I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

If, as now seems reasonable to hope, this Bill becomes an Act, it will end a disagreeable form of exploitation, almost amounting to fraud, to which blind and disabled persons, and the general public, have been increasingly subjected in recent years.

Firms and individuals, all over the country, employ door-to-door canvassers to sell articles worth a few pence at perhaps ten times their real value. They adopt such names as "Blind Employment," "Blind Homework," "Blind Artisans," or perhaps merely "Disabled Ex-Service men." Deceived by the carefully worded literature, the charitably-minded public pay extravagant prices in the belief that they are assisting to provide employment or maintenance for blind and disabled people. In fact, they are providing fat profits for the firms and high earnings for the canvassers, and when this is discovered it brings into doubt the efforts of the genuine organisations for blind and disabled people which most people wish to help.

In my own constituency, there is a firm which has vans running about with the words "Blind Employment" on them. That firm has had the effrontery to register that name when it is a well-known fact that the Blind Employment Factory is the biggest blind employment centre in London. The National Association of Workshops for the Blind, comprising all the workshops for the blind throughout the country, became so concerned with the effects of this evil business that, after looking at the evidence which they gave to me, I tabled a Question to the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr). He assured me of the Government's interest and concern and welcomed my suggestion that an all-party committee should be formed to consider possible lines of action.

The members of that committee are the sponsors of this Bill, and I wish to express my grateful appreciation of their devoted and valuable assistance. Since they have all worked as a good team, it would be invidious to particularise, but I know that they would like me on their behalf to acknowledge our indebtedness to the former Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Mitcham, without whose drive, enthusiasm and skilled guidance we should not be today debating the Third Reading of this Bill. The work of the hon. Member for Mitcham for disabled people is well known, though in my view far too little acknowledged. Once he was satisfied that the problem could not be dealt with under existing legislation, he spared no effort in assisting us to obtain our objective. For his help and for that of the present Parliamentary Secretary, who I am glad to see is present today, we also express our grateful thanks. Certainly it is to their efforts that we owe this Bill and such technical merit as it possesses.

In its principal provisions, the Bill relates to traders wishing to carry on the business of selling goods from house to house, including shops and offices, or selling by post, in the course of which business they state that blind or substantially disabled people are employed in the production of the goods or will benefit in some way from the sale of them. They are required to register with the Minister and failure to do so may involve a maximum penalty of a £100 fine or a term of three months imprisonment or both. These penalties are in line with the penalties embodied in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944.

All the existing non-profit-making bodies concerned with the blind and disabled are exempt under the provisions of the Bill from the need to apply for registration. In addition, the Minister has power to exempt on application similar bodies not already covered by the exclusion. A blind or disabled man who sells the product of his own labour is not required to register. A blind or substantially disabled person carrying on business in which other people are employed in the production, packing or distribution and selling of the goods would have to apply for registration. This is necessary to deal with the case of the disabled person who might otherwise be used and exploited as a nominal head of such a firm.

It was also thought necessary during the Committee stage discussions to define the term "substantially disabled" so as to take care of the kind of concern which might otherwise successfully apply for registration although their employees had nominal disabilities, such as a missing finger or a stiff knee, or some mysterious, high-sounding and quite imaginary disease. The registration provisions of the Bill will not come into effect until January, 1959, so that traders carrying on this type of business will have plenty of time to apply for registration before the penal provisions take effect. They would have a full opportunity to appeal to the courts, if they are aggrieved by any decision of the Minister regarding registration.

The Minister may grant registration for an indefinite or restricted period, or he may refuse registration altogether. The Bill gives ample guidance to the Minister about the kind of things he should look for before deciding to grant registration, and to the courts who deal with applications from aggrieved persons regarding a refusal of registration. These provisions, for the guidance of the Minister in connection with a decision to grant or withhold registration, are quite stringent. It is our hope and determination that none of the kind of firms whose activities I have been describing could possibly be registered and continue to carry on such business.

This Bill does no harm whatever to any existing bona fide organisation or any future bona fide organisation which may be set up. In my view, if fully and properly used, it will stop once and for all the type of exploitation to which I have referred. Its full use will depend, however, on the vigilance of interested bodies. That is why applicants for registration are required to advertise their application. It will be for members of the public and organisations of blind and disabled workers to furnish the Minister with any information that may be relevant to the application, and later, if necessary, of any infringements of the provisions of the Bill. It is to be hoped that offences will be few. But if they do occur, we must look to local authorities to exercise their right to institute proceedings or, failing them, for individuals and interested organisations to do so. In my view, failure to act in a clear case of infringement would be neglect of an important public duty.

I need not detain the House by saying any more about the Bill. Its purpose is well known, and its provisions are clearly set out. However, perhaps I could be allowed to quote briefly from some of the messages I have received from national organisations during the passage of the Bill emphasising how warmly they welcome the protection which this Bill will afford to genuine organisations for disabled people. I have already mentioned the National Association of Workshops for the Blind who took the initiative in this matter and represent all organised workshops for the blind throughout the country. There is also the workers' organisation, the National League of the Blind, which after the Second Reading debate, wrote to me and said:

"When such a Measure is placed on the Statute Book your committee will have earned the gratitude, not only of every blind person, but of every member of the general public for putting an end to the cynical and barefaced exploitation of the widespread sympathy which exists for everyone suffering the handicap of blindness."

The Greater London Fund for the Blind, whose patron is Her Majesty the Queen Mother, in welcoming the Committee stage, said:

"Through our outside staff and our letters from members of the public we have been receiving an increasing number of reports of shoddy goods being offered at house doors by sighted persons purporting to be trading on behalf of organisations employing blind people and using such names as"—

and then the letter goes on to give names, some of which I have mentioned.

"Many people, of course, in sympathy with the blind, buy these goods, and then they are shocked to find that their selling price in shops is considerably less than they have paid. Wherever there is sufficient information we investigate these cases and have found, in several, that while one, or at the most two, blind persons are on the premises, they are not an essential part of the staff and are no more than a 'front'. Where there seems a possibility of action being taken we have notified the police, but the wording of any printed matter used is skilful enough to be 'within the law'. Naturally, therefore, we welcome your Bill and its objectives and hope it will rapidly be brought into force."

Finally, the British Legion, after welcoming a Bill which, in its words,

"when passed will finally end the sales rackets whereby the public are misled into purchasing goods supposed to be made or packed by the blind and disabled"

said:

"Complaints are constantly being received at Legion Headquarters in regard to door-to-door canvassers seeking orders for goods which it is alleged are made by disabled ex-Service men. We would like it known that neither the British Legion nor the associated companies employ door-to-door canvassers or collectors. Nor do they authorise any other concern to do so. Any such firms as operate in this way should be regarded as commercial undertakings working for profits and not for the purpose of assisting disabled ex-Service men."

If the House accepts the Bill today and it becomes law, it will stop this racket. It will stop the cheating of the warm-hearted public and, most important of all, it will assist the blind, the crippled and the otherwise disabled, who deserve all the help we can possibly give them. For these reasons, I am confident that the House will give it unanimous approval.

May I also support this modest but extremely worth-while Measure, and, in doing so, add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), who was until recently Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service? It was his imagination, diligence and conscientiousness that enabled the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) to bring this Bill so rapidly and in so workman-like a form before the House.

My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mitcham, as the hon. Gentleman opposite told us, was a great friend of all the disabled during his tenure of office, and it would be an extremely sad thing for the disabled that he has now left the Ministry of Labour were it not that my hon. Friend the present Parliamentary Secretary is bringing to his job the same imaginative sympathy with this section of the community.

May I also commend the work of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury, who by his constant and dynamic energy has shown his sympathy with and understanding of the problems of the disabled, and, in particular, by the Bill, has done real service to blind people? Though I am privileged to be one of the supporters of the Bill, it is very largely the result of the hon. Gentleman's efforts.

The Bill shows the value of an alert Press, vigilant constituents and energetic Members of Parliament. The fact that so little time has elapsed since the ventilation of the complaint by the public through the Press and in letters to Members of Parliament reflects the greatest credit on the hon. Member for Shored itch and Finsbury, on my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham, on the Government, and on the sympathy of this House. The Bill protects a section of the community which has the universal sympathy of the country against the exploitation of that sympathy and I hope that it will be an effective Measure.

I wish to endorse the tributes that have been paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) to those who have helped in the progress of the Bill, and I particularly wish to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said in paying a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury.

This matter has been before the attention of those of us who have been interested in the welfare of disabled persons —and I myself have spent a lifetime in it—for a very considerable time. We have wondered how best we could combat this very great abuse—this evil, as I would term it—which has resulted not only in the exploitation of the disabled, but the exploitation of the public as well. Various other suggestions were considered, and it was due to the initiative and drive of my hon. Friend finally, in consultation with the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), that it was decided to press on with this Bill.

The dramatic moment in our agitation was when my hon. Friend illustrated visually, I think to an astonished and alarmed House, the extent of the evil, and, from that time, I think we had the public on our side. We certainly had the Ministry on our side, and we have now come to the end, in this House, of a very interesting and important chapter. My hon. Friend mentioned the kind of disabled person who is probably most exploited, and that is the blind person, who, of course, always makes an appeal to the public. Blindness is a handicap that arouses a great deal of sympathy, and it is one which the public can visualise straight away, but there are other handicaps.

I am rather worried whether we can effectively deal with those organisations which have their centres abroad but have agencies in this country. In particular, I refer to the big drive which took place about Christmas, as I expect all hon. Members are aware, concerning pictures supposedly—and I do not doubt that they were—painted by persons without limbs, or, at any rate, without hands, painted by holding the brush between the toes or in the mouth. The centre of that organisation is on the Continent, and I believe—and I have taken some pains to verify this—that most of the money which people of good will spend on buying what they regard as genuine articles goes abroad.

I would, therefore, ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who will be mainly responsible for the operation of the Bill, to keep a watch on that kind of activity. There may be a little loophole there. I thought we had tied them all up completely, but I have a suspicion that the Bill is not drawn rigidly enough in that respect.

I support the Bill whole-heartedly, and again wish to thank those who are not concerned in the work of welfare, or are not associated with it professionally, for the interest that they have shown in bringing the Bill to its final stage.

I will certainly take note of the point which the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) has just mentioned and will make inquiries about it.

In general, I have no wish, as the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) knows very well, to delay for a moment the Third Reading, which I hope the House will shortly accord, to his Bill, but I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating him and others who have joined with him in sponsoring the Bill on the achievement that he will very shortly reach. I have always admired with envy the achievements of hon. Members who succeed in getting Bills on the Statute Book. Through no fault of my own, I have never been able to start, but I admire very much the way in which the hon. Member, both in Committee and in the House today, has handled his Bill.

I am particularly grateful for what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) have said about any co-operation which the Government have been able to give in this matter, and, naturally, I appreciate what they both had to say about the work, the great enthusiasm and help which my predecessor in office, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), has been able to give. I am sure that he will be delighted to know that the work which he did for the disabled during the time he was at the Ministry of Labour and National Service has been so generously recognised.

My hon. Friend would be the first to admit that co-operation needs two parties, and, therefore, I should like, on his behalf and on my own, to thank the hon. Member and his sponsors for the co-operation which they have been able to offer towards achieving this very desirable end.

The only other thing that I should like to say, and the hon. Member has drawn our attention to it this morning, is that what is very clear, and the proceedings on the Bill both in Committee and this morning have shown it, is the extreme distaste which hon. Members on all sides of the House feel about the kind of practice at which this Bill is aimed. The Bill is the means by which we in the House of Commons give practical expression to those feelings, which we a1 very sincerely hold. I am sure that in a few moments the House will give a unanimous Third Reading to the Bill. I hope that anyone who is concerned with the kind of practice which the hon. Member has in mind will take due note of the unanimity in the House about this question.

I commend the Bill for Third Reading and wish the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury all good fortune in the further stages of the Bill in Parliament.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to ask leave to speak a second time on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Bill was originally called for Second Reading on 18th April at one minute to four o'clock, when I spoke and then resumed my seat. With permission, I would now develop the arguments in favour of the Bill.

The Bill would amend the law relating to wages, that is to say, the law contained in the Truck Acts. It would not amend the whole of the Truck Acts but would tidy up certain anomalies which have appeared in the last century or so since the principal Act, that is, the Truck Act, 1831, was passed. Before that, there were centuries of legislation upon the particular subject dealt with in the Truck Act, namely, the protection of the employee from being forced to accept wages in kind.

I am sure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will agree that that is a very right and proper principle. The Bill does not intend any erosion of the general principle of the Truck Acts, but intends 'o knock off some of the barnacles which have attached themselves to this law over the period of the last century.

Incidentally, I should explain the meaning of the word "truck". I looked it up in the dictionary and I found that the verb means "barter or bargain". _When used as a noun, the word means "small wares or rubbish". If the House will bear with me, I will run over the existing legislation of the Truck Acts in order to explain where it is necessary to amend them to meet the convenience of modern industry and commerce and of those employed in them.

One starts with the Truck Act, 1831, Section 1 of which says:

"In all contracts hereafter to be made for the hiring of any artificer … or for the performance by any artificer of any labour … the wages of such artificer shall be made payable in the current coin of this realm only, and not otherwise."

Those are the important words.

As to the kind of employee who comes within the expression "artificer," there are Amendments in later Acts, to which I need not refer in any great detail, except to mention them. Under Section 2 of the Truck Amendment Act, 1887, and under Section 10 of the Employers' and Workmen Act, 1875, the present definition of that type of employee is, in short, a manual worker, someone engaged in manual labour or carrying out manual work. There have been added for certain purposes by other statutes shop assistants and all those engaged in the hosiery trade.

What happens if an employer fails to pay the entire wages in the current coin of the realm? For that purpose I turn again to the Truck Act, 1831, of which Section 2 says:

"If in any contract hereafter to be made between any artificer … and his employer, any provision shall be made directly or indirectly respecting the place where, or the manner in which. or the person or persons with whom, the whole or any part of the wages due or to become due to any such artificer shall be laid out or expended, such contract shall be and is hereby declared illegal, null, and void."

It means that if there are any such conditions in a contract of employment the employee can disregard the fact that he has been paid wages in kind or any wages at all in certain contracts and can claim them all over again. Section 3 of the Act uses these important words:

"The entire amount of the wages earned by or payable to any artificer … in respect of any labour by him done … shall be actually paid to such artificer in the current coin of this realm, and not otherwise."

Therefore, wages have to be paid to the employee engaged in manual work in the current coin of the realm and actually paid to him.

The next reference I want to make to the Act is to Section 4, which says:

"Every artificer … shall be entitled to recover from his employer … in the manner by law provided for the recovery of servants wages, or by any other lawful ways and means, the whole or so much of the wages earned by such artificer … as shall not have been actually paid to him by such his employer in the current coin of this realm."

