measure on these lines will reach the Statute Book as soon as possible, and I think the whole House will be glad if, through the operation of this Measure and through the keenness of everybody concerned, better arrangements can be made throughout the country to secure the safety of children going to and from school.

The only point which I wish to raise is a London one. As I read this Bill, outside the Metropolitan Police district the responsible authority will be the education authority, but inside the Metropolitan Police district it will be the Commissioner of Police. Within the County of London, we have a rather peculiar situation, in that the London County Council is the education authority, whereas the Metropolitan borough councils are the local authorities in the strictly local sense but have no educational powers.

I am anxious that any action that needs to be taken, and any local improvement that has to be made, shall be brought about with as little delay and circumlocution as possible. I can imagine a group of people, parents or others, in a particular neighbourhood wishing to make representations about a school crossing patrol affecting their children or neighbours, and yet wondering to whom they should address their representations. They will probably think first of the London County Council as the education authority, but though my hon. Friend mentioned the Metropolitan borough councils I think he did not mention the London County Council, which has the most vital official interest in the welfare of the school children.

Alternatively, a group of people like that might communicate with their local town hall, and very likely that would be the best course for them to take; but in London the local borough council is not the responsible authority under this Bill, although I think every Metropolitan borough council has its own road safety committee, which would probably wish to express an authoritative opinion on any suggestions or criticisms made.

Thirdly, the group of people whom I have in mind might make their representations direct to the police, either at Scotland Yard or the local police station. This, I imagine, would set in train a certain amount of correspondence when the police consulted the Metropolitan borough council, possibly also consulting the education authority, and, finally, these opinions and reactions would come back to the police, who would decide what to do. My one concern is that at some stage—not necessarily today, because I realise that this is a difficult question to answer at short notice—an authoritative statement should be made giving guidance.

I am perfectly well aware that in the borough of Hampstead, in the first instance, people will write to their Member of Parliament about this, as about every other subject; but there may be constituencies where people have greater inhibitions about writing to their Members of Parliament than have the people in my borough, and in any case it is not necessary that Members of Parliament should be brought in about every detail if there is perfectly good working machinery of which people can make use. If in the near future we could have some authoritative statement on these lines, it would facilitate the operation of the Bill.

I am certain that both sides of the House will welcome this Bill, and that the people of this country will also welcome it, because we must do anything that will arrest the dreadful toll of life and limb on our children through road accidents. During the last two decades of my experience as a practical teacher, I did not teach in a single school in which there was not one or more children who had suffered the loss of a leg or an arm, or had had inflicted upon them very serious and life-long injury, as the result of accidents on the road.

This little Bill merely gives legislative sanction to, and enforces administrative tidiness upon, practices which are well known and in use by many local authorities. I believe that more than half the local authorities in the country have formed school patrols. We should be glad of any encouragement which this Bill gives to induce all the local authorities concerned—the county councils and the borough councils—to form these school patrols.

I do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth, particularly one so excellent and attractive as this, but I should like to have one or two assurances from the Minister as to the composition of these school patrols. In another place it was said that it would be a good thing if the patrols were composed of school children, and to my deep regret my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) seems to favour that idea. He instanced the fact that these patrols were successful in other countries, but the transport circumstances in other countries may be very different from what they are here.

Denmark, where they have such school patrols, is a flat country, without the slightest sign of a hill or eminence of any kind. It might be easier for juveniles to work the school patrols in those physical circumstances than it would be here, with our winding lanes and hilly roads. I am quite sure that in most places the proposition to have patrols of school children would meet with resistance from both parents and teachers.

It would be resisted by parents, because they would not feel that they could safely trust their children to the guidance of merely older children. It would be looked at askance by teachers, because if an accident occurred to a child whilst it was under the guidance of one of these child patrols the teacher might be held to have contributed to that accident by his negligence in not having properly supervised the child patrol which was supervising the other children, and he might find a law action brought against him, involving him in heavy damages and costs. I therefore welcome the Minister's statement that there is no intention to use school children as school patrols.

The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Colonel J. H. Harrison) thought that teachers might do this work. I hope that there is no thought in the mind of the Minister or any other responsible person that teachers should be called upon to do this work. They have enough extraneous duties already which prevent them from carrying out their proper duty of teaching, without having a further extraneous duty this sort inflicted upon them. I hope that the Minister will give a definite assurance on that point.

I must say fairly emphatically that if any attempt were made to force teachers to do this work it would meet with very strong resistance from the teachers' organisations. It is not merely a vague apprehension that teachers might be asked to do this work, because a short time ago, in referring to the administrative memorandum issued by the Ministry of Education, which urged local education authorities to undertake the work of instituting patrols and safeguarding children crossing the roads, the Retford Rural District Council circularised all the other local authorities in its area asking them to insist that teachers should do the work of patrolling the children, because that would be cheaper. Those of us who know the opinion of teachers feel that there is same little danger that they may be called upon to do this work. I hope that the Minister will give a very firm assurance that there is no intention that they should be so called upon.

It seems to me that the best people to form these patrols would be old age pensioners, if they were healthy and had reasonably good eyesight. It would at least enable them to add something to their present rather unsatisfactory pensions. We might employ housewives, who would be willing to devote some of their spare time to this work, in order to add to their household money. From disabled people, old age pensioners and housewives, we could find people who would be most appropriate to form these patrols.

