ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH

HL Deb 11 October 1959 vol 305 cc6-26

The Queen's Speech reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.

3.45 p.m.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows: Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. My Lords, for the past four years I have missed the State Opening of Parliament by Her Majesty the Queen, because of my work in the United Nations. To-day it has been a special pleasure for me to listen to the gracious Speech from the Throne, and now to have the honour of moving the humble Address. Moving the humble Address has become something of a feminine preserve. I am flattered to follow three formidably distinguished noble Baronesses, Lady Wootton, Lady Elliot and Lady Horsbrugh—who moved the humble Address in another place, and whom I am sorry not to see in her place to-day.

My Lords, there are a number of items in the gracious Speech bearing upon our national and international cares and concerns, and I will refer to some of them. To begin with, we can all welcome and applaud the proposed visit of Her Majesty and Prince Philip to New Zealand and Australia and to attend the Cook Bicentenary Celebrations. We are very lucky in our Monarchy—a modern, hard-working Monarchy—involved in an infinite variety of activities in the everyday life of the people. Little wonder that they are so popular at home, and sometimes a source of envy abroad! As well as bringing a little colour and gaiety in its wake, such a visit serves to strengthen the ties of friendship between our country and the two oldest members of the Commonwealth. Long may this free association endure!

My Lords, next year is the 25th Anniversary of the United Nations and it is appropriate that the gracious Speech should reaffirm our support for the United Nations in its efforts for peace-keeping and assisting developing countries. After 25 years it is perhaps also a time for scrutiny as well as for commemoration. My four years at the General Assembly—three months in each year—taught me a great deal about the behaviour patterns of States in an international setting.

I was the United Kingdom Representative in the Human Rights Committee—an unwieldy body of 126 delegations. It was a wonderful experience for me, yet it has left me with a certain feeling of dissatisfaction about the value of the work done there. Instead of getting down to the business of promoting human rights, big and small, many delegates preferred the acrimonious exchanges of everyday politics. Issues were raised, either irrelevant or beyond the competence of the Committee. We had become inured to those anti-colonial speeches, constantly looking back in anger, and the predictable voting alignments. That was the least of it; but, over all, progress on human rights was sluggish in the last few years.

The Committee is weighed down by the volume of paper it churns out. Conventions, and even some Declarations, have their value, but a moratorium on resolutions would save a lot of time and money. Some reform of General Assembly procedures is not only desirable but rather pressing. My Lords, we all know that the United Nations is only as good as the members who go to make it up. Yet, paradoxically, the organisation has to become better than the sum of its parts-and this is where the United Kingdom comes in. We as a nation must continue to play an active part in the process of making the United Nations increasingly effective. The Specialised Agencies are perhaps the most practical and dynamic bodies in the United Nations. A knowledge of the work they do is the best propaganda for aid to developing countries. A day will come soon when the richer countries will have to face up to the amount of aid, realistic aid, to poorer countries that is essential from richer countries to-day. I hope that we shall play our part when this happens.

My Lords, there is the reference in the gracious Speech to our desire for early commencement of negotiations to enter the European Community. This is a plain and refreshingly rational statement, after the battering we have had on this subject in the last ten years from the passionate advocates for entry into the Common Market. There have been two kinds of persuaders, the hot gospellers and those who told us that it was a sure economic winner. To-day a cooler healthier climate prevails, and I think the time has come for our going in so that we may elucidate and negotiate the terms to put before Parliament.

Let me turn for a moment to the stubborn problem of Rhodesia mentioned in the gracious Speech. My Lords, in the last few centuries neither wars nor conflicts have been able to stem the tide flowing in the direction of more and more human rights and freedoms. in this 20th century we are witnessing not only a scientific revolution but a great tidal wave throughout the world for social equality—between classes rich and poor; between nations rich and poor. I believe it is too late, at the end of this century, to sow any seeds of discrimination anywhere in the world. We do not have to look further than Northern Ireland to see the bitter harvest that it yields. So I believe it is too late for Mr. Ian Smith when he rejects the Queen, and takes the lonely and dangerous road leading to apartheid. Therefore it is gratifying that the three political Parties in this country stand by the Principles approved by Parliament for maintaining sanctions and isolating the régime until there is a change of mind and heart in Rhodesia.