An interesting exception to that general rule is included in the Truck Act, 1831. It authorises the payment of wages to a manual worker by cheque. That is done in Section 8, which defines a "cheque" very narrowly. It defines cheques as being

"drafts drawn upon … a banker … within fifteen miles of the place"

of the payment of the wages. It also says that the bank must be one which is licensed to issue bank notes. At present that provision is quite irrelevant.

Difficulties which have arisen about the existing law are mainly related to the definition of "manual worker" and the rather elaborate distinctions which have been drawn in cases which have come before the courts. For example, one can pay a bus conductor his wages by cheque, postal order or money order, yet one cannot so pay a bus driver or bus cleaner. If one does so one is committing a criminal offence. One can pay a train driver in any way one chooses, even in kind or by cheque, but not a bus driver. One can pay a goods guard in any way one chooses, but not a scene shifter or loom overlooker. One can pay a hairdresser in any way one chooses, but not a seamstress.

One gets extraordinary differences in the cases which have come before the courts. In many industries one could probably adopt a time-saving form of payment such as I am proposing in this Bill for part of the staff, those who are non-manual workers, but the very difficulty of distinguishing between what is a manual worker and what is a non-manual worker has prevented firms adopting such time-saving methods in the payment of wages. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that arguments against abolishing such anomalies seem to have nothing to do with the general purposes of the Truck Acts themselves. The Truck Acts were to combat the evil of payment of wages in kind, the evil of what was called the company shop, or the "tommy" shop. I understand that "tommy" in that phrase means bread or provisions.

A century or so ago the employer would set up his own retail shop and oblige his employees to buy their household provisions from that shop. On occasion, he would put the price of those goods up to an exorbitant figure so that the employees did not in reality receive full wages. There is no intention in this Bill of tampering with the provision against that, although I believe that in practice it is tampered with quite a lot today by the distribution of luncheon vouchers. However, I assure hon. Members that this Bill does not affect the luncheon voucher scheme in any way.

Clause 1, the language of which I think is simple and speaks for itself, says:

"Where a workman consents to the payment of his wages into a bank account specified by him, any payment so made …"—

I skip the words in parenthesis—

"shall be valid if it is made by means of an order to a banker."

This is not authorising or legalising the payment of wages by an encashable cheque. What I desire to regularise is the transfer of wages from an employer's bank account to an employee's bank account if the employee so wishes. That could be done either by a direction to the employer's bank to make the transfer or by a cheque specially crossed to a bank.

That means not a cheque encashable in any other way than by handing it across the counter of the bank specified in the crossing and that bank paying the money into the payee's account. I want to stress that the Bill does not and has no intention of legalising the payment of wages by an encashable cheque, a cheque which the employee could hand across the counter at his grocer's to be cashed. It is purely and simply to authorise a system of payment through bank accounts and thereby to give employers and employees freedom to do something which can harm no one but which, in fact, is at present forbidden by the Truck Acts.

Even assuming that there was something wrong, something oppressive or unfair, in this proposed reform, I wonder whether those in responsible positions in organised labour, in the trade unions, would wish Parliament to dictate the terms of a contract between an employer and an employee. I think not at present.

Nor at any time.

Nor at any time, but under the Truck Acts that is what was done. I wish to give freedom to the employer and employee to make a reasonable arrangement of this sort if they both wish to do so.

Clause 1 would abolish the anomalies between the manual and non-manual worker which I have mentioned and permit the adoption of this very reasonable payment through bank accounts if desired. Secondly, by encouraging the banking habit, I think it would encourage thrift among employees. It would do so if the banks would adopt the same sort of system as that which Canadian banks have adopted. In Canada, I understand, it is quite legal to pay wages through banks, or even by cheque. I am informed that the Canadian banks pay deposit interest on those wages. Apart from what the employee wants to take out each week, immediately the money is paid in it starts to earn interest. If banks here would adopt the same system it would be a great advantage and an encouragement to thrift among wage earners.

Thirdly, I think the Bill would achieve a saving of time in counting and paying wages in cash. This system of bagging up wages in cash takes a great deal of time. When hundreds of employees' wages have been bagged up one finds an odd penny or threepence left on the counter—something has gone wrong—and the process has to be gone over again. I feel sure cashiers who have done that will confirm that it takes a very long time. This was timed out in a hospital recently with a staff of 200. It was found that the bagging up of cash wages took some three hours, but the process could be reduced to less than one hour if the wages were paid merely by direction to the bank into an employee's bank account.

Will the hon. Member tell us whether in that calculation anything was added for the amount of time which would be taken for employees to go to the bank and collect their money?

Certainly not; I was dealing merely with the administration of the process. The hon. and learned Member is quite right in raising that point, and I shall deal with the advantages to the employee later. They set off the disadvantage of his having to go to the bank to receive his cash. Under present circumstances, we ought to seek to streamline administration as much as possible and do away with unproductive work such as the bagging up of wages.

A further point which Clause 1 might achieve is that it would reduce the transmission of cash from the bank to the employer's premises It would therefore reduce the number of wage-grab crimes—the violence about which we frequently read in the newspapers of a cashier being coshed because he is carrying wages from the bank to his employer's premises. This is a very humane consideration. If we could avoid those injuries to cashiers—indeed, if the Bill prevented the occurrence of only one of those crimes—it would well be worth passing it. We ought not to expose wage clerks to this type of violence by robbery if we can help it.

The fifth point is that it would undoubtedly reduce the inconvenience of many employees in having to travel some distance to the place where the wages are paid, to queue up at the pay desk and to spend a considerable time waiting. I am informed that where this system has been adopted, even in face of the Truck Acts, this point has weighed heavily with the employees. I think that answers the question put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who spoke of the time taken by the employee to go to the bank to get a cheque cashed. The employees of those concerns where this has been tried out—because it can be done for non-manual workers without alteration of the present law—have welcomed the fact that they have not had to travel to some other part of their employer's premises, which may be a considerable distance away from where they are working, to queue up for their wages. They welcome the fact that they can get the cash from their banks.

I am also told that their wives have welcomed it. By having a joint account, it has been possible for the wife to draw the shopping money on Friday morning and to do her shopping without waiting for her husband to come home with the cash on Friday night. In one case where this has been adopted, an arrangement has been reached with the bank that the employees' accounts are credited on the Wednesday of the week, even though the money from the employers does not go into the bank until the Friday. This arrangement with the bank enables the employee or his wife to draw on the account on the Thursday. That has been greatly welcomed, particularly by employees' wives, who can do their shopping on the Thursday or the Friday, thus leaving the Saturday free.

In order that he may temper his views with the consideration of some of the physical difficulties involved, may I ask the hon. Member what he proposes to do about the 500,000 rural employees, such as agricultural workers, county road workers, quarrymen and rural station staff, in whose case there is often no bank within five or six miles?

This is entirely permissive; there is no obligation. Indeed, employers could not force employees to accept the scheme. The hon. Member will see from later Clauses of the Bill that it depends entirely on the employee's consent. If the scheme is not convenient, the employee will not consent to the scheme. I understand that where it has been put to employees in an appropriate type of firm, within a town and within easy distance of banks, it has been accepted by employees as a real convenience to them.

Is it permissive? Is it not possible for an employer to say to an employee, "Unless you consent to this arrangement I will not employ you"?

No. I think that the organised labour within the trade unions would immediately object to that.

This seems to me to be the all-important point. What negotiations have there been with the T.U.C. about this? What talks has the hon. Member had? That will interest us immensely.

The wider question of the payment of wages by cheque came before the National Joint Advisory Council about a year ago and did not receive approval.

That is putting it mildly.

I have not received any violent objections. I would merely say that the proposal did not receive approval generally. In some spheres it was favourably received, but, generally speaking, from the trade union side it was not.

There are objections, from retailers as well as from employees, to the payment of wages by encashable cheque, and that is one of the main reasons I have not endeavoured in the Bill to go to the full limit of authorising the payment of wages by encashable cheque. Such a system raises great difficulties for retailers. It means that the local grocer and the local butcher, for example, are carrying the float for wages which the employer should carry, because the employee would go to the local shop with his cheque from the employer and endeavour to cash it with the retailer. That would be objectionable and would cause a great deal of trouble for the retailer.

This objection does not apply to the scheme which I suggest in the Bill. Perhaps I may quote to the House a letter which appeared in one of the popular daily newspapers; I do not know whether it is an argument for or against the payment of wages by cheque, but it was headed, "She wants a cheque, mate." The letter reads:

"I wish my husband was paid by cheque. Then he would never have a pocketful of ready money to fritter on pay night."

It is, of course, true that there is some objection to payment by cheque in that it causes a disclosure of the amount of wages, possibly to the employee's family and to the shopkeepers with whom he deals. I emphasise, however, that I am not suggesting the payment of wages by cheque. I am proposing the payment of wages into the employee's bank account if he wishes that to be done.

The question whether any employee will consent to this system was tested by Pye Radio. About two years ago they started a system for the payment of wages by cheque. They had to abandon it because some of their employees were manual workers and the Truck Acts prevented it. Nevertheless, they had an almost 100 per cent. response from the employees in favour of receiving their wages by cheque.

Has the hon. Member made any provision in the Bill, or does he propose to make any provision, to deal with bank charges? For example, if this system were operated in my constituency, most of my constituents would have practically no money left in the bank at the end of the year. The bank would, therefore, make charges against the depositor. Does the hon. Member propose to ask the employer to meet that charge in any way?

It is a matter of arrangement with the banks. I can inform the hon. Member that in the scheme which is now in operation at one concern of I.C.I. the banks have agreed not to take any charges from employees for a matter of six months to see how the scheme works. Naturally, there must be some arrangement between banks and employers to compensate the employee for bank charges in some way, because the employer, as well, as the employee, who is receiving a benefit out of this. It is a matter of arrangement with the banks, and it is a matter, too, which would come into account when the employee is being asked whether he consents to this form of payment. Again, I must stress that it is purely a matter of arrangement between the employer and the employee as to whether or not the scheme is adopted. All I seek to do is to legalise it where it is illegal under the Truck Acts.

Clause 2 has nothing whatever to do with cheques or bank accounts. Its purpose is to legalise what I might call the coinless payment of wages; that is to say, the payment of wages to a round figure of 10s. each week—what has been referred to as the "nos-nod" system—no shillings, no pence. It means the payment of the employee's wages in bank notes. This can go on indefinitely until the employee leaves, with the payment being to the nearest 10s. or below, or it can be done by settlement after, say, four weeks.

Those who have adopted this system for four-week periods find that there is a very great saving in time in the bagging up of wages. Unfortunately, for manual workers it is now illegal, because, as I quoted at the beginning, some Sections of the Truck Act lay down the paying to the manual employee of his entire wages each time they fall due. Again, it is a matter of streamlined administration if the employees agree. I can inform the House that this system is being tried out at the moment with a number of employees in the hospital across the river. The response from the employees is very good. They are very happy to receive their wages in that way. It affects only one class of the hospital's employees, and the scheme is proving of great administrative economy—

Would the hon. Gentleman explain how it would work in the following case? A person's regular weekly wage may add up every week to so many pounds and 4s. 9d. He will, therefore, get 4s. 9d. less than he has earned put into his fist at the end of the week. When does he get that back money? On the other hand, if the amount is so many pounds and 5s. 3d., so that he gets 4s. 9d. more each week than he has earned, when does he have to fork that out?

If it is on the basis of a settlement each four weeks, as in the case of the scheme I have just mentioned, in the fourth week he gets four times the 4s. 9d. There is, however, the further scheme of carrying on indefinitely and paying to the nearest 10s. each week, when what he may lose in one week he gains in the next. I am not, however, very much in favour of the indefinite period scheme. But the four-week scheme has proved a great administrative economy, and the House should be quite pleased with that as it is an administrative economy in Exchequer money in that hospital—

In the second case that I gave, the employee has to pay back 19s. to the employer at the end of each four-week period?

Under the four-week scheme he does not have to pay anything back. It is always to the nearest 10s. below—

rose—

I do not think I should give way any more, but—

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. In the fourth week the man gets 19s. short?

On the fourth week he gets four times 19s.—or 9s., because I calculated to the nearest 10s.—

So did I.

—and, in any case, I do not think that a Second Reading speech is the occasion to work out intricate mathematics. I can assure the House that, where it is in operation, the scheme is operating very well, and with economy. The Port of Bristol Authority is also operating it and has found that the time needed for payment of wages has been reduced by two-thirds as compared with the bagging up of wages needing coin.

The purpose of Clause 4 is merely to dispel the doubt as to whether or not wages can be paid by postal orders or money orders. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, such orders are not current coin of the realm. Bank notes are, by Statute, but postal orders and money orders have never been put into that category. There are many occasions when employees are working at a considerable distance from their employer's place of payment of wages. The building trade, civil engineering, lorry driving, forestry work and that sort of thing are examples where it has been necessary to send someone out to the employees—perhaps very many miles—to pay the wages in cash.

Incidents of this kind have come to my knowledge from overseas. The Truck Act was passed in 1831, and applies, therefore, to very many Colonial Territories. Where there are outworkers, perhaps a matter of a 100 miles away from where the cash is kept—on civil engineering work, or work of that nature—the employer is really breaking the law either by sending the cash through the post to the employee or sending the wages by postal or money order.

During the war, this point was realised in the employment of roadmen by county councils, and the County Roadmen (Payment of Wages) Order, 1942—Statutory Instrument 1644 of 1942—authorised the payment by county councils of roadmen's wages by cheque. The difficulty was clearly recognised then, and I think that it is rather a pity that that Order was ever revoked. We might have developed it a little further at the present time.

The present position is ridiculous. For example, if a man is sick, it is illegal for the employer to send his wages in cash through the post, or to send him a postal or money order—and. of course, it is illegal to send it by cheque. I think in that case the matter should be put right even without any prior agreement with the employee, because this so frequently occurs in an emergency and there seems to be no reason why, even without the employee's agreement, he should not receive his money by postal or money order. This Bill, therefore, does not require the agreement of the employee in this case.

Clause 5 represents an effort to clear up an anomaly over profit sharing. If a bonus is paid under a profit-sharing scheme—and if it is merely a bonus and the employer is under no obligation to pay it—it is legal to give the bonus to the employee in the form of shares, but if there is a contractual obligation on the employer to give the employee any part of the profits, it is illegal to make any agreement with the employee that he should receive any part of it in shares. I admit that this is, perhaps, a controversial Clause, but I think that it would do some good in encouraging profit-sharing schemes. Hon. Members might think that this is tampering too much with the Truck Acts, but it would clear up a rather peculiar anomaly that exists at present.

This Measure is not an effort to codify the Truck Acts in any way, or to remedy all the anomalies. I think that the time must come when we should codify the Truck Acts and bring them up to date, but this is not an effort to do that. It is an effort to remedy some of the anomalies that are in no way connected with the real purpose of the Truck Acts. I would ask the House to bear in mind that the Truck Acts were intended to protect people who were, at the time when the Acts were passed, unorganised, but who are now in the main, as manual workers, organised labour and well able within their organisations to look after themselves, to fend for themselves, and to know whether or not to enter into this sort of agreement with the employer. In fact, the Truck Acts might well be more appropriate at the present time to the non-manual worker—the office worker, for instance, who is not in an organised position. One may pay the office worker in any way one chooses; one may pay the whole of his wages in kind.