I agree with the Minister about standardised uniforms. They are very desirable so that motorists coming from other parts of the country will recognise a school patrol and will take notice of it. That will also be the case with foreigners who are in this country for a motoring tour. The uniforms should be simple, but standardised and plainly recognisable by motorists. I hope that the signs to be used will be light so that women can use them, and be standardised so as to be recognisable by motorists. The Bill is welcome, and I congratulate the Minister upon the lucidity and brevity with which he introduced it.

I too welcome this excellent little Bill to which many of my hon. Friends have contributed by their efforts in the past and not least my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls), who is not able to be here today. If I spend a few minutes in critical observations it is only because I think that the general merits and excellence of the Bill are not matters of controversy.

Firstly, I wish to re-enforce what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Colonel Harrison) on the training of the patrols. The Bill is primarily for making it an offence not to stop when a school patrol orders one to do so. Clause 2 is surprisingly absolute in its terms. When a person is required by a patrol to stop he has to stop. There is no qualification about there being a reasonable distance, as I believe there is in the Pedestrian Crossing Regulations. If the Clause remains in this form it is particularly important that the school patrols should be carefully trained, in co-operation with the police, so that they will know what it is practicable to ask the motorist to do.

I hope, however, that the Bill will be altered in Committee and that the motorist will be required to stop in a reasonable way, and not regardless of the circumstances. As the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) has pointed out, many of the roads over which school-children pass were constructed as by-pass roads and are de-restricted either by special Orders or because they have not the necessary street lighting. Traffic is entitled to drive along them at considerable speed, and school patrols should be people who will exercise their functions responsibly and with due regard to the conditions of traffic. In relation to that I would make these two further points.

First, about the uniform. It is very important that a standardised and recognisable uniform should be produced as soon as possible, and I should say before the Bill comes into effect. If we are to create the offence of not stopping on an order by a school patrol we must make the school patrol identifiable as such by the person by whom the offence may be committed.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) suggested that these considerations were not important, but, with respect, I disagree with him on that. It is quite true that the ordinary motorist is not bothering whether a patrol is an official patrol or not. If there are school-children crossing the road, traffic is held up, and the ordinary motorist will stop, but when we pass a law such as this with penal consequences we are not providing for reasonable people behaving in a reasonable manner, but for the odd occurrence when someone behaves unreasonably.

I think the motorist is entitled to know when he sees a school patrol that this is that person of whom an Act of Parliament has laid down that he is entitled to issue orders to traffic, disobedience to which will be punished. In as much as these uniforms have been considered over a very considerable period I think they could be introduced very soon. Indeed, I remember a photograph of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough in the Members' Cloak Room showing him in the uniform of one of these patrols as much as two years ago. So the matter has been under consideration for a long time, and I think it ought to be possible to have it decided before the Bill comes into force.

The same consideration applies to the prescribed sign in Clause 2. The Bill at present virtually says that any sign which the Secretary of State approves shall be a prescribed sign. I shall not dwell on this for it is primarily a matter for Committee, but the Bill at present does entitle the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the sign and then says that if the sign does not comply with the regulations and the Secretary of State approves it, it shall be deemed to be a prescribed sign. That brings us back to the same point, that the motorist is entitled to know, when he sees the school patrol with the sign, that he is seeing the approved sign, and he ought to be able to recognise both the patrol and the sign. That is only fair when we are providing a criminal provision such as this.

Frankly, I do not see any time difficulty about it. Both of these matters have been under consideration for a long time, and I think it ought to be possible for the Secretary of State to decide on them before the Bill comes into force. I hope that with these alterations that could be made on Committee stage this Bill will rapidly take its place on the Statute Book.

This Bill has been described as a negative Bill, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eye (Colonel J. H. Harrison) seemed to hold the view that only by spending a lot of money on bridges and subways could we adequately deal with the problem; but that attitude seems to me to be fallacious. Personally I welcome this Bill, as every other hon. Member does, and I regard it as a positive contribution to the solution of the problem.

I regret that it is rather limited in its scope. As the Joint Under-Secretary of State pointed out, it concerns power to be given to school patrols, as they are called, within certain hours. These powers can be exercised only within those hours and, apparently, only when children are crossing a road. Furthermore, the children have to be crossing that road on their way to or from school. Therefore, the power given to the patrol is extremely limited.

Only this morning, I witnessed a school patrol, as in due course it will be officially designated, hold up a banner to allow an aged and infirm lady to cross a road. Under this Bill that would not be a lawful act, because, as I read the very limiting phraseology of the Bill, the power of the patrol is limited to seeing safely across the road school children, and these children have to be on their way to school or coming away from school. Therefore, I regret very much that these very limiting words have been used. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary might consider at another stage of the Bill if he can widen the terms of it.

In many of the cities of this country, and certainly in London, one witnesses on a Saturday morning strings of children crossing a road at a particular time. They are not going to school nor are they coming away from school; they are going to a cinema as members of one of the juvenile cinema clubs, and a police officer, in most instances, has to be available to conduct these children across the road to the cinema and his presence is again required when the cinema show has finished and the children leave. I cannot see why these patrols should not be empowered to conduct these children to and from the cinema when they are moving at set times in numbers.

Again, it is doubtful, as I read the Bill, whether or not a patrol will have power to conduct children to and from school during the school vacation. There are in London and, I believe, in other large centres school play centres to which children go in the holidays. They move across the roads in numbers at stated times to attend these school play centres. I am sure that members of the legal profession could argue if necessary that children proceeding to a school play centre are not actually going to school. I suggest that it might be considered whether or not the wording could not be widened to cover such a case.