Next, my Lords, I wish merely to glance at a few of the items which I welcome in the gracious Speech. The Government set up the Seebohm Committee to inquire into the personal social services to support families in social distress. I am glad that they are going to legislate on its recommendations, which will lead to prevention as well as cure. I should like to mention three other proposals. It would be surprising if I did not welcome the Bill to provide equal pay for men and women. Equal pay for equal work is a basic principle in a civilised community. The Bill to improve social security is another, because I believe that we as a nation have fallen behind some other European countries in this respect. The reform of local government and the continuation of law reform both need to adapt to technical change, because social change has a hard job to keep up with the astronomical technical change that has taken place in this century, and the gracious Speech is full of such relevant proposals.

And now, my Lords, I come to the last subject in the gracious Speech to which I wish to make special reference. I refer to the Bill which is to be introduced requiring local authorities to prepare plans for reorganising education on comprehensive lines. Here, I must admit that would gladly discard the seventh noncontroversial veil. Already comprehensive education is a burning issue. One thing is certain, that for many years to come we shall need more and better education—more trained teachers and more schools. This will mean a great deal of open and intelligent discussion on ways of achieving these desirable objectives. We all want the best education for our children: but the best education for all our children, not just for the clever and rich ones. One indisputable fact in its favour is that more and more children are staying on until 16 in comprehensive schools.

The change over to the comprehensive system will inevitably be, gradual. There is no cause, or indeed excuse, for alarm and despondency. But the fear of change—social change—always mobilises those whom I call the "Decline and fall squad". The logic of reasoning produced by these critics is no credit to the selective system of which they are a product. When they examine the statistics on comprehensive education their lament, if the statistics are unfavourable, is that "Things are not what they used to be". When the statistics favour the comprehensive schools, their lament is, "Things are not what they seem to be". In my experience, there are good and bad schools of every kind—grammar, secondary modern, comprehensive and progressive. But the education of the greatest number of our children to their full capacity can be completely achieved only by the nonselective method. No one has come up with another method to this end.

Another argument in favour of comprehensive education is specially relevant in this advanced technological age. If we do not bring forward our children of average ability, we are relegating them to do the menial jobs, those jobs which will gradually decline, thus making them unemployable. There will be 6 million young people between the ages of 18 and 25 voting for the first time in the next election. Whichever way they vote, I cannot see them launching a crusade for the return of the eleven-plus. Comprehensive education is simply a new attempt to create new opportunities for many more of our children.

It is fashionable these days, my Lords, to speak about the quality of life—an ambitious concept. In this nuclear age I have sometimes been reminded of the prophetic remark made by H. G. Wells: "History is a race between education and catastrophe". However, the prospect of millions of people, albeit with a high standard of living, who are starved of education is very sad to contemplate. Finally, I do not think that I cross the non-controversial "Maginot Line" when I maintain that education is the source, the beginning and the end of the quality of life in our society.

My Lords, I beg to move than an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows: Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Baroness Gaitskell.)

4.0 p.m.

LORD COLLISON

My Lords, I beg to second my noble friend's Motion for an humble Address in reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech. I feel most honoured at having been asked by my noble friend the Leader of the House to undertake this task, which in any circumstances is a difficult one as I understand that one has to attempt not to be controversial. I am especially pleased to be seconding a Motion so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. I am sure that your Lordships must have been impressed by the skill with which she has performed her task. As your Lordships will know, I have recently accepted appointment to the Chairmanship of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. This has meant that I have had to resign from the General Secretaryship of my old Union and will shortly have to withdraw from the General Council of the T.U.C. There are a number of references in the gracious Speech which have given me considerable satisfaction, but before I mention them may I say that I do not think it controversial to suggest that we must all rejoice in the clear improvement in the country's economic situation, due to our better balance-of-trade figures together with the added strength which has accrued to sterling as a result, and no doubt helped by the upvaluing of the mark. To achieve this result, as I know very well, many sacrifices have had to be called for and have been made. I believe that the Government have shown great courage, for sometimes good leadership demands that unpopular decisions must be taken. They were taken, and now the beneficial results are beginning to show. But, of course, my Lords, we must not let success lessen our determination to keep things right.