This is not an employers' Bill as such. It brings employers some benefits, of course, by administrative economies, but I think it brings greater conveniences to the employees. It is not a bankers' Bill. In fact, it has received rather a cold reception from the bankers in this country—not in the United States and Canada where the payment of wages through a bank account is well accepted. I think this is an employees' Bill in that it would give great conveniences to the employee. It would certainly be what I might term a National Savings Bill because it would encourage thrift, through the banking habit, and it would reduce time spent in unproductive work.

I have every reason to thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for having drawn our attention to the various anomalies in the Truck Acts and for having suggested some remedies. On the other hand, I certainly do not feel that this is the sort of matter in which we could possibly legislate on the nod. I feel that we must take what he has done as a suggestion, which I hope the Government will consider very seriously the next Session.

This certainly is not the sort of Bill which we should pass now. Indeed, it is not the sort of Bill which should become law through the private Members' procedure at all. 'The private Members' procedure really may be divided into two heads. There is the sort of Act which deals with a very limited interest or a very limited point. We had a very typical one, an anomaly concerning the registration of medical practitioners, which is just the subject which one can tidy up in a Private Member's Bill. That is the first function of private Members' legislation, and that is the part of the private Members' procedure which may result immediately in law.

The other class of Private Member's Bill procedure involves the Bill which is not designed of itself to become law because it deals with a general subject, but is designed as a suggestion to the Government whose function it is to deal with legislation of wide and general effect, and which becomes law if the Government adopts it, and then carries out the appropriate negotiations for this type of legislation.

Frankly, to interfere with the Truck Acts on a wide front without discussing the matter with the trade unions and at least getting their views on the matter would be, I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, unthinkable in modern circumstances. It is not something which this House should do, or, I think, would dream of doing. But the hon. Member has brought forward—

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say why a Private Member's Bill should be so limited as he has suggested?

Because of the convenience in needs of our procedure. I suppose it boils down almost to representative Government.

We believe not in democracy as such, which is a totally unworkable system; we believe in representative democracy—that is to say, authorising, trusting, accepting representatives. Within our Parliamentary system we provide a Government. That Government is the representative whom we have appointed of the general interest, and it is for the Government to deal with legislation, because it is the representative body which this House has created to deal with legislation that affects wide interests. That is why our procedure provides no opportunity for the Opposition to offer legislation—because the Opposition is not the representative body which has been created by this House.

That is, in rather wide terms, what I think the constitutional point is here. But to private Members a limited field of legislation is reserved. It is a field which is useful in dealing with small issues, issues which do not affect on balance wide interests within the community. If, as in this Bill, a suggestion is brought forward affecting those wide interests, that system is brought outside the field of the machinery which is available to private Members. Private Members have not got the machinery for consultation with the T.U.C., the Co-operatives, the trade unions or the bankers, with all the wide interests of people who will be affected by this legislation and who must be consulted before a responsible decision can be taken.

I have been rather long and discursive in the rather wide question which the hon. Gentleman put to me, but I believe that within our Parliamentary procedure one must accept the limitations that apply, and to private Members there are very real limitations that apply within the field of legislation which they can initiate.

I rather gathered from the hon. Member for Crosby that he recognises that this can only be a suggestion to the Government. The next move rests with the Government. It is, I think, too late in this Session to take this Bill further, but I feel that this is a subject which the Government certainly ought to consider the next Session, when there will be time to deal with it. For my part, I feel that the hon. Member for Crosby, in a most interesting speech moving the Second Reading of his Bill, certainly made that case.

I must begin by firmly disagreeing, regretfully, with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in his view that private Members should not introduce Bills affecting wide interests. Wide interests, however important, can find their expression in this House whether there have been prior consultations or not. Of course, in the Private Member's Bill procedure, if there is strong opposition to a Bill, inevitably it will be killed. But there are many Private Members' Bills affecting wide interests which do secure passage through the House, and I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not stood up for the interests of private Members and their right to introduce legislation in the House.

It is probably my fault for not making myself clear. The hon. and learned Member has not understood what I said. I said that, if a private Member—this is one of the functions of private Members' legislation—goes into the wider issues, he can do so only in the sense of making a suggestion to the Government. Unless the Government, either by providing the time and leaving it to a free vote of the House, or by adopting the Bill and making it their own, are prepared to take up the suggestion, the private Member must recognise that his Bill cannot go beyond the suggestion stage.

That interjection seems to amount to saying that such Bills have a better chance if the Government support them, as, indeed, we all know is the case in respect of all Private Members' Bills.

I propose to devote a few minutes to a consideration of the advantages of this particular Bill, to which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton did not devote any of his speech. It has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that the only people at present affected by the Truck Acts are those known as manual workers. The definition of "workman" for this purpose is

"any person who, being a labourer, servant in husbandry, journeyman, artificer, handicraftsman, miner, or otherwise engaged in manual labour,… has entered into or works under a contract with an employer."

To persons in that category, according to the present law, wages must be paid in current coin of the realm and in no other manner, but to all other employees within the United Kingdom it is perfectly legitimate to pay their wages in any manner that the employer desires, whether the employee consents or not.

We have, therefore, this extraordinary situation. A grocer's assistant who does not serve in the shop, a foreman carpenter, an omnibus driver who does not do repairs to his vehicle, a conductress, a clerk or typist, or any member of the office staff, a domestic servant, a public house potman, or a hairdresser, can be paid in a manner otherwise than in current coin of the realm, but if an employee comes within the category of manual worker he must be paid in current coin of the realm.

As an example, if a lady comes to sweep up for an hour or so in one's domestic premises, she can be paid by cheque or in any other manner, but if she then steps round to one's business or professional premises and there sweeps up, she becomes a manual labourer and must be paid only in current coin of the realm.

While this may have been a sensible provision when the class of manual workers, in the early 1830s, was a depressed class, to whom it was essential that wages should be paid in current coin of the realm, a very different situation arises today. Such distinctions in the payment of wages are now really wholly anomalous. For instance, in or near my division, where the motor car industry flourishes and where very high wages indeed are paid, the persons who are, as it were, the manual labourers in that industry—the artificers, skilled men and handicraftmen—are earning very much higher wages than those earned by the office staff, by the clerks, typists and non-manual workers within the same industry.

We have the odd position that those earning high wages, perhaps over £20 a week, may not have their wages paid to them by cheque or other means even though both employer and employee would like it, whereas those paid lower wages in the offices can have their wages paid to them by cheque even though they, the employees, do not particularly want it.

There are other anomalies. I am told that, in my division, many of the apprentices attending technical school for instruction are drawing wages higher than those of the staff employed to instruct them. The staff employed to instruct them can be paid by cheque, but the apprentices, if engaged in some form of manual labour, can be paid only in the current coin of the realm. In this situation, I respectfully submit to the House that the only sensible thing to do is to pass legislation which is permissive only and does not place any obligation whatever upon a manual employee to accept his wages other than in current coin of the realm.

In one way, the suggestion contained in Clause 1 of the Bill does not go nearly so far as the provisions of the Truck Acts went in those earlier days. The Truck Act of 1831 provided that wages could lawfully be paid by orders for the payment of money to the bearer on demand drawn on any banker. As I understand, that means an encashable cheque or any other form of cheque.

There were, however, three limitations put by the Truck Act of 1831 upon payment by cheque drawn on a banker. First, the cheque had to be drawn only on a certain category of banker, namely, those bankers licensed to issue bank notes by the Revenue, who would, presumably, be the more substantial bankers in those days. One knows that, at that time, there were a good many bank failures, but not by those who were in the category entitled to issue bank notes as part of the currency used in the realm. Whatever one may say about bankers, whatever views one may have about them from a political or other point of view, it can at least be said that nowadays they do not fail. That safeguard is, therefore, no longer necessary.

Secondly, the bank had to be within 15 miles of the place of payment of the order. Thirdly—this is important—such a payment by order on a banker could be made only if the workman freely consented to receive such order. Thus, in 1831, one could pay by an encashable cheque, but only if the workman freely consented to receive payment by that means.

Are not all those three principles and qualifications preserved in this Bill by the proposals of Clause 1, which goes very much less far than did the provisions of the 1831 Act? As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby pointed out, it is not intended to allow payment to be by any form of order payable on demand. It must be either a transfer into the bank or an order encashable only at the bank of the payee and, therefore, not by any negotiable instrument which may be cashed at any other place.

But even so far as his limited proposal is concerned, he is providing that payment can be made by means of responsible and reliable bankers such as exist today. In the old days there was a limit of 15 miles within the place of payment, but at present, with the improvement in communications and postal facilities, there surely cannot be much difficulty in getting the cheque to the bank or in an employee receiving payment from his bank.

There are, of course, many people living in the country, as has been pointed out, to whom it may be exceedingly inconvenient to receive payment into a bank; but there is no obligation of any sort or description upon them to receive payment by money order. Therefore, whatever may be said about the workmen consenting, to strengthen the provisions it might be possible to add a Clause in Committee to the effect that any attempt to bring pressure to bear on a workman to receive his wages by payment to his bank is a criminal offence subject to a penalty, or other safeguards could be included if they are thought necessary.

It is plain that the intention of the Bill as drafted is that the workman should have the option whether he receives his wages by a money order through a bank. Like everybody else, I fully realise that there are thousands of people who do not want a bank account and who would not want to pay bank charges. Thousands of people are paid at such a rate of wage that they need the cash on pay day and, therefore, do not want the trouble of going to the bank but want the cash as soon as possible to carry them over to their next pay day. Because there are these people, that is no reason why those to whom it would be a great convenience to receive payment by cheque or money order should not have Clause 1 approved by the House so that when suitable for them and their employers payment can be made in such a way.

Turning to Clause 2, it appears that hon. Members who interposed to question my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby did not exactly understand the provisions of this Clause. As I read the Clause, the position never arises at any stage when a sum of money is repayable by the workman to his employer. What happens is that if there are odd shillings or pence beyond the round 10s. or 1 in any one week, the employer retains the odd money for either the four week period or until it amounts to another 10s.

If a man's wages amount to £10 5s. 3d. in a given week, then in that week he will receive £10 and the employer will retain as trustee for him the sum of 5s. 3d. If the man's wages are again 10 5s. 3d. the next week, the 5s. 3d. already retained by the employer is added, so that the total amount due to the employee is £10 10s. 6d. He then receives in notes £10 10s. and the odd 6d. is retained for his credit. In the following week another 5s. 3d. makes the amount retained by the employer 5s. 9d. for the credit of the worker. In the week after that, the worker will get an extra 10s. plus a credit in respect of the money left over.

That is on the 10s. basis. On the basis of the four-week period, which, I understand, is operating in the hospital on the other side of the river, the 5s. 3d. is retained each week by the employer as a trustee for the employee, so that at the end of the four-week period £1 1s. is due to him which is paid in addition to his wage of £10. At no time under the proposals can the situation arise whereby the employee is repaying money to his employer, because the odd shillings and pence are being retained by the employer as trustee for the workman. From that point of view, this seems to be a sensible arrangement. It is entirely permissive and entirely subject to the approval of the workman who is content that small sums should be retained by his employer on his behalf.

The only other point which I desire to discuss arises on Clause 4. It may be that this is largely a Committee point. It is not plain whether the Bill is intended to entitle payment by postal money order or postal order or by money orders generally, because money orders can be drawn on banks and other institutions. Therefore, I think that some tidying up is required in this Clause to make clear within what limits the workman can, in an emergency, be paid otherwise than in current coin of the realm in accordance with its provisions.

I support the Bill on the basis that it is purely and solely permissive and is subject at all times in its provisions to the consent of the worker who is affected. While there may be hundreds of thousands of workers who would not, under any circumstances, desire to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill, there must be many hundreds of thousands of others who would find it a great convenience. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) made an extremely interesting speech, and I agree that we are indebted to him for drawing particular attention to the anomalies that undoubtedly result from the provisions of the Truck Acts.

However, I am inclined to agree with the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), when he said that this proposal is not the sort of thing that ought to be dealt with by means of a Private Member's Bill. I do not say that I agree with the criticisms of my hon. and learned Friend and the conditions that he laid down as to what a Private Member's Bill ought to deal with, but I think that these anomalies and this grievance should not be sought to be remedied by the provisions of a Private Member's Bill in this way.

After all, a vital change is proposed in connection with the payment of manual workmen and labourers, and I should have thought that it was an important condition precedent that before one introduces legislation of this kind there ought to be discussion with representative bodies of labour and agreement reached on the changes which are proposed. That has not been done. In fact, the hon. Member for Crosby referred to a certain measure of disapproval by such a body in connection with an innovation proposed in the Bill.

The Bill does introduce changes and it may be that some of them are very good changes that ought to be made. But in dealing with a subject of this kind it surely is only proper that the Government should consider these anomalies and introduce remedies only after they have had proper consultation with the representative bodies of labour. One of the things that occurred to me as most important was the subject matter of an interjection on my part. Again and again in the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. John Hobson) reference was made to the fact that the Bill is all right because the consent of the workmen has to be obtained and that it is permissive. If a person does not want it he need not have it. I do not think that that assumption is correct. It is true that on the face of the Bill it is clear in each of the provisions that they are not to be brought into force unless consent is given.

It is so easy to get consent which is not free consent on the part of the workman. Suppose a workman is taking up a job. The employer may say, "One of the conditions of your entering into this employment is that you consent to the provisions set out in the Bill." What chance has the employee if his employment depends upon his giving consent, and if that is made a term of the contract of employment?

Is not that one of the responsibilities of the trade union?

It has to be remembered that an employee asking for work has to listen to the employer. He may want the employment very much. Indeed, it may be essential to him. If the employer says to him that, as a condition of having the employment, he must consent to these provisions, it is idle to talk about it being a voluntary agreement on the part of the worker. It is consent as a term of contract. I think that that is a serious criticism of the proposed imposition of these provisions.

I appreciate the hon. and learned Member's argument, but would he go as far as to say that we should legislate to apply the Truck Acts to all workers, non-manual as well as manual? That is the logic of his argument.

I do not agree that that is the logic of my argument. I agree that there are anomalies in the Truck Acts and that those anomalies ought to be examined, and I agree that changes may well be made and might well be of benefit. The point I have made is that we should not carry out those changes in this way. I am pointing out, by way of criticism of the provisions of a very good Private Member's Bill, that the plea that these changes would be made only with the worker's consent is not a true account of what would happen, because it would not necessarily be the free consent of the worker in every case.

If we examine the Bill further, there are other criticisms. Clause 1 requires the workman's consent to the payment of his wages

"into a bank account specified by him".

That presupposes that he has a bank account, or that he can specify some bank account into which payment must be made. Suppose that he has not a bank account. Suppose that he has not a bank account which can be "specified by him". Suppose that the employer, at the beginning of the employment, says to him, "As a term of your employment, you must consent to this arrangement". It seems to me that this would place an undue burden on the workman.