Then there are the Sunday schools. Whether the wording of the Bill would cover children moving across a road to go to a Sunday school on a Sunday afternoon I should not like to hazard a guess. It may be that in these days children are not going to Sunday schools in large numbers. On the other hand, there may be some parts of the country—and London is not a good example of attendance at religious assemblies—where children do move across roads to attend Sunday schools, and, from my reading of the Bill, I am doubtful whether a patrol would be able to give assistance in such cases.

Most of the points I have made are Committee points, and I appeal to the Minister to give consideration to them with a view to making this Bill a little more valuable than it is.

I wish to add a few words in support of the Bill. We must all have been impressed when my hon. Friend gave us the figures for the casualties among school children. They work out at about three for every two school working days.

The first means of reducing casualties is the excellent education in road behaviour given to the children in the schools these days, but despite that, I cannot help feeling that the framers of the Bill are a little optimistic when they talk about the patrolling of places where children cross roads. We all have experience of the fact that, in spite of the safety education given to them, school children still cross roads wherever the spirit moves them. We know that the Home Office have in mind a regular crossing outside a school, but they do not say so. It may well be that outside every school there should be a proper pedestrian crossing covered by the appropriate regulations.

In addition to that, there should be a school patrol, for which there is now to be proper legal force. If we are to provide legal force, we must be careful about the instruction that we give the patrols. We are told that the sign which they will carry will be similar to a halt sign. Is it to be lit at night? The regulations will be in force until 5.30 p.m. That is of little importance at this time of the year, but in the winter months there will be some period of darkness during which the patrols operate, and perhaps in some dark spot opposite a school a motorist, with the best will in the world, may not see an unlighted sign.

Much has been said about the standardisation of the uniform which the patrols will wear, but nothing has yet been said about the standardisation of their behaviour in exhibiting the boards. One sees some patrols holding the boards upside down and then suddenly putting them the right way up when they wish to exhibit them. Others hold the boards up all the time. Some hold them at right angles to the traffic and twist them round when they want to stop the traffic. Others walk boldly out waving the banner in front of them. If conduct is to vary according to the whim of the patrol, motorists will be in very great difficulty.

I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) that the definition in Clause 2 (2) is too short. If we are to make it an offence for traffic not to stop when a sign is shown, we must also take care that a sign shall not be shown without motorists being given a reasonable opportunity to stop, on the lines of the provisions about pedestrian crossings.

I support the Bill, and I hope, as I am sure all other hon. Members do, that it will further reduce the appalling rate of casualties, particularly among children of school age. Anything that will help to do that will certainly have my support and, I am sure, the support of all other hon. Members.

Anything that will help to diminish road casualties, especially among the school population, is to be commended, and that is why this Bill will go through without too much opposition

One thing has struck me in considering the Bill. It is a Bill to authorise the employment of persons other than police constables to guide children to cross the road to and from school. Nevertheless, Clause 1 (5) seems to indicate that it would be possible for a local authority which is not very keen about the matter to arrange with the police to continue to provide police protection to enable children to cross the road. It is laid down that the local authorities may enter into an arrangement with police authorities for the purpose of carrying out the object of this Bill. I think it would be most unsatisfactory if that were so. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will make it clear that the place for a policeman is on the beat, to counteract crime. It should be possible to have the duties envisaged in this Bill carried out by school patrols and not by the police force, which ought to be engaged on other duties.

The second point I want to make is that the London County Council and possibly the Middlesex County Council, the area of which is almost entirely covered by the Metropolitan Police district, are the only two county authorities in the country which are not authorised bodies within the meaning of this Bill. Even the County of Rutland is given a special place which enables it to make the necessary arrangements for school patrols.

The London County Council is the largest local authority in the world, but it is given no status in this Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) will take note of that fact. He made some reference to it in a manner more indirect than I am doing now. I should like to see the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council recognised in the Bill to a greater extent than is the case now. The authority for London is the Commissioner of Police, except for the City of London, which has a school population which is negligible. I think there are almost more members on the County Council than there are children going to school within the City of London area. It is rather ridiculous that the City should occupy a more privileged position within the Bill than the London County Council, which is responsible for the education of some 400,000 children.

I hope it may be possible for the Government to recognise the special position of the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council, and not relegate them to an inferior position to the City of London, which has virtually no schools, no education officer and a very small school population. These are points which can be cleared up at a later stage, and I join with other hon. Members in giving this Bill my blessing.

It is a great pleasure to support a Bill which has the backing of the whole House. I should like my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to deal with one or two questions when he replies. First, what will be the difference between the situation at the present moment and the position under the Bill in the County of London? In Heston and Isleworth we are fairly well satisfied with what has been done by the Commissioner of Police, but there are a number of cases where we have made applications for school crossing patrols and they have not been granted. Will it be any easier to get patrols in future than in the past? I was sorry to hear an hon. Member opposite say it will not be any easier, but one would hope as a result of this Bill that it will be.

The next point I want to raise concerns the power of the school crossing patrols. They have power to exhibit the sign and, if it is not obeyed, then an offence has been committed. Who pulls up the motorist? I presume the school patrol will not have the power, but that it will still remain with the police. It will be interesting to know whether that is exactly the situation. Here we have the case of a penalty being imposed and certain powers given to people, but who can enforce those powers?