The gracious Speech made reference to the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to strengthen safety measures in industry. For some time now the trade union movement has been insisting on the need to follow the Swedish pattern. That pattern calls for the appointment of safety officers in all factories above a certain size and ensures that where the workpeople's representatives feel it necessary joint safety committees are set up. One can only remain appalled at the toll of accidents and deaths in industry. The latest annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories tells us that industry's death toll in this country is up by 10 per cent. as compared with the number in the previous year, and that of the 312,430 accidents, over 254,450 occurred in factory processes, some 46,500 took place during construction work and over 11,400 in docks and wharves. More than 261,710 men were hurt, 602 of them fatally, and 34,610 women, among whom there were 7 fatalities. It clearly behoves us all to do what we can to reduce this dreadful toll of suffering and death in industry. Therefore the proposals of the Government will be very welcome to the whole trade union movement.

I am also gratified by the reference in the gracious Speech to occupational health. I know that the Government intend to establish an employment medical service to take over and expand the work of the existing medical inspectors of factories and appointed factory doctors. I see this as at least a step towards the development of a true occupational health service. Of course we have a long way to go, and one can only hope that the supporting facilities will be provided and that the research and hygiene services will be readily forthcoming.

Again, my Lords, the gracious Speech made reference to the agricultural expansion programme. Those of us in the industry of agriculture have already welcomed the acceptance by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture of the recommendations made by the small "Neddy" for agriculture, when in November last he said that agriculture could be expected to provide an extra £160 million worth of products by 1972–73, thus confirming that the expansion programme was firm Government policy; and that has been repeated to-day in the gracious Speech. To my mind, there is no doubt that agriculture has a continuing part to play as a major contributor to the national economy and as the country's most important import saver.

Successful as we now appear to be in redressing the balance-of-trade deficit, it remains essential, as I said just now, that we should continue to remain in surplus, and I believe that the contribution that agriculture makes, which amounts to approximately £2,000 million a year, must not be allowed to decline. Of course, in order to achieve the targets set for us (and there have been indications, unfortunately, that at the moment we appear to be falling short) it will be necessary to ensure that the industry has the necessary inputs and that the agricultural labour force is encouraged to remain in the industry by the improvement of its wages and conditions. I think that the Report of the Select Committee on Agriculture made this point very clear indeed.

Finally, my Lords, I personally strongly welcome the mention in the gracious Speech of the Government's proposals for a new social insurance scheme based upon wage-related contributions and benefits. I know that there are certain problems to be resolved and certain decisions still to be taken and to be announced in connection with the contracting-out provisions, but I personally am sure that as and when the new scheme is thoroughly understood it will be hailed as a great advance in the social insurance field.

The main aim of the new scheme is to raise the living standards of pensioners in future years, both in absolute terms and relative to the rest of the population. It is needed because the present scheme has failed to provide adequate pensions—that is, pensions at or above the supplementary benefit level. Of about 7 million pensioners at present, approximately 2 million require supplementary benefit to some extent. Widows, the poorest group among the elderly, make up nearly one-third of all pensioners, and nearly half of them require supplementary benefit. The Government's proposals for putting pensions, benefits and contributions on an earnings-related basis will give people in retirement an income which reflects their standards of living during their working life, and will provide higher rates of benefit without loading large contributions on the lower paid. The present flat-rate scheme is open to severe criticism because contributions under it represent too high a proportion of the earnings of the lower paid, and yet the pension provided is still too low.

In spite of the impressive growth of occupational pensions schemes in recent years, little more than half of the employed population is covered as yet by such schemes, and by no means all of those covered would actually qualify for a proper occupational pension on retirement. Even by the turn of the century it is estimated that about one in three retirement pensioner households will have no occupational pension at all. Furthermore, occupational pension coverage varies widely between different groups in the population. It is much greater among non-manual than among manual workers; and so for all workers, particularly for the lower-paid ones whose employer has no occupational scheme, the new State scheme will be especially valuable.