Turning to Clause 2, why should we have an arrangement, however convenient, whereby the employer retains for a period of time a sum of money which belongs to and can be spent by the workman at the time that he is entitled to receive it? Why should the employer be entitled to retain in his hands up to 10s. and not to pay it out to the workman at the proper time? The answer given may be that the workman consents to it, but the same criticism arises as I have made earlier; it is not a question of the employee freely consenting.

Clause 4 validates payment of wages by money order or postal order. If the employee consents he can be paid by postal order. This means that the employee has to join the queue at the Post Office and wait for payment over the counter of money due to him but paid to him by a postal order. Look at the difficulty we create for a workman from that point of view. The hon. Member referred to the fact that the Truck Acts make it illegal for payment to be made in kind. They also make it essential—apart from the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Crosby—that the workman shall receive into his hands the payment of the actual money—and that is very important from the workman's point of view. Even in modern conditions, not in 1831, consider how important it is that when he is paid the workman shall have in his hand the actual cash, the money, which he can take home to his wife so that they may spend it immediately. The Bill strikes at that right on the part of the worker. Difficulties would be put in his way.

I agree entirely that the anomalies resulting from the Truck Acts ought to be examined. I believe that certain remedies could be suggested, but I believe that they should be effected only after proper consultation by the Government with representative bodies of labour and not through a Private Member's Bill of this character.

I rise to support the Bill. I think that we should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for introducing a Bill of this character. I have heard what has been said by the hon. and learned Members for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) about the character of Private Members' Bills, but I have frequently been a critic of Bills introduced by private Members because only too often they are concerned with a niggling interference with the proper freedom of the subject. Consequently, I am glad to support a Bill introduced by a back bench Member the object of which is to enlarge in some degree the freedom of the subject. I wish that all Private Members' Bills were of that character.

The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North made one valid criticism, pointing out that the fact that the provisions of the Bill depend on the workman's consent is not in itself a conclusive argument in its favour. I have not verified the position, but I shall be surprised if the legal position in the nineteenth century is not that at all times, or, at any rate, usually, the workman is entitled in law to sue for his wages to be paid in legal tender. That is the general common law of England.

What made the truck system oppressive was the fact that employers at that time had so much the whip hand that, in practice, they could enforce the truck system upon their employees, either by making it a term of contract of employment or, without making it a term of contract, by threatening to sack a man if he did not agree to the truck system. I therefore agree with the hon. and learned Member that consent by the workman is not a final justification of the provisions of the Bill.

What we must do, however, is try to ascertain what is reasonable at any time. The truck system was one of the great abuses of the nineteenth century and was a great hardship to the workers. Nobody imagines for one moment that any such danger threatens the workman today.

The proposal in the Bill is not to take away from the workman the general protection of the Truck Acts. I should be the last person to agree to that; I should think it very dangerous indeed if we made it even permissive for the employer and the employee to consent together that part of the wages should be paid in kind. That is the type of thing which is difficult to control, and it is a change which we should hesitate to make.

What is proposed here, however, is simply that the current coin of the realm should be understood to include a balance in the bank. If we apply the test of what is reasonable in the conditions of the time in which we live, I am bound to say that it appears to me to be archaic that in the middle of the twentieth century we make it legally compulsory to pay people by carting round physically vast quantities of what is euphemistically described as current coin of the realm.

If this business of physical movement, of physical pressing into palm, is so important in this age, one must look askance at the bank notes which form a major part of our money these days and which are not themselves really current coin of the realm, but a promise to pay on demand a sum of £1 or whatever it may be. No one in his senses imagines that a note issued by the Bank of England, which is legal tender, when paid to a workman, restricts that man's freedom or damages the principle of the Truck Acts. We made that change by Statute and nobody would want to reverse it.

Nobody seems worried when, by Statute, we allow a man to consent to deducting from his wages by his employer of a sum for National Savings to be put at the employee's request into a Post Office or into National Savings Certificates. In effect, he is partly paid in current coin of the realm put into his hand, and partly by a balance in the Post Office Savings Bank. The only difference on which one can place one's finger is that the balance so allocated would normally carry interest, although if it were put in the Post Office Bank and were less than £ 1 it would carry no interest and the effect of both kinds of payment would be parallel.

Parliament has not shrunk from this or thought it unwise. On the contrary, it has been considered a desirable end of public policy to try to encourage the manual worker to get away from a state of affairs in which he lives from week to week with money put into his hand and directly applied to the purposes of that week. It is not in itself a very healthy state of society. One of the reasons why we in Britain have been more energetic and successful in our commercial enterprises is that the habit of putting money into the bank or other form of savings has been so widely spread among all classes of the community for many generations past. Therefore, unless there is very cogent objection to this provision, I believe that it is one which the House should encourage as desirable in itself.

There is, of course, the additional, very strong consideration to which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has referred, that this physical transport of large sums of cash nowadays is a frequent source of crime. It exposes people who carry wages around to considerable danger from snatch raids. Many people have been seriously injured while carrying wages. When one compares all these advantages on the one side with any disadvantages apprehended on the other, it seems to be a very unequal balance. I cannot really see what disadvantage a workman could suffer at all.

The Truck Acts were primarily aimed at ensuring that a workman was paid in something which was freely convertible when he wanted it, and a balance in a joint stock bank is freely convertible in that way. I am very pleased if these arguments which I am addressing to the House have created such an impression that the Opposition, apparently, are now discussing actively whether they will lend support to the Bill. It will be interesting to hear, when the discussion is concluded, something of their purport and outcome.

There is one small reservation I would wish to make about the Bill's provisions. I am not very happy about Clause 4, which authorises payment of a workman who is working some distance away from the headquarters of his firm, by postal order or money order. I see that that Clause is not made dependent upon the consent of the workman in any way. It is something to which he must agree. His wages will be deemed to have been paid if the employer despatches by registered post to his last known address the amount of the wages in a money order or postal order. I should like to have that considered in Committee. Some safeguard should be provided there.

The man is entitled to be paid and undoubtedly should be paid either in cash or a bank balance, but I do not think it proper that it should be sufficient to say that because a money order or postal order has been sent by registered post to his last known address the man has been paid, whether he received the money or not and whether he consented or not to that being done. I am not very enthusiastic about that and I should certainly want to amend it in Committee.

The main provision of the Bill is certainly an advance which we must make sometime or another. The present method of paying wages is an anachronism and I think that people would be surprised at the response from manual workers if we passed the Bill. I believe that they would actually ask that their wages should be paid in future by cheque. I believe that there is a real desire for this to happen and that at present, by the old statute law, we are actually stopping our fellow men from doing something which they very much want to do.

Most hon. Members who have spoken from this side have voiced some misgivings about the Bill, I, too, have misgivings, if not about the principle or the purpose, about whether the Bill has had sufficient examination and discussion in relation to the vast repercussions which it would have, even if it were passed with Amendments. The whole question boils down to the matter of consent, as has been made clear from this side of the House, and the mechanics of consent in the industrial world of today, as at all times, are rather difficult to define.

It is true that in a well-organised industry like the railways, coal mines and iron and steel there should be very little difficulty about the trade unions ensuring that no man was penalised because he was reluctant to give consent. But there is a vast field of employment where trade union restraints do not apply and the individual employee is largely at the mercy of the employer who can apply various pressures. It is very difficult for the individual employee to object, if he is the only objector in a small staff, when the employer has persuaded the rest of the staff by some means or another to accept. The objector's position would be a very invidious one.

I should have thought that in a matter of this kind which has such wide repercussions it would have been better if the Government had been in favour of giving time to an official Bill, when all the proper checks and discussions could have taken place beforehand, or if the sponsors of the present Bill had explored the matter very thoroughly with representatives of the T.U.C. and other similar bodies.

The hon. Member will appreciate that this matter was discussed very fully in the International Labour Organisation as long ago as 1949, when a resolution was then passed which, if I may interrupt his speech, I will read to the House. It is Article 3 of the I.L.O. Convention, No. 95 (Protection of Wages Convention, 1949) and reads as follows:

"1. Wages payable in money shall be paid only in legal tender, and payment in the form of promissory notes, vouchers or coupons, or in any other form alleged to represent legal tender, shall be prohibited.

2. The competent authority may permit or prescribe the payments of wages by bank cheque or postal cheque or money order in cases in which payment in this manner is customary or is necessary because of special circumstances, or where a collective agreement or arbitration award so provides, or, where not so provided, with the consent of the worker concerned."

That resolution was passed after debate at the I.L.O.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us that information. No one has more respect for the International Labour Organisation than I have and no one who would be more prepared to see the almost automatic adoption by this country of the conventions of the International Labour Organisation, but that has not been the practice, and even less has it been the practice under the present Government than under the previous Government.

After all, it is generally accepted in this country by Governments of all parties that the International Labour Organisation's conventions or recommendations are standards which are laid down and are subject to various factors operating in different countries, standards of relations between individuals, social standards which have been established and which must be broken down rather gradually. If they are broken down something less than gradually, then it should be as the result of a first-class Measure fully discussed in the Parliament of the country concerned so that all the interests are well examined before any step is taken even in the implementation of an International Labour Organisation convention.

It is on that point that I am really concerned here. I want to be a little bold, perhaps, by illustrating some of the difficulties which might arise unless the assurance can be embodied in the Bill that in each case every individual will be completely safeguarded against any pressure; in other words, that every consent by every individual will be a genuine consent. Even then we should be running into an awful lot of trouble.

For example, it may be a very good thing or a very bad thing that workmen should not declare to their wives the amount of their weekly wages. It happens to be the case that in this country there are millions of workmen who do not tell their wives what they earn. There are millions of women who do not know how much their menfolk earn, and there may be millions who are not particularly interested in knowing, except as an academic exercise, because it happens to be the standard in millions of families, recognised by the wives as by the men, that the man, the legally responsible person for the family expenditure, should be the person responsible for handling the income. So long as the wife receives sufficient housekeeping money and so long as the house is well looked after and the man is a good husband, everybody is happy.

Resentment might be caused if by some Measure of this kind put through the House of Commons on a Friday with very few Members being present and one which had not been thoroughly examined and discussed and been through all the channels open to the Government, it were suddenly found that by these improper pressures on the part of employers millions of men had to open banking accounts, probably jointly with their wives or at least in such a form that their whole income was disclosed. It may be that the balance of life might be seriously affected. On the other hand—

Did not my hon. Friend hear what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said, that there may be joint banking accounts, that the employer would pay in on a Wednesday the wages that were due on Friday and that the wife could turn up on Thursday morning, wipe the account clean and elope with the lot.

Precisely. I was going to develop that point.

On the other hand, there is the other type of family where, in fact, the workman takes his wage packet home and hands it to the wife and where the wife is responsible for handling the money. In those cases, millions of wives might object very strongly if the men double crossed them and gave their consent to having their money paid into the bank and the wives were unable to handle it.

It may be deplorable that these marital arrangements exist. However, they do exist and they happen to be deeply grounded in millions of families. We should be running into very serious trouble if suddenly, by a single simple Measure passed on a Friday, we changed all that. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out the possible case where the husband, being legally responsible for the finances of the family, might find on the Friday that the joint account had been wiped clean and that there was no money in it. That, again, could lead to very serious difficulties.

These are not frivolous observations. I hope that they are not immoral observations. They are observations which take into account long-established social practices within families which, even if they are to be deplored, if changed would have to be changed in a somewhat different fashion. If they are to be changed abruptly they should only be changed after the fullest consultations and under the full responsibility of a Government Measure.

Therefore, whilst joining in the congratulations that have been showered on the hon. Member for Crosby for bringing this problem before the House and the country, I think that we shall have to be very careful what we do. I recognise, as many of my hon. Friends recognise, that there are problems here, problems of economic procedure, of practical procedure, of streamlining and of avoiding the great temptations of crime. The rather crude system of men carrying big bags of silver in taxis and carrying them out on to the pavement where, perhaps, there is a boy with a revolver in his pocket, who is afraid to use it anyhow and has not the time, is all very stupid.

I know that many of these things must be changed. Therefore, we are grateful to the hon. Member for having brought the matter to our attention. I hope that this discussion will convince the Government that something on the lines of the Bill will have to be thoroughly examined and brought before the House, something more comprehensive than the Bill we are discussing, after the fullest discussion with and examination by trade union representatives and others of the implications of such a Measure and the adjustments that would have to be made.

Whilst being anxious to give the hon. Member for Crosby every encouragement—and I should be delighted to do so if it were merely a matter of a resolution or a recommendation such as those of the International Labour Organisation which would be an instruction to the Government to produce an appropriate Measure, in which case I would be happy to go into the Lobby and support it—I feel that this Bill is neither a recommendation nor a convention. It is a Bill which would become law if passed by the House. In view of the considerations I have mentioned, I feel that we should be a little too precipitate if we passed the Bill in its present form without taking further into consideration all the difficulties that may arise.

Judging by the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) and by the interjection of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), if that trend of argument proceeds very much further it seems to me that the Bill may not be designated as the Wages Bill, but as the "Housewives Charter".

I am sure that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will not be surprised at my misgivings about the Bill. He was good enough when he first introduced a Bill, which his own good judgment caused him to withdraw, to discuss the matter with me, when I indicated to him the very serious objections that the trade union movement had to what he then proposed to do. The hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to withdraw the Bill notwithstanding at that time the rather subtle encouragement given by the Minister of Labour. Subsequently the Minister saw the red light.

The trouble about this Bill is that it arouses a lot of prejudice. It will require something more than a Private Member's Bill, sponsored only by the hon. Member for Crosby, to overcome the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman has talked about the economy which will stem from the payment of wages to manual workers in the way he has indicated. But he has ignored the physical difficulties, and the real dangers to the worker's interests which may follow the passing of this Measure, and the repercussions that might follow if employers were so minded to exploit its provisions. I do not think that I am over-estimating when I say that, roughly speaking, there must be about 500,000 manual workers. I know that there are 300,000 in local government.

Many more than that.

I am putting it at 500,000. I am talking about rural manual workers in the strict sense of the term. It will meet my point not to overstate my case.

In Clause 1 the hon. Gentleman refers to consent in relation to the proposal which he makes. That is the operative Clause of the Bill. If a workman agrees and opens a banking account, and he is paid by means of a bank order, what happens? Take the case of road workers in rural areas. Where is their bank?

The branch of the "Co-op."

There is no "Co-op" bank branch. There is no branch of a bank at all, not even of the Co-operative bank of Which I am a member.

I am a shareholder.

So am I—perhaps I had better declare an interest.

Where is the bank which these people could use? I could quote cases where the nearest branch would be 10 or 15 miles away from their work, and because the man would always be at work during banking hours, the only person capable of drawing the wages by a bank order would be his wife. The sequel would be that were he paid by cheque, or any other money order as happened up until recently—particularly in the case of local government employees—it would again be the case of "pubs" and grocers shops being the places where the wages cheques of the working people were cashed. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, will raise a lot of prejudice and hostility by the introduction of this Bill. I think that its provisions would become inoperative because of the physical difficulties which I have outlined.