Finally, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not accede to the request made earlier by an hon. Member on this side of the House that the money should be spent on bridges and subways. The experience of those built in my constituency is that they are not used by the young, who are too lazy, and they are not used by the old, who are mostly too infirm and decrepit to be able to use the stairs. Otherwise, I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

I want to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for the way in which they have received this Bill. Many of the points raised can, I think, be more appropriately dealt with in Committee. I am not complaining that they have been raised, because it is useful to know in advance the kind of points which hon. Members have in their minds.

I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who said that this Bill helps the motorist. It is my experience that the removal of doubt is one of the most useful things for motorists. The hon. Gentleman asked who is to fix the rates of pay and conditions of service of the patrols and that question was also asked by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle). This is entirely a matter for the local authority by which the patrol is employed. That has been the position hitherto and it will continue to be so. The Bill is an enabling Measure. It will enable a local authority to make such agreement as it may with those whom it intends to employ for this purpose.

I hope, in view of the fact that in some measure the Exchequer are financially responsible for this service, that the Home Office, with them, will see that uniformity will apply in respect of payments to these people wherever they are employed?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I can tell the House that there has been no suggestion hitherto that the conditions of service of the patrols are unsatisfactory.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to Subsection (4) of Clause 1, which deals with the relations between the county councils and the subsidiary authorities. The position is that somehow the relative interests of those two sets of authorities have to be reconciled. On the whole the Government feel that the line drawn in Subsection (4) is the most satisfactory compromise available. It may be that this matter can be discussed further in Committee, but although clearly both the county councils and the subsidiary authorities would like more, the compromise is as fair a one as we can get.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Colonel J. H. Harrison) suggested that it might be better to build bridges and subways. That is not a matter with which I can deal here, but however many such bridges and subways are built, there will still be many places where these patrols are necessary. He asked whether they would be recruited from those who are not engaged otherwise in full-time work, and other hon. Members raised similar points. Again, the choice of men and women for this work is entirely a matter for the local authorities. The Bill does not prevent them from employing any class of person they may choose, but clearly they must choose those who are suitable having regard to local conditions.

It might be suggested that it would be a good thing if the patrol were limited to disabled ex-Service men, but their very disability may disqualify them in certain circumstances. I understand that one of the most satisfactory classes of persons to provide these patrols are young married women, and it may be that a large proportion will be found from amongst them.

The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen referred to the dangers of by-pass roads. I assure him that I appreciate those dangers. No one could be Member for Hendon, South, with five such roads running through the constituency, without realising the value that these patrols are likely to have in areas traversed by these by-pass roads.

I should now like to answer a specific question which was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) about Clause 1 (5). I am afraid he has misread that Clause. It does not enable anyone to employ the police for these duties. The purpose of the subsection is to enable a local authority to make an arrangement with the police authority to train and organise the patrols and so on, but not to employ policemen in these duties. As I explained, the secondary purpose of the Bill is to free the police from such duties in order that they may be better employed elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen spoke of the position of the police. The responsibility in this matter must be placed somewhere. We have thought fit to put the responsibility in the first place on the local authorities specified in the Bill, and then make provision first of all for them to listen to the representations of other authorities, and secondly for them to delegate to police authorities. I think that is the most satisfactory way of dealing with this matter.

My hon. Friends the Members for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) both referred to the importance of training. I entirely agree with their remarks, but I would remind them that this service has not been in existence for long. I have no doubt that in due course a system, and perhaps a standardised system, of training will grow up, but I do not think that that can be properly dealt with under the Bill.

May I ask the Under-Secretary of State one question? Will he or the Minister of Transport bring this Measure, when it becomes enacted, to the notice of other local authorities and stimulate them into adopting these patrols?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the importance of stimulating interest and activity in this connection, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will certainly consider his suggestion. Whether his suggestion is the best way of dealing with the matter, I am not sure; but I agree that our purpose must be to stimulate interest and activity, and we shall certainly do what we can. We will deal in Committee with the other points which have been raised; in the meantime, we will give them very close attention. Having regard to the favourable reception which the Bill has had, I hope that it will now receive a" unanimous Second Reading.

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

The Joint Committee of both Houses have reported that no representation was received in respect of the memorandum setting forth the corrections and minor improvements of the law proposed in the Bill, and the Bill itself, although long in form, will, I am sure, result in the task of lawyers being considerably facilitated when they want to look up the law.

We welcome the Bill, and I am sure that the consolidation will give my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) opportunity at a later stage for raising points with which the Solicitor-General will have the pleasure of dealing.

While agreeing with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has said from the Front Bench, I think the House should pause one moment to consider whether this is really the right time to consolidate the licensing laws, or whether it would be more prudent to leave the Measure until we have made one or two further amendments to this very old and long body of law.

I am glad to see the Lord Privy Seal here. I would not for a moment suggest that we should prolong the debate so as to avoid obtaining a Second Reading for this important Measure today, but I hope that on Third Reading he will provide an opportunity for the House to discuss the interesting question of whether this is really the time to consolidate the licensing law. If I may, I will indicate the sort of objection which I and my hon. Friends have to the licensing laws as they exist and consider whether or not we should, so to speak, give them this new degree of permanence by consolidating them.

This Bill does make a number of minor changes, one of the most interesting of which is that it makes it much more easy for a public house to be carried on after the licensee has gone bankrupt. Why it was thought necessary at this stage to make this small but, I cannot help thinking, significant, change in the law, I do not know. But the House is always very easy on these consolidation Measures and perfectly prepared to let a little thing like that go through on the ground that it is really consolidation and probably a very necessary reform.