Reference is made in Clause 1 to the consent of the worker. How is that to be expressed? Will it be by word of mouth between the workmen and his employer? There must be a proper formula governing the expression of consent and particularly its revocation, but there is no indication of that at all. The hon. Gentleman is sufficiently acquainted with human nature to know that if the present unemployment figure was increased from 2 per cent. to, say, 5 per cent., and a man was competing with two or three workmates for a job, and his employer said, "I want you to open a banking account", the man would say, "Yes, guv'nor I will". That would not be his freely expressed consent. It would be consent by economic duress. That cuts right across the concept of a collective act of consent and thus of collective bargaining. It is related to the individual's consent and not to any representatively expressed consent.

Concerning Clause 5, the hon. Gentleman does not say whether there is to be any payment in kind as well as cash. He speaks of shares in the Explanatory Memorandum, but that does not appear in the Clause. I admire the industry of the hon. Gentleman and I would never discourage him from being weary in well-doing, but I wish his industry were allied to more useful and important projects than this Bill. The hon. Gentleman should consider introducing an all-party Measure and obtain the consent of the T.U.C., and, indeed, of the F.B.I.

My main objection to the Bill is that while it is called a Wages Bill it is, in my opinion, a paving amendment to something bigger in the way of legislation which could be introduced to restore once again in rural areas the old vicious system—as it turned out to be in practice—of the payment of wages by cheque. Here let me declare an interest, as an officer of the National Union of Public Employees, which spent thousands of pounds fighting county councils to get rid of the iniquitous system of paying workmen by cheque.

rose—

The right hon. Gentleman can speak only by leave of the House, since he has already spoken.

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I did not gather what you said.

I said that the right hon. Gentleman should ask the leave of the House to speak again, as I understand he has already spoken once.

Yes, on 18th April. That is so. I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. That had me confused for a moment. I thought that you were referring to today and that I might have made a speech without knowing it.

If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I will not detain it for very long, I recollect that on 18th April the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) introduced this Bill and because of the shortness of time—there being only two minutes available—he moved it formally. On that occasion I drew his attention to the fact that this was a Bill requiring some explanation from its sponsor, because I felt that there would be many people wishing to raise objections to its details. The hon. Member will, I think, agree that the discussion today has shown that I was correct.

I think that if the hon. Member for Crosby were to make a short reply, he would say that the objections that have been raised were not really legitimate objections, because nothing happened unless the workman consented to do it. For the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), and from the experience which many people have had in the trade union movement and in industry generally, we are well aware that we can get coercion of a quiet kind, but, nevertheless, coercion, to consent to something of this character, which, if the workman was absolutely free, he probably would not accept the idea of wages paid by cheque at all.

No one would deny that the principle is not worth considering, or that there are thousands of people among the classes of workers who are now covered by the Truck Acts who would be glad to have their wages paid by cheque. Nevertheless, as has been stated by hon. Members, there are a number of serious practical objections. I will not deal with any of the practical objections, to save the time of the House, because there is no point in repeating them, however differently they may be put.

The only case that I want to make against the House agreeing the Second Reading of this Bill today is that I believe that a Bill involving this great principle needs further consideration. After all, the Truck Acts were not passed without great consideration of all the issues that surrounded the actions of the day, and it would be quite wrong for us to breach the Truck Acts by reason of a simple Bill of this character which had not previously been thoroughly explored by all the interests concerned.

This is not just a little Bill to facilitate the payment of wages, to produce economies, to which the hon. Member has referred, to prevent a good deal of loose cash being carried around in the streets, or to prevent burglaries, smash-and-grab raids and that sort of thing. This is not a Bill to do that. It is a Bill to breach the Truck Acts. If there is to be a Bill to breach the Truck Acts and perform this function, which, in principle, may be perfectly legitimate, then the employers' organisations, the trade union organisations and the Ministry of Labour should be the people to investigate thoroughly the whole process and discover what may emerge from the passing of a Bill of this character.

Indeed, I would have thought that this would have deserved the attention of a committee to be set up, possibly, by the Minister of Labour to investigate it, upon which would sit representatives of both workers and employers, and which could produce a report out of which may emerge, it may well be, some modified legislation, something like this Bill, to meet the situation, but without any of the objections to which reference has been made today.

I do not damn the principle of the Bill at all. All I say is that because of the importance of the Bill, it should be dealt with in a rather different way. We can thank the hon. Member for Crosby for giving us the opportunity of expressing our views on what is an important matter. Although, perhaps, when the hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill, we thought that it was to deal with a small and simple matter, it proves to be something a little bigger than that.

Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has served his purpose well. He has drawn the attention of the House to something quite important. We have aired it and we have indicated some of the imperfections, weaknesses and difficulties that may arise. I wonder Whether the hon. Member's purpose has not now been fully explored, and whether he would not think that the best way to get the principle adopted would be to invite the Minister who is representing the Government today to give this matter his consideration, and perhaps discuss it with his colleagues with a view perhaps to some other action being taken along the lines which I have stated. In that case, it may be that the hon. Gentleman may seek the permission of yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House to withdraw the Bill.

This is not something which we damn out of hand; I certainly do not. I merely say that it is a breach of the Truck Acts, and that that is a very important matter. It is wrong that, without detailed and serious consideration of all that is involved, we should be asked to pass such a Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby, after accepting our thanks for giving us the opportunity of discussing what is quite an important matter, may feel that, provided the Minister is able to say that he can do something along these lines, he can withdraw the Bill, rather than put it to a vote of the House today.

Perhaps I may be allowed to follow the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) in order very briefly to state the thoughts of the Government on the Bill.

First of all, the Government believe that some of the objectives which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said were in front of him have a great deal to commend them, and, if I may say so without presumption, I think that my hon. Friend when he introduced the Bill to us this morning made an extremely able and well-informed speech, which I was very glad to hear. There is certainly a great deal to be said—and this seems to have had support on both sides of the House—tor trying to sort out some of the anomalies created by the Truck Acts. My hon. Friend drew attention to a number of these anomalies, and the right hon. Member for Blyth has just been referring to them. My hon. Friend made clear how extremely complicated this matter is and how very deep the roots of the whole confusion seem to go. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) drew our attention in an interjection to certain other complications which arise.

The position is that the Government feel that it is impossible, and here again I am echoing a number of things which have been said this morning, to deal with this immense task in the way which my hon. Friends suggests by means of a Private Member's Bill. The right hon. Member for Blyth and some of his hon. Friends have mentioned the possibility of Government action in this matter. I am afraid that I cannot this morning give an undertaking, and I do not suppose that it would be expected, either of legislation or of a promise to initiate detailed discussions.

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is at the International Labour Conference at Geneva, and he is very disappointed that he has had to miss this debate. I can certainly promise the House that when I see him, which I think will be fairly shortly, I will certainly bring to his notice and discuss with him many of the points raised in the debate. My right hon. Friend will then certainly consider, in consultation with his colleagues, the kind of approach which the right hon. Gentleman has just suggested might be made.

Therefore, I join with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that perhaps my hon. Friend, having had an extremely valuable discussion of this matter, might be willing to ask the leave of the House to withdraw his Bill, with the undertaking that I have given that I will certainly discuss the whole debate with my right hon. Friend when I see him.

With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, may I say a few sentences before indicating what I intend to do?

I am extremely grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and have brought forward constructive ideas on the subject which is dealt with in this Bill. I think it would be the wish of the House that it should not be embarrassed by having the Bill on record on Second Reading, and, from what the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has said, I gather that from that side of the House discussions on this subject would be supported and, indeed, encouraged. From what has been said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, it is possible that discussions might be initiated by the Government. I hope that they will be. I intend to press for them.

In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the Motion.

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this useful Bill in the absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield). Its scope lies within the very small compass of permitting the sale of milk to the public in containers, bottles or cartons containing one-third of a pint. Milk supplied for the milk-in-schools scheme is already pre-packed in containers holding one-third of a pint, but milk for general sale must, under the provisions of Section 7 of the Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, be in quantities of half a pint or multiples of half a pint.

Many people in the dairy industry, including the Milk Marketing Boards in England and Wales and Scotland, believe that there would be a ready sale for milk in quantities of one-third of a pint, especially in factories, canteens, railway stations and places where people take refreshment to drink on the premises. One-third of a pint is a convenient amount for a single drink, and is about as much as the contents of an ordinary tumbler. Bottles and cartons are filled under hygienic conditions and can be kept pure by refrigeration up to the very time of sale. I need not tell the House that milk sold in this way makes a very pleasant drink as well as a drink which is of first-class food value.

The milk industry has already achieved a great deal by publicity and in other ways to promote the sale of liquid milk. I have no need to tell the House of the good lead given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when presenting his Budget to the Committee of Ways and Means, which he did with the aid of this admirable drink, milk. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest and tell the House that I run a very small dairy farm. To that extent I am a producer of milk, and so I have a limited interest in the subject.

Milk as a drink is in competition with various soft drinks, such as squashes and that type of production. These drinks are free from restrictions about the sizes of containers in which they are sold. The milk industry considers itself unfairly handicapped in its efforts to promote the sale of liquid milk by the legal restrictions relating to sale in multiples of half a pint.

Would not more milk be sold if a container were available holding one-sixth of a pint less than half a pint?

It is the view of the Milk Marketing Boards in all three countries that it would help their campaigns to promote the sale of liquid milk as a drink if they could be rid of these restrictions. The hon. Member will be aware that the large majority of containers hold about one-third of a pint, which is a convenient quantity for drinking from a tumbler.

The House will also be aware that the amount of milk produced in this country far exceeds that which is consumed in liquid form. Large quantities are therefore sold for manufacture into various dairy products, including butter and cheese. Hon. Members have often heard that the prices obtained for milk used in manufacturing purposes is substantially lower than for milk sold for drinking. This affects the price received by the producer. It is therefore very important that the proportion of milk sold for liquid consumption should be as high as possible.

Another reason why the House should support the Bill is that people living alone, old-age pensioners and people in poor circumstances, usually do not require a pint of milk per day and in certain circumstances they cannot afford to buy as much as a pint every day.

Can they not buy a half pint?

Half-pint bottles are available in London and in certain large towns, but in the smaller places in the countryside where milk is bought in bottles it is difficult to get half-pint bottles. Milk distributors say that there are not sufficient half-pint bottles to justify adapting the machinery for filling and capping them.

There is nothing mandatory about the Bill, which is permissive. If there is a demand, and if distributors wish to meet the demand, they will find that the restrictions have been removed and that they can sell milk in bottles containing one-third of a pint. The only exception at present is in the milk-for-schools scheme. The old-age pensioners and the people I have mentioned usually have not the means of refrigeration. It is a matter of general knowledge that they usually accept the only alternative open to them, which is to use condensed milk or milk powder.

Bottles containing one-third of a pint are already used on a large scale in the schools scheme, and it is hoped that if the Bill is passed the use of these bottles will become widespread. That will make it easier for distributing dairymen to supply the needs of old-age pensioners and others who want to buy only a small amount of milk. About ten years ago the whole question of weights and measures legislation was reviewed under the chairmanship of the late Sir Edward Hodgson. His Committee reported in 1950. It had considered whether the sale of milk in quantities of one-third of a pint should be permitted, and it recommended that the law should be amended to allow this to be done,

"provided the milk was packed and intended for sale for consumption on the premises of the ultimate seller."

That is to say, it could be made up in one-third pint containers, but only if it was to be sold for refreshment rooms or for catering uses. That restriction, which is more restrictive than what is intended in this Bill, was because the Committee considered the difference between half-pint and one-third pint bottles was so small that bottles could be confused in ordinary retail distribution. The Committee thought there was a risk of the consumer being served with one-third of a pint instead of half a pint, but it did not think that would apply when the milk was supplied in canteens, refreshment rooms, and so on.

The House will see that this Bill does not restrict the use of one-third pint containers for sales of a particular character. The House will welcome the work done by the Hodgson Committee, but I am certain that a restriction of that kind would be very difficult to administer. For example, it would be difficult to be certain that a person purchasing a carton of milk in a milk bar or cafeteria actually consumed it on the premises. I think the risk of confusion between one-third pint and half-pint bottles is not likely to be as great as the Committee feared.

To ensure that the consumer will not be misled, the Bill provides in Clause 1 (1) that a one-third pint container shall bear a clear indication of the quantity in the container. There is an exemption to that requirement for the time being in respect of glass bottles used to supply milk to schools in order to enable existing bottles used for this purpose to be replaced. I am told that the changeover may take anything up to three years. Subsection 3 of Clause 1 enables the President of the Board of Trade to make an order appointing a date on which the marketing requirements will be applicable to bottles supplied for milk in schools as well as generally.

In commending this Bill, I stress that it is purely permissive and is merely removing a restriction. An hon. Member has this morning referred to Private Members' Bills introducing niggling restrictions on the public, but the object of this Bill is to remove a restriction and to put the dairy business on the same basis as other businesses which provide refreshments to the public, soft drinks and so forth. It is permissive and not mandatory. No one will be forced to do anything as the result of the proposals in this Bill. It is my opinion that the Bill will serve a useful purpose. Its provisions are in the interests of the public as a whole, the farming community, old-age pensioners and others who live alone.

For these reasons, I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

I approach this Bill with a perfectly open mind. I am quite prepared to say that there are objections to it, but on balance it ought to be given a Second Reading.

The doubts in my mind are as follows: first, the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) did not support by statistics his belief that there would be an increase in the consumption of liquid milk as the result of its sale in one-third pint containers. Presumably, those statistics are not available. All he was able to say was that the Milk Marketing Boards are in favour of this provision. I do not know to what extent people engaged in the sale of milk would want to embark on the capital expenditure involved in the manufacture of more bottles of third-pint size and of equipment for filling and washing bottles, which may have to be installed. Those are all technical questions entailing some capital expenditure. Whether that capital expenditure would be justified by the sales which are likely to accrue is an open question.

On the other hand, I believe that so far as we can do so we should remove unnecessary restrictions of any kind. If people engaged in the milk trade want to sell milk in bottles containing one-third of a pint and they think there is a market for them, I see no reason why they should be prevented from doing so. After all, they would be risking their own capital. If there were public demand they would get their money back, and if there were not the permission given by this Bill to sell milk in third-pint containers would not be used.

I do not think we are embarking upon a very great risk as a legislative assembly if we provide this facility to those who want to take advantage of it, whether they be large or small in number. I do not very much like the continued adherence to the out-dated system of weights and measures we have in this country. We are strengthening the antiquated system under which we labour if we add to the various measures which now exist. One of these days we shall have to adopt a decimal system, not only for coinage but for liquid measurement and all these things we have to learn at school and which some of us very soon forget after leaving school. To the extent to which this Bill may delay or impede the introduction of a decimal system, it is to be deplored.

However, the hon. Member for Honiton was very fortunate in being able to introduce this Bill on Second Reading. We have had a lengthy number of Bills before the House today. If I had been asked to forecast Whether or not this Bill would be reached, I would have said the chances were very remote. Now that the Bill has been reached, I do not think we should be incurring any very great risk or acting contrary to the public interest if we allowed it a Second Reading.

I wish to support this Bill and, to some extent, the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew). I say that because I cannot go the whole way with him in anticipating a vast increase in the sale of milk by reason of this Measure.

I do not believe that the average householder, even including old-age pensioners, will in fact demand milk in one-third pint bottles. To that extent, some of the suspicions of the dairy trade associations and their alarm that this Bill may demand delivery of millions of bottles of milk containing a third of a pint instead of a pint or even a quart will be allayed.

May I comment on some of the very sensible and helpful remarks of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)? I agree with what he said, but let me assure him that very little, if any, additional capital expenditure by the dairy trade would be required, because by and large they already have adequate plant to cope with the demand for one-third pint bottles. That is certainly the case unless both he and I are wrong in saying that there would not be a big demand for these bottles by ordinary housewives. To that extent, therefore, there would be no need for great capital expenditure. There is extensive plant in most dairies, certainly in the larger dairies, for providing one-third pint bottles of milk. The same machines are used as for half-pints, in many cases pints and even quarts; the machine is adjusted.

The hon. Member spoke about weights and measures authorities. I was once chairman of a weights and measures committee. Let me assure him that the Bill would be a great help to weights and measures authorities in the country in that it would clear up an anomaly. Let me explain what that is. I was the founder of the one-third pint bottle expressly for supplies of milk to schools in the late 1920s. I did not for one moment foresee that this would extend to any other type of trade; I thought that the pint and half-pint bottle would be sufficient for all other purposes. In fact, certain canteens, catering establishments and factories—even down to the work bench—found that there was a demand and a need to be met for one-third pint bottles of milk. The trade, of course, took advantage of this and of the need to supply more milk in any form. If there is a demand for smaller bottles to be handed out once or even twice a day, it should be met.

From that moment weights and measures authorities were in a difficult position, because under the existing legislation they ought to take out summonses against these dairymen for supplying this milk. For over twenty years this difficulty has existed of deciding whether to issue a summons and to prevent the sale of milk in one-third pint bottles, when, in all reasonableness, these supplies should be maintained. They had to choose between issuing summonses and holding their hands. All this time, I believe, they have been asking successive Governments to introduce this legislation.

We have to decide today whether we shall stop the sale of milk to factories, canteens, catering establishments, milk bars and other places all over the country in one-third pint bottles, because if the Bill is not passed today, or ultimately, we can be sure that weights and measures authorities will say, "Parliament has considered this matter and by rejecting the Bill has declared that these sales should not take place. We will forthwith take out summonses against the dairymen for supplying one-third pint bottles of milk."

Is the hon. Member suggesting that a large number of prosecutions which could have been embarked upon have in fact not been embarked upon in recent years?

That is so and has been so for over twenty years. It is so because it was thought possible that Parliamentary time would be found by this or other Governments for this legislation, or perhaps because it was thought by Parliament that a reasonable time ought to elapse to see whether there was a continuing demand for this size of bottle.

Those are the reasons which I give for supporting the Bill, and I believe that they are very sound reasons. Let me say, in parenthesis, that I have now no interest to declare in the dairy trade. My hon. Friend the Member for East-bourne (Sir C. Taylor) may tell you that he has an interest and may oppose what I have said, for one reason because he has and for another reason because the National Dairymen's Association, when he has finished speaking, may prove to have a very sound case in opposition to the Bill. I doubt it.

There are other reasons why we ought to think twice about this Measure, and they have been advanced by the Association. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Government or the House to try to extend the sales of one-third pint bottles of milk willy-nilly to vast numbers of householders, but if the dairy trade feel that that is a possibility it is up to them and their association it is the job of their association to say to its members, "This is uneconomical and is likely to reduce the sale of milk, and we should not offer to the general public one-third pint bottles of milk." The association fears that this would lead to a reduction in the sale of milk. But all this is no reason why we should not make it possible for the factories and canteens to continue to receive their one-third pints.

The dairy trade say that there would be an enormous demand for one-third pints and that it would be a serious matter in that it would perhaps reduce the consumption milk. I do not believe that. Further—which no doubt would be true if that happened—they say that it would put up the cost of milk to the public. But the dairy trade must ask themselves whether that happened with the half-pint bottles. In fact it has never happened. The general public do not order vast quantities of half-pint bottles of milk. The vast majority of people in this country take their milk in one pint bottles.

It is true that half-pint bottles are not available to the public in many parts of the country, and to that extent I think that the dairy trade are failing in their duty, because there are certainly many members of the public, including old-age pensioners, who at times require a half-pint bottle of milk. In the City of Birmingham it is not possible for those people to buy a half-pint bottle of milk. I plead guilty in that during the many years I was in the trade I joined dairymen in not meeting that obligation, but the times are now different. The shortages of milk of the wartime have passed, as has the need for the great economies which existed in those days.

Today, it is more important than ever that the trade should meet that need. It is no more sensible for those concerned in the dairy trade, or for anyone else, to say that these serious things will happen to the trade if this Bill goes through and that there will be this tremendous demand for one-third pints than it is to say that the half-pint trade is a serious matter and one that ought to be made illegal. There is so little difference between one-third and one-half of a pint, as they rightly say, that if the one-third pint bottle is not a good thing for the public then neither is the half pint; but I think it is agreed by all people, and certainly by those in the London area, that there is need for the half-pint bottle.

The dairy traders have to live by the profits they make, and it is quite natural that they should oppose this Bill, because they are protected by the present position. The individual dairyman who does not want to do this trade can, at present, say, "You cannot buy a one-third bottle of milk for your factory or canteen." They can blame the Government, whether Socialist or Conservative. On the other hand, the dairyman who wants to do the trade can say, "Well, no one takes any notice, so I can meet your demand."

It is no part of the duty of this House to give any trade this sort of protection, but it would be sensible, if possible, to make Amendments to the Bill in Committee. It might even be sensible and desirable to limit the sale of milk in one-third pint bottles to, say, 24 bottles in any one purchase. That would, perhaps, confine the sale of this size to economic quantities and thereby not decrease the sale of milk, or encourage the householder to demand this size. As I say, there is no doubt that if a large number of thirds were demanded it would add to the cost of living. I do not think there would be that large demand, but if it did happen the householder would have to pay as much as 3d., which is an increase of 1½d. a pint—

It would be ¾d. a pint.

Very well, an increase of ¾d. a pint in respect of bottles purchased in that size.

I support the Bill at this stage in its present form only because I believe that we have to clear up our present weights and measures legislation. I do not, of course, say that the House ought to amend the Bill so as to introduce this minimum purchase of 24 bottles, but I do think that that would meet the case if the House felt that there was a danger of increasing the cost of living by encouraging the housewife to demand the one-third-pint bottle.

I cannot, of course, commit my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne in anything that he is likely to say, but I believe that he is prepared to put the dairy trade's case more fully. However, I have touched on some of the points outlined and have said why I think that this Bill should get its Second Reading today. I hope that my hon. Friend will not oppose it; that the dairy trade will take all legitimate and honourable means of carrying out its obligations and see to its own domestic problems in the proper way by telling its members that it is not a good thing to have an unsatisfied widespread demand for one-third pint bottles from door to door. I hope that he and the trade will support us in this attempt to put the weights and measures authorities in a decent and proper position, and not force them to take action against retailers for selling-one-third-pint bottles.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) always speaks in an engaging and persuasive manner, and I think that today he could have equally persuaded hon. Members against the Bill or for it. With respect, I think that he tried to have it both ways. On the one hand, he said, "There is not a great demand for this, it will not make any difference, because there will not be great numbers of people wanting the one-third-pint size. Therefore, it will not put up the cost of distribution." On the other hand, he suggests that it is only right and proper, and in the interests of the people of Birmingham—now that he is not in the milk trade—that they should be allowed to have the one-thirdsize—

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I just wanted to clear up my own personal position. I wanted to be fair to the trade, and to many of my old friends in the trade who have put these points to me. I did not want to put entirely the case for one side only.

I understand, of course, why the hon. Gentleman put the two arguments and, as I say, he put them both so persuasively that one can be torn either way.

There are two considerations that ought to weigh with us here. The first is the general convenience of the public, and the second, whether or not we shall be encouraging a greater consumption of milk. If we are to make any changes in the existing law, those two matters ought to be considered.

As to the convenience of the public, I have yet to hear from anybody of any kind of demand for this one third-pint bottle. There has been no evidence, no market research about it. The Hodgson Committee went into the matter quite fully, and was not convinced, as it stated, that there was any such demand. I certainly think that there are a number of people who have a grievance in that they cannot get the half-pint size, and if the hon. Gentleman had wanted to increase the consumption of milk I think that he should have encouraged companies, or distributors, or dairymen to make the half-pint size more readily available.

There is a very real grievance there, but I cannot myself believe that there is an adult person in the factories and canteens of which the hon. Gentleman speaks who would refrain from drinking milk because it was available only in half-pints. After all, between a half-pint and a third of a pint there is a difference of only one-sixth of a pint, which is negligible. I cannot believe that there are these people who are demanding this different size bottle. I therefore do not think that the convenience of the public comes into it at all.

What about the consumption of milk? That depends very largely on the price, though there are other considerations. We can do a lot more by propaganda and education, perhaps, but there is undoubtedly a relationship between the price and the consumption of milk and, as the hon. Gentleman has just said—and he has some knowledge of this business—if there is any increased demand at all for this size it is bound to affect the cost of distribution. If we increase the cost of distribution, I cannot see how we can increase the consumption.

Moreover, it is quite possible that knowingly, or unwittingly, if the Bill goes through, a number of people will be served with one-third of a pint, whereas otherwise they might take half a pint. If the Bill became law, its effect would be a reduction in the consumption of milk. That is the opinion of a good many informed people. Even the hon. Member for Selly Oak, who supports the Measure, says that the possibility is that it would lead to a reduction in the consumption of milk.

I was putting the dairymen's case. They said that it would lead to a reduction in the consumption of milk.

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that if it be the case that there is a demand for one-third of a pint it will mean a net reduction. A great demand for one-third pint bottles could mean an increase in the total consumption, but I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that if there were this increase in the demand for one-third pint bottles it would mean a net reduction in the consumption of milk. Therefore, if the convenience of the public is not being served, if it is to lead to a reduction in the consumption of milk and not an increase, we ought to be against the Measure.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question arising from his reference to the capital costs involved in handling the one-third pint bottles. My information is that the majority of the machines in the country could neither clean nor fill the smaller bottle. In many cases it would be necessary to have separate machinery. That, again, would add to the capital cost of milk production. Therefore, I suggest that as the interests of the public will not be served, and the cost of the distribution of milk will be increased, the Bill should not receive a Second Reading.

I hasten to declare the fact that I have interests in the milk industry, and I feel it only right to acknowledge that fact now. The fact that the companies with which I am connected contribute very large sums of money to the Milk Publicity Council campaign for the sale of more milk would, I think, prove that we are just as much interested in increasing the sales of milk as are the retailers or anybody else.

We ought to realise what the present position is. We are governed by the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, which prohibits the sale of pre-packed milk except in quantities of half a pint or multiples of half a pint. That means in half-pint, pint or quart bottles. The only exception which has ever been permitted to that rule is that milk may be served in one-third pint bottles to schools where it is made available free for the use of children attending school.

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew), who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, said that he believed that it would lead to increased consumption of milk and also that it would be useful for old-age pensioners if they could purchase milk in one-third pint containers. The National Dairymen's Association, which has about 7,500 members throughout the country and handles probably 80 per cent. of all the milk sold retail, except through the Co-operative societies, strongly objects to the Bill because it believes that instead of increasing the overall retail sale of milk it will have precisely the opposite effect.

If I thought that there were any real demand among the old-age pensioners for one-third pint bottles, I think that there would be a case for this Bill, but I do not believe there is. I believe that the old-age pensioner is quite prepared to buy a half-pint of milk and, if necessary, allow it to last for two days—it will certainly keep for two days—and that it is far more convenient for such people and for the dairymen who supply the milk if it is supplied in half-pint bottles.

My hon. Friend will be aware of what has been said about the old-age pensioner and others in this connection. I should like his comments. In many parts of the country covering millions of the population a half-pint cannot be purchased.

I am very sorry about that. Certainly the companies with which I am associated supply milk in half-pint bottles, but I think the argument that my hon. Friend adduces defeats itself, because if there is a sort of arrangement among dairymen in certain areas that they will not supply a half-pint bottle, what earthly hope is there of them supplying a third-pint bottle?

Is that a reason for not removing the restriction?

I will come to that in a moment.

The granting of permission to deliver milk in third-pint bottles would obviously increase the cost of milk distribution. I would point out that milk is still subsidised, and the amount of profit which a milk retailer is allowed to make is very closely supervised and guarded by the Government and by the Milk Marketing Board. The profit is one which is considered to be reasonable. Therefore, as milk is subsidised, if there is any increase in the cost of distribution, that increase has obviously got to fall upon the public in the form of further taxation.

There are several technical reasons which I should like to mention why the third-pint bottles are not practicable. To begin with, plant and equipment for filling and washing third-pint bottles takes roughly one-third of the time more than is taken to fill or wash pint bottles of milk, which must mean that the plant has got to work longer. Even if the plant is available, it has to work one-third of the time longer in order to wash and fill third-pint bottles. That obviously must put up the cost of milk for distribution.

Two gallons of milk in one-third pint bottles occupies the same space as three gallons of milk in pint bottles. Therefore, there has to be additional storage space in milk depôts. There has to be additional cold storage space, which is very expensive, and there has to be additional space on the vehicles which deliver these bottles on the milk rounds. All these things will increase the cost of distribution.

The quantity of milk carried on a vehicle is also restricted by the weight factor. A milk pram can take only so much in weight as well as so much quantity. Two gallons of milk in one-third pint battles weighs 10 per cent. more than two gallons of milk in pint bottles. That is a very serious increase in the amount of weight which can be carried on the milk delivery vehicle.

Anything which decreases the quantity of milk which the milk salesman, with his pram, can deliver will obviously have serious consequences on the actual sale of milk. For example, it is far better for the milk salesman to have more milk and less weight of bottle on his rounds to deliver, for he will obviously sell more milk in that way by taking less glass and more milk.

It was estimated by the Ministry of Agriculture, in connection with fixing the permitted distributors' margin, that to bottle milk in one-third pint bottles costs two-and-a-half times what it costs to bottle in pints or quarts. To bottle milk in one-third pint bottles costs 6·72d. per gallon, as opposed to 2·66d. per gallon when bottled in one pint bottles.