The sort of thing I have much more in mind is the total inadequacy of the licensing laws in very many cases. This Bill, for example, puts into our permanent legislation the one great Measure which hon. Members opposite enacted in their first year of office, the licensing in new towns Measure. That was the only major Measure this Government were able to carry through in their first year. Whether or not the time has come and whether, if one may use a metaphor normally used in relation to cheese, the matter is sufficiently ripe to be included in a consolidation Measure, is a question about which the House should take a little time to think.

What I am concerned about is the total inadequacy of the licensing laws to deal with what we were discussing earlier today—merchandise marks. We are considering the——

I think that is going beyond the question of consolidation.

With great respect, this is an argument I am addressing as to why we should not consolidate the law at present. I think I am entitled on Second and Third Reading to argue that it is not desirable to pass a consolidation Measure. One of the reasons against passing a consolidation Measure is that it encourages people to think that the law has reached a fixed form and a form in which it cannot be touched. The last thing one wants to do is to pass a consolidation Measure in this way because people would rightly say, "Only last year we consolidated all this law; why should we now start trying to get reforms through?"

The very passage of consolidation legislation interrupts or restricts the opportunity of making amendments in the law. Therefore, by way of illustration, I was going to call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to one or two defects in the licensing law that exist at the moment.

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is a little mistaken. When the law is consolidated, it can be amended later by another Bill; it is not for ever and ever.

Exactly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The point I was putting to you was that we must consider the timing of all these consolidation Measures. If, in fact—I was hoping that the Solicitor-General would say so—the Government have in mind some important reforms in the licensing law, it will be imprudent for us to proceed at this stage with consolidation; we should wait until these reforms have been carried out.

I was only going to suggest one or two possible, desirable reforms and inquire if there was any chance of their being undertaken by the Government, in which case this Measure could be postponed until they have been dealt with. It was the inadequacy of the law at the moment which seemed to me to make it undesirable for it to be immediately consolidated, and that it would be more prudent to wait until it is altered and reformed and then consolidated at that stage. I hope that I shall be in order in making one or two remarks on that point.

As I was saying, I need not go in great detail into the defects in the law at the moment—there would not be time—the various defects, for instance, in the Beer Act, 1790, which is one of the Measures which is being consolidated in the present Bill. It seems to me it would be far better if we were to take a look at these Acts and to alter and reform some of them and then put them all together and start on the task of dealing with the law as a whole.

One of the principal defects in the licensing laws at the moment is that there is no provision for dealing with what we were discussing earlier today—merchandise marks. If one brews a bottle of vinegar one has to declare its strength but if one brews a bottle of beer one has not to do so. That is a grave defect in the law, and we should consider whether these defects should be given priority in the time of the House over the mere question of consolidation.

I have raised this issue but I do not want to delay the Second Reading of the Bill. All I wish to say to the Solicitor-General, who I am sure is in charge of the Measure, is that I hope he will provide adequate opportunity, when we come to the Third Reading, for those of my hon. Friends and myself who doubt the wisdom of consolidating the law at the moment, to discuss the matter when there is more time at our disposal. To take up time now would be to upset the work which has been done by those people who have worked on this Measure, and we should, therefore, not jeopardise their work by talking too long and possibly talking out the Bill. We should wait until the Third Reading, when we can consider at leisure this important issue of whether the licensing laws as they at present exist deserve consolidation.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has convinced me that it will be most unwise to consolidate the licensing law, as is the intention of the Solicitor-General. In commending this Measure to the House, the Solicitor-General did not say whether he had received any urgent representation from the licensed trade or consumers of from anyone to consolidate the licensing laws at the present time. The licensed trade have many grievances and many difficulties under which they are suffering. I should not have thought that one of their primary aims at the moment was to secure the consolidation of a law with the operation of which they are not very happy, and certainly, so far as I can ascertain, not completely satisfied. However, let us grant a Second Reading now, as my hon. and learned Friend says, without prejudice to such points as we may be able to make at a later stage.

I have, I am afraid, a story to tell to the House this afternoon which has lasted as long as you, Mr. Speaker, and I have sat in this House. Nothing fresh has happened about it since we entered this House, in my case some 29 years ago. I have, therefore, to confess that this afternoon I shall play an old tune and not a new one.

The depredations of foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth, from which our own trawlers are excluded, have been a continuing scandal for the last 30 or 40 years. Figures issued by the Scottish Home Department show that last year 30 Belgian vessels fished in the closed waters of the Moray Firth 200 times. Meanwhile over 20 British skippers of trawlers were taken to court for fishing in the same waters. The seine-net boats which conduct the inshore white fishing along the coast of the Moray Firth have for years been forced off the grounds by the foreign boats by what I may legitimately call force majeure They dare not go to sea when the foreigners are there. They have often taken out their boats, and had to return because of the operations of these foreign trawlers.

The effect of this upon the fishing villages along the coast of the Moray Firth can be imagined. This is a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) will deal with, as it affects him to an even greater extent. The argument applies also to the Clyde, and to some extent to the Minch. I have here a copy of a letter from Mr. James Barron, the skipper of the motor boat "Quest" at present fishing out of Ayr. It is so fresh and spontaneous, and so obviously what he feels, that I will read a passage from it. It is dated 19th July:

"At the present moment there are quite a few foreign trawlers fishing in the Clyde, and I may say that they fish with complete disregard for other boats or their gear. It makes your blood boil to see them … In former yearn the waters got a rest over the week-end, and you always looked for a good fishing of hake in the early part of the week; but now, with Danish seine-netters and foreign trawlers-fishing all the week-end the fish gets cleaned up"—

I am quoting his words exactly—

"by the time the home fleet starts fishing on Monday."