Before my hon. Friend leaves those last three points, I think that he should make it clear that, when he is comparing additional expense in processing, bottling, and so on, he is comparing one-third pint bottles with whole pints. The law now allows the distributor to distribute half pints. There is already an increased expense in distributing half pints.

I agree, and I thought that I had made it clear that it was the one-third pint bottling costs which were two-and-a-half times the cost of bottling in pints.

Today, ordinary milk costs 7½d. a pint and 3¾d. per half pint. One-third pint bottles, if charged pro rata, would cost 2½d. If an additional price were authorised because of the increased bottling costs, and if the price were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak said, put up to 3d., the difference in price between half a pint and one-third of a pint would be ¾d. Does that very small difference justify all the additional expenses which would be put upon the dairy trade?

Under the amendment to the Milk Marketing Scheme in 1954, a joint committee was established representing the Milk Marketing Board and all buyers of milk from the Board, the creameries, the Co-operative societies and private dairymen. That committee informed the Standards Department of the Board of Trade, in a letter dated 26th May, 1955, that there was unanimous agreement that the one-third pint measure should not be legalised for household delivery purposes. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) said, when the Hodgson Committee considered these matters it did not recommend that there should be any general legalisation of the one-third pint measure.

In my view, the National Dairymen's Association has an overwhelming case against allowing the supply of one-third pint bottles. Undoubtedly, if it were done, there would be a danger of an increasing demand from people for one-third pint bottles. If there is that increasing demand, the sale of milk will go down and the cost to the taxpayer will go up. In conclusion, I can only say that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak were still in the dairy industry and had not liquidated his investments in it, he would perhaps be taking a different attitude from the one he has taken today.

I ask the House not to give the Bill a Second Reading.

I must, first, express my regret to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew). His Bill came on earlier than I had expected, and I did not have the opportunity of hearing his speech. I must ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary also to acquit me of any discourtesy if I have to leave before he has finished his reply, owing to an appointment elsewhere in the building.

Although the Bill deals with a subject with which we are all familiar from day to day, there are certain rather complicated technical matters involved which, I feel, we are inclined to take a little too lightly. My first reaction on reading a proposition such as we find in the Bill is this. If I want to buy a pint of milk, half a pint of milk or one-third of a pint of milk, why should I not be able to buy whatever I want? However, we are considering here an industry which is a complicated and, by now, highly mechanised one. One has only to continue the argument a stage further and ask why one should not be able to buy a quarter of a pint, a sixth or an eighth of a pint to see how quickly one reaches absurdity in a mechanised industry dealing with a bottled product.

After listening to such nicely balanced arguments as we have heard today, I am bound to say, coming to the matter as an outsider, that I am rather in the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). My mind is nicely balanced as to the rights and wrongs of what should be done. In such circumstances, one is driven to support the conclusion of an expert Committee set up to do what we can hardly do here today, that is, to weigh carefully the evidence on both sides. That is what the Hodgson Committee did.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend heard what I had to say about the impossible position we find ourselves in, when weights and measures authorities wonder whether to prosecute or not those people who are selling one-third pint bottles in quite large quantities in factory canteens and the like.

It is possible to have a half-way house, by the interim provision in the Schedule to the Bill, which is to allow the extension of the milk-in-schools scheme to certain premises such as are referred to there. They are, presumably, premises such as those to which my hon. Friend has referred where, at present, the one-third pint is found useful.

If one is not to fall back upon the report of experts, why have experts and committees to hear and consider what the weights and measures authorities and other people concerned have to say? In general, in a nicely balanced case such as this, I feel that the recommendation of an expert Committee should be followed. The Hodgson Committee recommended

"that it should be made legal for milk to be pre-packed and sold in quantities of one-third pint where it is intended for sale for consumption on or at the premises of the ultimate seller. It should, however, remain illegal for pre-packed milk to be sold or delivered on sale in quantities other than half a pint or multiples thereof where the foregoing provision does not apply."

Faced with that recommendation, I come down on the side of not supporting the Bill.

I want, in addition, to draw attention to one specific point which I do not think has been mentioned so far, but which is important. It may be only a Committee point, but I do not think we should pass it by. Clause 1 is in substitution of Section 7 of the 1926 Act. In Clause 1 (1, c) it is proposed to enact that in the case of one-third of a pint bottles the container in which the milk is pre-packed must bear

"on the body thereof a mark or label indicating that it contains that quantity of milk."

In other words, the manufacturer of the bottle has to guarantee the amount of milk in a bottle which he does not fill. I do not think that that obligation should be put, by inference, upon the manufacturer. What it is doing in fact, I think for the first time, is to make the container a statutory measure. The seller is to warrant that in that container there is a certain quantity of milk. I am told that it is not possible to manufacture bottles of that accuracy. It is possible to manufacture milk bottles of an accuracy which is such that 100 one-pint bottles will contain 100 pints of milk, but it is not possible to guarantee that each one of those bottles will contain precisely a pint.

I may be able to help my hon. Friend here. The responsibility, as I understand it, is to be placed upon the dairyman, where it has always been, to give a full measure. My hon. Friend is quite right in what he says about bottles being manufactured near enough to contain the measure; but the responsibility is still with the dairyman, and, as I understand, will remain so under the Bill in respect of one-third pint bottles as it is now for one pint or other sized bottles. At the risk of being lengthy, may I support my hon. Friend by saying that I think it ought to be possible, by Amendment in Committee, to say that marking the cap would be sufficient instead of the body of the bottle, as it is now? I agree to that extent.

I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend, but I do not think that he has entirely met the point.

When a manufacturer of a bottle sends out a bottle upon which are embossed the words, "This bottle contains one-third of a pint", that is a warranty by the manufacturer of the bottle that it contains one-third of a pint. It is not, apparently, to be required in the case of one-pint or half-pint bottles, but for the first time it is to be required in the case of one-third of a pint bottles.

We shall have to examine this point very carefully if the Bill gets a Second Reading and goes to Committee, to make certain that whatever wording appears on the bottle is not a warranty making that bottle a statutory measure. I should not have thought it beyond the wit of man to find words to give effect to that, but I do not think the present wording of the Bill achieves this purpose.

I agree that that is a Committee point and I have no doubt that the introduction of the word "approximately" or the words "This bottle is designed to hold one-third of a pint" would mean that no warranty was implied. I take the point fully, but as I have said, it is a Committee point.

Would not the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) agree that this is more than a Committee point? It is an illustration of another objection to the Bill, namely, the confusion which arises from the fact that the difference in size between one-third of a pint and half a pint is so small that there is liable to be, wittingly or otherwise, the wrong measure sold to the customer. That has already happened with school milk bottles. They have passed into circulation and some members of the public have been given one-third of a pint whereas they paid for half a pint. The point that I would put to the hon. Member is that it is not stated that it necessarily should be embossed on the bottle. It can be a mark on the bottle, affixed by the dairyman; but in so far as this has to be done, then, because of the confusion, it will add to the general cost of distribution.

What will happen is that the dairyman will try to throw his responsibility back on to the manufacturer by requiring that this has to be embossed on the bottle when it is bought. I agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) that the difficulty can be solved in other ways.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for Honiton for saying that this is a matter which he and the sponsors of the Bill will consider sympathetically if it reaches Committee. I take the point that the hon. Member for Uxbridge has made, and I add only that this is an example of the tendency to legislate piecemeal which we are rather too apt to follow. A recommendation was made in the Hodgson Committee for substantial reforms in the statutory provisions governing weights and measures, and then, instead of dealing comprehensively with them, we proceed to nibble at them by minor changes of this kind in the law.

On the whole, for the reasons that I have given, I hope that the Bill does not receive a Second Reading. If it does, there are one or two points, such as the important one that I have mentioned, which ought to be put right in Committee.

I am glad to have the opportunity of making known the Government's attitude towards the Bill. I have listened with considerable interest to the points made by hon. Members on both sides about the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) gave the House a broad picture of what he had in mind and the reason why he and his hon. Friends brought forward the Bill. I shall hope to try to clear up perhaps one or two of the misunderstandings in relation to the Bill as I go along.

First, I should like to remind the House once more, if it is necessary—there have been plenty of references to it—that this proposal arises to some extent from the report of the Hodgson Committee, which considered a very much wider field of weights and measures legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) said. He may be right in saying that one should not do these things piecemeal, but unfortunately it has not been found possible as yet to introduce legislation to cover the whole of this field, and I would have thought that there was nothing intrinsically wrong in dealing with certain points which have arisen.

The Hodgson Committee made a number of recommendations. The recommendation relating in particular to milk has been read to the House by more than one hon. Member. The important thing that the Committee stressed was that legislation should be introduced to make it legal for milk to be sold in one-third of a pint bottles, but put an important restriction on it.

I think that is what hon. Members had in mind. In considering the implementation of this recommendation, it would be very difficult, certainly administratively, to restrict the provision to a particular class of sale. One has to decide one way or the other whether one shall allow the sale of milk in one-third of a pint bottles and, if so, not to put this particular restriction on it because it is wrong in principle to introduce legislation that would be difficult to administer in this way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, who introduced the Bill, indicated that it might lead to an increase in consumption. Other Members have taken a contrary view. In considering this point, it is of value to remember that the producers' organisations who are keen to see an increased consumption of milk and have done a great deal to promote increased consumption are, I understand, very much in favour of the Bill. I should have thought that was strong support for the belief that the Bill will help to open up a fresh source for consumption. The fact that the producers' organisations support the Bill should be taken into account by Members of the House in considering that aspect.

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton referred to the possibility of assisting the supply of milk to people like old-age pensioners and others living alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) took up this point and argued that if they were willing to buy a third of a pint they would equally be willing to buy half a pint. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree—as he did, I think, in reply to an intervention—that unfortunately in many parts of the country for different reasons it is not possible to obtain half-pint bottles of milk. My hon. Friend went on to say that if it is not possible to get a half-pint bottle there will be even less likelihood of getting a third, pint bottle. Surely, he realises that third-pint bottles are available all over the country for the purpose of the school milk scheme. For that reason, there is no justification for saying that there would be greater difficulty.

I did not mean it in that way. I meant that if a dairyman will not serve half-pint bottles because he does not wish to do so, as is the case in some parts of the country, he certainly will not want to sell it in third-pints.

That was the point I was taking, but I do not wholly agree with it. There may be an extra imposition in specially bottling a small number of half-pints, but where third-pint battles are readily available, there should be no difficulty in this respect. Those who have spoken as representing the view of the Dairymen's Association have overstressed their case in this respect.

What hon. Members must realise is that the Bill is purely permissive. It will not seek to force anybody to sell a third-pint bottle of milk. It is evident already that, although every retailer has the right to supply half-pint bottles, not every retailer takes advantage of that. My hon. Friend has expressed his regret that this should be the case, but he will not deny that it is so. Therefore, as I see it, there is nothing whatever wrong in permitting people to supply thirds of a pint.

If the hon. Gentleman wants to increase the consumption of milk and look after the interests of the old-age pensioners who at present cannot get half-pints, instead of wasting his time with the Bill, would it not be better to encourage or compel the distributors to make half-pint bottles available before we move on to the third-pint stage?

The hon. Member is seeking to take me far wide of the terms of the Bill. I am dealing with what it seeks to provide. It is a Private Member's Bill and I am stating the Government's view on it. The question of compulsion concerning the provision of any particular size is outside the scope of the Bill. As I see it, there is nothing whatever in the Bill to compel anybody to provide any different size of bottle to what is already available. Where people are ready and willing to provide the third-pint bottle, it makes it possible for them to do so.

There are plenty of areas where, because milk is available in third-pint bottles, no considerable difficulty would be caused. I should be surprised if in many cases the retailers were actively opposed to supplying these third-pint bottles. Why, therefore, should they be prevented by legislation from doing so? That is the simple point at issue. No question of compulsion arises. In his most interesting speech, my hon. Friend went into detail on the problems facing distributors, including the increase in costs. He will, however, realise that these should not be a complete bar if anyone wishes to provide milk in these quantities.

An important point and one which, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton had very much in mind is the possibility of making third-pint bottles available more in canteens and in works to open up a new source for the sale of milk to industrial workers and others who at present do not have it available. A third of a pint is roughly about a glassful of milk. In a number of other countries, industrial and other adult workers make far more use of milk in this way. If we can open up a new market, surely it is a good thing from the viewpoint of the consumer—nobody denies that milk is an effective and good food—as well as providing further outlets to producers for their milk.

I would have thought that by and large the Bill deserves support. The Government

Mr. Brockway.

On a point of order. As, Mr. Speaker, there were only 40 Members who voted in the Division, is not the House automatically counted out?

There was a total of 39 Members in the Lobbies, plus four Tellers, and plus myself, which raised the figure of Members present to more than 40.

This is the third time that this subject, with my name attached, has been on the Order Paper for the Adjournment Motion. On the first occasion the House was counted out and on the second occasion there was a requirement of a regretted personal compulsion which prevented me from being in my place.

I should like to apologise publicly, as I have done personally, to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for having detained him on the two previous occasions when, I am sure, he had many other duties to perform. If I may, I should also like to extend that apology to the staff of the Home Office who find it necessary to be in the House on such an occasion.

I propose, first, to describe the incident out of which this issue arose and then to analyse the reply of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to a question which I put to him on the matter and which seems to me to raise much bigger issues.

During the weekend of 6th, 7th and 8th April there was a march to Aldermaston of many thousands of people who are opposed to the making, the storage and, obviously, the use of the hydrogen bomb. Those who organised the march arranged for three deputations to put the case of the Aldermaston marchers to the British Prime Minister at 10, Downing Street; to the American Ambassador and to the Ambassador of Soviet Russia. I was one of the deputation which, on the morning of 8th April, went to the Soviet Embassy. The deputation was composed of well-known and, I think, respected persons.

There was the Rev. Michael Scott, whose work, particularly on behalf of the African populations, is revered very widely. There was Mr. Hugh Brock, editor of Peace News, a paper which now has a wide circulation, and which is influential in its appeal for peace. There was Mrs. Sheila Jones, a physicist who actually worked at Oxford on the development of the atom bomb. There was Mr. Michael Randle, representing large numbers of the younger generation who took part in the march. There was myself.

When on that morning I came into Kensington Palace Gardens where the Soviet Embassy is situated, that distinguished avenue was almost empty. Except for the little group of the deputation who were waiting at the gate for me, two Press photographers, two uniformed policemen and one milk cart, I do not think that there was anyone in that street at all. I mention that because of some of the terms of the reply from the Secretary of State.

When we came out from the embassy, after our interview, there were present two senior officers of the Metropolitan Police; I am not positive about whether the two constables were still there. As we came out of the gate, we were asked to give our names and addresses to those two senior police officers. I never was one to hide my name—though recently I have been inclined to regret the fact that my address is so well known. I gave my name freely, as did the others. It was required of us, without any suggestion that this was a voluntary act on our part. But, after this, we had some discussion with the police officers, asking whether this was usual; asking whether this was compulsory. They said no, it was not compulsory, but this interrogation was carried out in certain cases and at certain embassies.