These words come from the heart. I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will forgive me if I say that the international fishing policy of successive Governments in this country for many years past has been absolutely crazy. I know he will accept it when I say he has no responsibility personally for this fact.

The greatest problem confronting the white fish industry today is the overfishing of the North Sea. What do the Government do? They sign an international convention which lays down a size of mesh which enables the fattest and most succulent whiting or haddock to swim with glee through the seine nets.

If it were applied—which it will not be—it would bring total ruin to the Scottish inshore white fishing industry. At the same time, they refuse to protect the vital spawning grounds, and this is the point I want to get home. Meanwhile, the Norwegian and Icelandic Governments take action to do this very thing—to protect the spawning grounds—which is regarded with hypocritical horror by Her Majesty's Government, but which is, nevertheless, sustained by the International Court at The Hague.

Not hypocritical.

Well, then, horror.

On 13th July, the Minister of State, m reply to a Question by me, said:

"The question whether Her Majesty's Government should apply to the British coast the-base-line methods approved by The Hague Court in the case of Norway remains under consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1953; Vol. 517, c. 1708.]

I want to suggest, with great humility, that it is high time that it stopped remaining under consideration; and, as the Government appear to have such tremendous difficulty in making up their minds, may I—with less humility—tell them what to do?

First, they should close the Moray Firth, and certain other valuable spawning grounds on the west coast of Scotland, to foreign trawlers, as they are closed to British trawlers. That is the first thing to do, and to do unilaterally; and, if they do it, they will be sustained by The Hague Court. Close the Firth to these foreign trawlers dragging their nets over the rocky bottom, and destroying the spawning grounds in these inshore waters. Secondly, and I am prepared to face up to this, in the Moray Firth and The Minch, at certain times of the year, there should be a close season, even for seine-netters, in order to protect the spawning grounds. Nobody could pretend that the seine nets do as much damage as the trawlers; but every country must protect its spawning grounds in the North Sea, if the North Sea fishing is to be saved. The only way to save the North Sea fishing industry is by protecting the spawning grounds; and, if the Norwegians have the guts to do this, why have not we?

I am very glad to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) in a discussion of this amazing situation, for amazing it is. Indeed, if it were not such a grim one, it would be funny. Here are British trawlers excluded from part of our own territorial waters, and yet the foreigner may come in without let or hindrance and do what he likes.

This is a very serious matter. I was born on the shores of the Moray Firth, and I have seen the entire fish population of that area completely altered. There are no herring, because the spawning beds have been torn to shreds by foreign trawlers, while our own trawlers have been excluded during my whole lifetime. When we were children, we used to have a game which we called "Gunboats and trawlers," and if one could show a handkerchief during the pursuit, one was safe, because it was a foreign flag. This is a grim situation, and the Government must really face up to it. During the last 20 or 30 years, we have built up a small inshore fishing fleet of small vessels which cannot proceed very far out or indeed beyond the Moray Firth.

When spawning is taking place in the spring, in comes the foreigner, sees our vessels working, and sweeps across their gear. I must pay tribute to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on the efforts which he made, together with the Foreign Office, to get this matter settled. Here is a claim for £40 which a small inshore fishing vessel is to receive from Belgium on account of the depredations of a Belgian trawler. This is happening all the time; while our own vessels are not allowed to go to sea, the foreigners are in the Firth.

The spawning beds in the Moray Firth are undoubtedly one of the most important in these European waters of ours, and they have to be protected. Why should seine net vessels be allowed in the Firth if trawlers are excluded? The reason is that fish spawn on the rocky bottom. The trawlers can work on both soft and hard bottoms, but the seine-netters cannot. They must work in the open. They are denied access to half the Firth because of the bottom, whereas the trawler can fish over the whole area.

Moreover, our seine net vessels in the North have brought into being a close time, of two days a week—Saturday and Sunday—when they do not fish. That is a happy time for the trawler, because he can clean out the ground all the time, and the good that would otherwise be done by our vessels restraining themselves is lost through the depredations of the trawlers. This international Convention must look seriously at this problem and the Government must urge them so to do. If the Norwegian fjords and the Icelandic territorial waters are recognised as spawning grounds, the Moray Firth is the spawning ground par excellence of European waters.

Trawlers were excluded from the Moray Firth for a period of two years after the war, by international agreement behind the scenes. An order was issued by our Government excluding foreign trawlers, through a request made by the Foreign Office, and trawlers remained out of the Firth for two years. If that can be done for a period it can be done for all time. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again.

In 1889, when the restriction on trawlers using the Moray Firth was brought about, it was of great interest to Britain, particularly for the deep sea fishermen, to fish off the coast of Norway and Iceland. It is these areas where the bulk of the fish have been produced in the last half century or more. That situation no longer prevails. Norway, supported by The Hague Court, has closed all her inshore areas, and Iceland has followed suit, with the consent of no one except her own Government.

They have been forced to do it for the very same reason that my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) stated—over-fishing. I say to the Government—as I have said so often—that the most important problem facing our fisheries is the protection, not only of the waters of the North Sea and the Atlantic, but all the waters where our vessels fish. This is a common heritage, and I always felt that if a top level conference were held—attended by Ministers, with the power to say yes and no, and not exclusively by civil servants—we might get some progress in this matter.