I wish to acknowledge that until the Secretary of State for the Home Department made his reply in the House of Commons, I took the view that this police questioning was due to the enthusiasm of an over-zealous police officer, and I was prepared to accept it as an example of that kind. But when I put my Question in the House and received the Answer from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I felt that such serious issues arose that I was justified in asking for the Adjournment debate for which I am now responsible.

I propose to read the Question and Answer so that they may be fully before the House. They appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 17th April, when I asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

"why the members of a deputation from the Aldermaston marchers to the Soviet Ambassador on 8th April were asked to give their names to police officers on leaving the Embassy; Why they were only informed in subsequent discussion that they could decline to provide this information; and how far this is the practice in the case of visitors to embassies in general and to the Soviet Embassy in particular?"

The reply which I received from the Secretary of State for the Home Department was as follows:

"It is the practice of the police to ask for the names of members of deputations visiting certain embassies at which disturbances have occurred on previous occasions. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that there was no implication of compulsion to give the information on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers, and I am discussing the matter with the Commissioner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 32–3.]

Why do I think that there are important implications in that Answer? First, the reply begins with the statement that

"It is the practice of the police …"

That shows clearly that this was not just the action of an over-zealous officer. It shows clearly that it was part of the customary behaviour of the police when deputations call upon certain embassies. It was not an isolated incident; it is part of normal police practice. I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for this practice on the part of the police. Is it the Commissioner of Police, or is it an instruction of the Home Office? Has the Home Office issued to the police instructions that they must interrogate deputations to embassies in this way?

The Answer of the Secretary of State continues:

"It is the practice of the police to ask for the names of members of deputations visiting certain embassies"—

Certain embassies? Why this discrimination? What is the reason for saying that a deputation which goes to one embassy shall be questioned and that a deputation which goes to another embassy shall not? Is this questioning limited to the embassies of the Communist countries? If it is wider than that, may we hear from the Joint Under-Secretary how far this practice extends? Why should there be any discrimination between any embassy which represents a Government with whom we are in normal friendly relations and any other embassy?

The Answer proceeds:

". at which disturbances have occurred on previous occasions."

The implication there is that disturbances might occur again, or, particularly, that disturbances might have occurred on the occasion which I have described. On that peaceful spring morning in Kensington Palace Gardens, when the road was empty except for the five members of the deputation, the police officers and a milk cart, was there any justification for interrogating the members of the deputation on the ground that a disturbance was likely to occur?

The Answer proceeded to say that there was no implication of compulsion. Some of the members of the deputation had had public experience and were not likely to be intimidated by the police. In the normal course of events, if a British citizen is approached by a police officer and asked to give his name and address it is assumed that the police officer has the authority to require it. I say emphatically it was not until after the names and addresses had been noted and the official proceedings with the police had concluded, that, in an informal discussion with those police officers, that it was suggested at all to us that there was no compulsion for those names and addresses to be given.

Lastly, I draw attention to the concluding words of the Answer, "I am discussing the matter with the Commissioner". The Secretary of State for the Home Department has not told me since 17th April, when he gave that Answer, what the result of the discussion has been. I am, therefore, asking the Joint Under-Secretary of State, this afternoon, that in his reply he shall report to me the result of that discussion with the Commissioner by the Secretary of State, on a subject which has now been on the Order Paper on three occasions.

I do not think that any interpretation of what I have described, other than the one I am now going to give, could be accepted by reasonable men. Can anyone doubt the real reason for this interrogation? Does anyone seriously believe that the police feared a disturbance on that occasion? Does anyone really believe that in that empty street it was thought that there would be an attack upon the members of the deputation, that the embassy required protection, or that the prestige of the British Government required to be protected because an incident might occur outside the embassy of a foreign Power? I have only to mention this possibility for us to dismiss it as utterly ridiculous, and as something for which no argument could be urged.

I suggest that the real reason why the police asked for the names and addresses of the members of that deputation and of deputations going to foreign embassies on other occasions, is that the police wish to record the names and addresses of those who are regarded as a little outside the "Establishment," the nonconformists of our society: the pacifists, the Socialists who do not always voice the views of a Front Bench, persons such as those who regard the hydrogen bomb as a crime against life now and the life of coming generations. I have no doubt that the police already have bulky dossiers of the Rev. Michael Scott, and Mr. Hugh Brock, as I know they have of myself. I am afraid that Mrs. Sheila Jones and Mr. Michael Randle may now be added to the file of Scotland Yard.

On the occasion of this Adjournment debate I want to protest against the attention which is paid to men and women in this country who may stand for a cause which appears to be unpopular at a particular period, but who go about their protest in a perfectly legal, constitutional and normal political way.

The Under-Secretary will not convince me that if this deputation had been from a chamber of commerce, from the Convocation of the Church of England, the Trades Union Congress, or had even represented the Opposition Front Bench, the police authorities would have required names and addresses when the deputation met at the embassy. The reason for this interrogation was that these people were regarded as people who stood for views in society which are not accepted by Her Majesty's Government, not necessarily accepted by Her Majesty's Opposition, and which are regarded—as they are in the first stages, but never in the last stages—as lonely voices in a society which does not accept them.

I say to the Under-Secretary that this is a characteristic of the police State. It is a beginning of the police State. It is typical of the kind of thing which we condemn in Communist countries. Many of us love liberty, many of us regard freedom as the basis of democracy. For that reason, I make no apology for raising this issue in the House and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give a reassuring answer.

I am glad the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has raised this matter this afternoon, for we all need to be vigilant about safeguarding the rights of people who go about their normal ways. I am, however, most surprised at some of the exaggerated views which he has put forward and with which I shall try to deal.

In reply to his Question about the result of discussions between my right hon. Friend and the Commissioner of Police, what I shall be saying this afternoon is the result of those discussions, and I shall answer the hon. Member very fully indeed. Although we have a need to be vigilant about safeguarding the rights of ordinary people to go about their lawful ways, the Government of this country, and indeed of any civilised country, has a duty to protect foreign diplomatic missions from any embarrassment, disorder or hostile act. Those missions have a right to expect such protection, and, of course, our own missions abroad expect that protection abroad.

Unfortunately, disturbances and disorders do take place at embassies and consulates here and abroad. We read of them in the newspapers. Sometimes they take place here. Recently, I remember reading of a demonstration in Copenhagen which will be known to the hon. Member if he has read his newspapers this week.

And appreciated.

No doubt appreciated by him.

To prevent such incidents or to take such action as may be needed in respect of them, precautions have to be taken, and they necessarily have to be taken by our police, whose function it is to give protection. The steps which have to be taken by the police vary with the circumstances.

The hon. Member inquired about the practice of the police of asking for names and addresses, and it seemed to me that by implication he also asked about the authority for it. A police officer on duty has, by long tradition, custom, and precedent, always a right to ask for the name and address of a citizen, but the citizen has never been under compulsion to answer the question unless the policeman makes it perfectly clear that he is trying to detect a crime which has been committed, or to obtain witnesses of a crime, or to arrest somebody, or to prevent the immediate commission of another crime. Broadly speaking, therefore, except in those circumstances the citizen is under no compulsion to give his name and address. I greatly appreciate the fact that the hon. Member and his colleagues gave the police their names and addresses without any hesitation, and, if I may say so, I think that it was to their credit that they did so.

What about the practice which prevails in the Metropolitan Police, in cases where the police have this duty of protecting foreign missions in London? As was said in Answer to the Parliamentary Question to which the hon. Member referred, the police follow that practice. The hon. Member asked whether that practice was the result of any instructions given either by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or by the Commissioner of Police. The answer is, "No." There have been no instructions given to that effect. The position is that the senior police officer on the spot, who often will be of the rank of inspector or sergeant, has a discretion, and it is in the exercise of that discretion that the practice has grown up. I shall say a little more about that in a moment.

If the case is that this is done to prevent a disturbance outside an embassy in order that the ambassador may be protected, how can it be a possible justification when the deputation was invited to go to the embassy, when there were only five in it and when otherwise the street was empty? How can that be a possible justification and reason for the action?

As I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have anticipated, I shall deal with that. As I have said, I shall answer him fairly fully and, if he will bear with me, I shall deal with that and other points.

It has been the practice in this country for a great many years, and in other countries, too, to post a police officer for special duty outside any embassy or consulate that has been the scene of disturbances or incidents in the fairly recent past, or whenever there are reasonable grounds for believing that a disturbance might arise and that the embassy might need protection. Sometimes, of course, embassies specifically request that there shall be a police officer posted nearby. I do not say that that arose in this particular case. So far as I know, it certainly did not. It was not likely to have done.

In any of the circumstances that I have mentioned in which it is necessary to post a police officer, the degree of attention to be given to the headquarters of the diplomatic mission must vary according to the estimate which the Commissioner of Police forms of the circumstances at the time. Sometimes it will be necessary merely to post one police officer with, perhaps, access to a telephone. At other times, it will be necessary to bring in quite an amount of police support. That occasionally does happen although, I am glad to say, very rarely.

If one or two police officers are posted, they have to keep a watch on all visitors to the embassy and on other people in the neighbourhood, to detect any potential trouble maker and, if possible, to prevent any undesirable conduct or demonstration. Embassies, of course, have many visitors, the vast majority of whom are going about perfectly legitimate business with the Embassy or making normal social calls, but there is always the possibility, which has to be foreseen, that among those peaceful and law-abiding visitors there may be someone with a grievance, an agitator, or merely a crank, whose purpose might be questionable.

The police, as in many other delicate tasks which they have to perform, must have freedom to act as the situation requires. As I say, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis has issued no standing instructions as to the taking of names and addresses, nor has he attempted to prescribe in advance the action to be taken in particular circumstances; and the circumstances vary so much that it would not be feasible to lay down standing instructions.

This practice in the Metropolitan Police District of asking for names and addresses, which has, as I say, prevailed for many years, has prevailed particularly with regard to the attendance at embassies of deputations to present petitions or for other purposes. It is a reasonable safeguard, because sometimes the embassies do not know that these deputations are coming. They wonder whether or not they should let them in, and sometimes, if the names and addresses have been taken, the police can even facilitate the entry of a deputation to an embassy—

But these were taken after we went.

These were taken afterwards, I quite agree. In the case of the deputation from the Aldermaston marchers to the Soviet Embassy, there was a departure from the normal practice in that the names and addresses were not sought until after the deputation had left the embassy. But there was nothing sinister in this. It was simply due to the fact that, when the deputation arrived, the police officer on the spot thought that it was inopportune for him to make his inquiries at that stage. He may have been right or wrong. He used his judgment in that way and he had an absolute right to exercise his discretion about when he would check names and addresses.

Sometimes, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it can be very helpful to the police and to the embassy to have the names and addresses of people as they leave. It could happen—I do not say that this could possibly have arisen in the case of the deputation which the hon. Gentleman accompanied—that people whose names and addresses had not been taken beforehand had got into the embassy perhaps not even noticed by the police and not expected by the embassy people. The embassy people would then complain to our own authorities, and would have a right to complain, if the deputation had created a disturbance inside.

Although the circumstances are very exceptional in which the police ask for names and addresses as people are leaving an embassy, nevertheless it is justifiable in certain circumstances and can be very helpful as a protection to the embassy. I want to make it clear, however, and to emphasise, that there is no question whatever of the procedure which I have described being peculiar to the Russian Embassy or peculiar to embassies on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Similar measures would be taken at, for example, the United States, the French or any other embassy if the circumstances should so require.

But they were not taken.

How does the hon. Gentleman know about that?

There was a deputation of an exactly similar kind to the American Embassy and the police did not ask the members of that deputation to give their names and addresses.

That may well mean either that there had been no recent incidents at the United States Embassy and no reason to have a police officer posted, or it may be—I do not know whether it is so or not—that there was a police officer posted there, or several, and that in the exercise of their discretion which I mentioned earlier the police did not consider it necessary to take the names of the Aldermaston marchers' deputation. For all I know, the police may even have been warned by the embassy officials.

This is essentially a matter for the police in the exercise of their discretion. The Home Secretary is determined that our duty to give proper protection to representatives of other countries shall be properly discharged, and the arrangements which the Commissioner of Police makes for that purpose have his general approval. As I say, there are no standing instructions attempting to guide individual police officers as to what they shall do in this circumstance or that, but the general arrangements as to the posting of police officers, to be there should the need arise for the embassy to be protected, have my right hon. Friend's general approval. There is nothing in the incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred to alter my right hon. Friend's view that it would be undesirable to lay down general rules on this subject.

I think that the only other point which I need mention is this. If those arrangements which are made from time to time for the protection of embassies, generally at the request of the embassies, were to break down, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman himself would be among the first to protest. There is not the slightest question, as he suggested, of the police being desirous of taking people's names because they were outside what he was pleased to call the "Establishment." There is not the slightest question of that, and it would be an injustice to the police officer concerned to suggest that it was so. He was doing his duty as he thought best.

I will conclude by emphasising two points which I have already mentioned. First, the taking of names of people leaving an embassy is most exceptional. Secondly, there is no question whatever of the procedure which I have mentioned being confined to the Russian Embassy. It applies to other embassies as circumstances require.

The procedure of taking the names of people leaving an embassy is not only exceptional; it is indefensible. The Minister knows that very well. Of course, we are responsible for the safety of ambassadors who come here. Nothing could be more reasonable. Indeed, it is part of the necessary procedure of providing security and protection to people who come as our guests or who are entitled to our protection for the police at the embassy to inquire the names and business of those who go there. Nobody would dream of objecting to that.

To say, however, that, when people have been received, it is necessary to take their names in case there should be a subsequent complaint from the embassy or the embassy would want to know who they are is an entirely different matter. Embassies keep a visitors book, of course. When one calls at an embassy, one's name is taken inside. When people have gone on a deputation to an embassy and they come out, and they are not, as my hon. Friend says, on the "Establishment", they tend to be regarded as what has been contemptuously referred to as trouble-raisers or agitators. Every reformer has been. Everybody who has ideas is. It is a process of intimidation and nothing else, and it is thoroughly lamentable. The Minister knows that.

One can understand perfectly well how this sort of thing happens. There is a policeman there, a bit excited, with a lot of people about. He missed them going in and he thought he had better take their names as they came out. That is all there is to it. It is quite understandable. But, when something like this happens, which is plainly indefensible, why cannot the Minister come to the House and say, "I am very sorry. There was a slip. It will not happen again"? It would make for so much better feeling between the agitators and the police, between the ordinary man and the Government.

When the big man in authority has the bigness to say, "I am sorry. I slipped up here", not only is the offence forgiven but it is more than forgiven. Nine times out of ten feelings between the citizen and the Department which had the grace to apologise are far better afterwards than if no offence had ever occurred to apologise about. I wish that Departments would realise this.

The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) did not hear the whole of the debate, and I am not sure that he heard all my speech. I pointed out that there could obviously be circumstances in which it might be helpful to the embassy for the police to have taken the names of people as they came out.