The Moray Firth is hopelessly overfished. I walked into a Dutch fish merchant's office in Ymuiden and he handed me his quotation card, which offered Moray Firth plaice for sale to British and other European fish merchants. The Moray Firth plaice, which is the finest plaice ever produced, is almost extinct because of over-fishing. This area extends from Duncansby Head, in Caithness, to Rattray Head, in Aberdeenshire.

I have actually seen in recent years Belgian trawlers not only fishing in this area but fishing inside the three-mile limit off Caithness and doing it with complete impunity. Why that can happen I just do not know, and I think that the Government should find out. It may have been good policy for Britain in the past to sacrifice the fishermen of the Northern counties of Scotland for the greater good of the fishing community and the greater good of Britain, but that situation no longer exists.

I want to say very firmly to the Under-Secretary of State, as a representative of the Government which I support, that if this matter is not dealt with quickly it will be taken up by all the Highland Members, by hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies and possibly by all Scottish Members. It will be supported by many English Members, too. This situation must be put right. We can no longer stand for the exploitation of our fishermen. They are the people, and their wives, who send us here, and fishing is still our second industry. We see the labour force engaged year after year in fishing going into bankruptcy. I need not remind the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that his Department is now trying to recover very large sums of money from loans to fishermen who are unable to repay them, not because of their inefficiency or lack of skill as fishermen, but because they cannot get a living out of these old fishing grounds.

This is a very serious problem. I was a member of a deputation with other hon. Members when we met the Minister, over a year ago. This matter was very fully discussed at that time, but the situation had not developed as it has today. I want to make it plain that the Government have not a stronger supporter than I, but that I have got to the end of my tether, and I am certain that many of my colleagues have.

We can no longer support a situation like this. The Norwegian thing is law and the Icelandic thing has the force of law, even if it is not law. We do not seem to be able to do anything about it, and all that those who represent the fishermen in the Moray Firth can do is to take action in this House. We have been most patient. We stood by and did not ask the Government for anything during the difficult negotiations with Iceland, which have now reached a complete impasse. We are not threatening because we want to threaten or to make things difficult for the Government. On the contrary we want to help, but we have a duty to the people who elected us here and to the people of Britain, to ensure that adequate stocks of fish are maintained, because they are urgently needed. I hope that the Under-Secretary will support the views that we have expressed.

Let me say straight away that the views which my hon. Friends have expressed in this debate with so much deep sincerity will, of course, be carefully noted by Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the problem of the Moray Firth in particular and of fishing in general around our shores. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) spoke about the permanent Commission which has been set up under the Overfishing Convention, and he suggested that certain proposals which have been put before that Commission were not very practical or sensible. I take it that he was not suggesting that we should refer the whole matter of the Moray Firth to the Commission for a solution.

I have myself considered that proposition because at one time it seemed to me to be a possibility, but I am convinced on reflection that such a course would probably only delay a solution of this problem still further since the Commission, before it can function effectively, has to settle an unfortunate argument that has already arisen and is in its early stages as to what precisely is the extent of its mandate, whether it has a mandate to undertake measures in the broadest sense on questions of base lines, territorial waters, and so on, or whether it is limited to the discussion and regulation of such things as net meshes, fishing gear, and so on. Therefore, that course is out, and I take it that my hon. Friend will agree with me.

Let me say straight away in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) that, of course, there can be no question of the Government or the fishing protection authorities in this country tolerating fishing by foreign trawlers inside the three-mile limit. Various allegations have been made at Question time that I and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries have answered about foreign trawlers fishing inside territorial waters. Frankly, those allegations are usually unfounded and very often exaggerated. Certainly, whenever a foreign trawler is found trespassing inside the British territorial waters action is taken under British law to seize it and to fine those responsible for its operation.

My hon. Friend must surely realise that if foreign trawlers are allowed into the Moray Firth and British trawlers are prohibited from entering the Moray Firth it is much easier for foreign trawlers to infringe the three-mile limit.

I do not deny that, and I am coming on to the broader question of waters outside the three-mile limit but within the Moray Firth in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland said he and other Scottish Members had had an interview with Lord Reading, and that he had promised action would be taken. I think my hon. Friend is, perhaps, reading rather a lot into what my noble Friend said on that occasion. He said the Government would give very urgent consideration to this problem, but he certainly did not undertake that action would be taken in the sense that my hon. Friend suggested, such as to close the Moray Firth.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire will remember in the foreign affairs debate a day or two ago coming out as a strong advocate of "playing a new tune." Indeed, he referred to that himself today. The Minister of State in his speech in that same debate, before my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire spoke, pointed out the unpleasant truth that international relations are not, unfortunately, a field in which one can play solo. One can play a new tune oneself in domestic affairs, but also, in international affairs one has to play in concert with other nations. As my hon. Friends will understand, the Government cannot go it alone, as the Americans say, in these fishery matters any more than we can go it alone in the broader field of international relations, and unfortunately, we cannot, therefore, undertake, as my hon. Friend asked me to do, to take action definitely and specifically in the directions he asks. My answer to him, therefore, cannot be a definite one on this occasion.

As he has said, this matter has been an issue for something like nearly 50 years, though it is not true to say it has been under consideration for all that time. It is true that it has been the subject of continuous pressure and representations by Scottish Members since before any of us here present came into this House. Only some 18 months ago the Government's attitude about the Moray Firth was stated. It is perfectly definite and straightforward. There is no question of reconsideration of the matter. My hon. Friend, no doubt, regards that attitude as wrong, but, at any rate, it was a definite and straightforward attitude.

The attitude of the Government was that they regarded the proposal to draw a base line across the mouth of the Moray Firth, which would incidentally cover something like 72 miles in length, as being quite contrary to international law, and, furthermore, to their obligations under the North Sea Fishery Convention of 1882, of which we are still a signatory. We did not accept the right of any country to draw base lines of over 10 miles in length nor to extend territorial waters beyond three miles. However, some 18 months ago, as my hon. Friend recalls to the House, The Hague Court ruled on the Norwegian fisheries case, and the situation was, as a result, completely changed.

For the first time, the International Court of Justice had ruled that in certain cases—and I stress that point—base lines considerably longer than 10 miles were permissible. This created a completely new situation. Ever since then Her Majesty's Government have been considering the question of the Moray Firth in relation to this change. We are still considering it. I do not think, although it may be exasperating to my hon. Friend, that we can readily be accused of dilatoriness for not having so far reached any firm decision about the Moray Firth because there are many conflicting, considerable and weighty factors involved in considering this matter.

After all, the fact that The Hague Court has endorsed a new Norwegian base line does not itself release us from our international obligations, and still less does it mean that we can "go it alone" and behave as we would like. My hon. Friend stressed the Norwegian case and the decision of The Hague Court in that matter, but he will remember that in the case of Norway there was a very indented coastline, and The Hague Court took that indented coastline very much into account in approving and endorsing the Norwegian base line.

In the case of Norway, the Court took into account that in fact the economy of Northern Norway as, indeed, the economy of many northern and Scandinavian countries is exclusively based and dependent on fishing. It is, of course, true of the Moray Firth fishermen—I entirely agree with my hon. Friends on that—but it is not a fact that the economy of the United Kingdom or even of Scotland is entirely dependent upon fishing.

My hon. Friend waxes very eloquent on the subject of herring but he also waxes eloquent on the subject of whisky, and therefore it is not a question entirely of a fisheries issue. As the hon. Member and the whole House know, because we have had many questions on this subject, the position is further complicated by our dispute over Iceland fishery limits. We did not accept and we have, indeed, hotly contested for a very long time Iceland's right to apply these restrictions, and in particular we have disputed and offered to refer to the International Court of Justice the 60-mile base line drawn across Faxa Bay.

In the case of Norway, the International Court added the rider that base lines must be reasonable in length. We maintain that in the case of Iceland the base line across Faxa Bay is an unreasonable base line.

But the Moray Firth is reasonable.

My hon. Friend would hold that view and, no doubt, many other Scottish Members, too, but it is arguable whether the International Court would support them in that contention. I put it no higher than that this is another factor which has to be borne in mind.

Further, my hon. Friend will also realise that if we are to try to get a solution to the Icelandic fisheries problem, where a base line 60 miles in length is in dispute, it would hardly be very profitable or very reasonable for Her Majesty's Government to apply a base line of 72 miles in length across the Moray Firth.

We should then start all square.

But it would hardly add to the weight of our representations, and still less to the convictions with which I, at any rate, could argue it.

I agree that it might not be of particular interest or importance to all Scottish fishermen if we were to get a modification of the Icelandic fishery limit, but I ask my hon. Friend to believe me when I say that there is no question of hypocrisy or hypocritical horror about the representations and protests that we have made about the Icelandic case. It is of considerable interest to English fishermen, at any rate, even though it may not be of considerable interest to Scottish fishermen, that we should get a modification of the Icelandic restrictions.

What is more, these fishery restrictions, as my hon. Friend knows well, are very contagious, and we do not know where they will end and how much Scottish fishing interests—even though they may not be particularly affected in the case of Iceland—may ultimately be affected by the spread of these restrictive tendencies. That is a factor which has to be borne in mind.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire spoke of the depredation of the spawning grounds by foreign trawlers. I am not expert in these matters, but I am advised that it is arguable whether the foreign trawlers coming into the Moray Firth really harm the spawning grounds any more than, or to any considerably greater extent than do the seine-netters. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) disagrees with that point of view, but that is the advice that I have.

I disagree profoundly, because the opinion of those along the coast who have lived their lives there, and know, is that the fish spawn in the hard and the hard is the place where the trawlers can operate. There must have been depredations, because the fish population has entirely altered since the beginning of the century, and there is nothing else to account for it except the depredations of the trawlers.

That is my hon. Friend's view. My advice is to the contrary, but, naturally, what he says will be taken into account.

Even if it were merely a matter of British fishing interests—in that I include Scottish fishing interests—there are, as I have made plain, many complicated and conflicting considerations to be weighed up. But there are other matters to consider. Political, strategic and other questions are involved. Britain, as a great maritime and naval power, is clearly interested in preventing, rather than encouraging, the progressive reduction in the area of the high seas and the progressive increase in the area of territorial waters. I am told that some South American countries claim up to 50 miles as a territorial limit.

Quite right.

I profoundly disagree with my hon. Friend. It is in the interests of the United Kingdom, as a maritime and naval power, to reduce, rather than to encourage, the tendency all the time to increase the area of territorial waters. All these matters are being considered by the International Law Commission set up by the United Nations, and we hope that its recommendation will add a little sanity and reason to the matter.

In conclusion, I would only say that I have great sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friends in the interests of Scottish trawler men and inshore fishermen who, naturally, feel aggrieved at the situation. Scottish trawler men perhaps feel aggrieved at the apparent discrimination against them whereby they are not allowed to fish. I regret I cannot be more definite, but what my hon. Friends have said will be borne in mind.