There are other respects in which the State scheme provides valuable, and indeed in some cases essential, cover. It will make adequate provision for widows, by no means a general feature of occupational pensions schemes, and provide a dynamism which will guarantee, by means of biennial reviews, that as a minimum the pensions in payment will maintain their real value.

Finally, my Lords, I am sure that it is not intended that the new State scheme should push out good occupational schemes. On the contrary, what is intended is a partnership with them, and national superannuation has been designed to allow room for their operation. The idea of partnership is important. The new State scheme must provide comprehensive benefits for the population as a whole, which it would be difficult for funded occupational pension schemes fully to reproduce. But occupational pension schemes can be tailored in a way that the State scheme cannot—tailored to meet the special requirements of particular industries and particular employments. The important thing is that the terms of the partnership should not be such as to affect the viability of the State scheme, or require contributions to it to be; set at too high a level initially or to have to be increased at too early a date.

My Lords, the programme outlined in the gracious Speech will, I am sure, provide us with material for a fruitful and a stimulating Session. Doubtless we shall hear differing views expressed, but the debates will, I know, be conducted with the usual courtesy and tolerance which is always displayed on all sides of your Lordships' House. If I may say so, quite humbly as a relative newcomer, that is a thing which I appreciate and value very much. It is important in our society; and it is important in our system. My Lords, I beg to second my noble friend's Motion for an humble Address.

4.12 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until to-morrow. It is my good fortune to congratulate the Mover and the Seconder of the humble Address on the way they have acquitted themselves in what all of us know is a most difficult Parliamentary occasion; and for those who have no sense of direction they have by their speeches more or less successfully disguised the fact that they are supporters of the Government and sit on the Government Benches.

My Lords, to be non-controversial is not in Lady Gaitskell's nature, and I do not think that any of us who know her and count her as our friend would have been either surprised or in the least put out if she had decided this afternoon to be her usual more outspoken self—though 1 am glad to say that towards the end of a non-controversial speech she did become fairly comprehensive. It is, in any event, a great pleasure to everyone in the House that Lord Shackleton's eye lit upon the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, to move the Address; and there can be nobody, in this House at any rate, who is deceived by her size or supposes that it reflects the dimensions of her spirit. Anyone who has been on the receiving end of her trenchant speeches found that out rather quickly; but even they have always been won over, if not by her political sentiments then by the courtesy and essential kindliness, and the brevity, of her speeches; and I expect that goes for the anti-colonialists in the United Nations as well.

I note that the noble Lady is the Baroness Gaitskell of Egremont. I do not think that any of your Lordships would find any immediate similarity either physical or political, between the noble Lady and my noble friend Lord Egremont, except that neither of them ever speaks unless they have something to say, and something pertinent to the debate. That perhaps is an example which more of us in this House might choose to follow—and on the whole I think that noble Ladies who come to the House are less guilty than the rest of us. Those of us who were here will long remember the spirited interchange between Lady Gaitskell and Lady Summerskill about how many times Casanova had been married. It was, of course, pertinent to the debate, because it was on the Divorce Bill.

Lady Gaitskell has made a great and a distinguished contribution at the United Nations. For that reason we have not seen her here in this House as often as we should have liked. At the same time, I think there must be some of us this afternoon who remember that, but for the cruellest fate, she might now be occupy- ing No. 10, Downing Street, as wife of the Prime Minister. If that had been the case we might perhaps have known more about her hats and her hobbies and her heroes. But I do not think that she could possibly have served her country any better than she serves it now, and had she gone to No. 10 this House would certainly have been a much poorer place.

The noble Lord, Lord Collison, is very much larger and a good deal more rural. While Lady Gaitskell's shoes are not muddied by the pavements of Hampstead or the sidewalks of New York, Lord Collison's wellingtons are covered in good honest muck. I imagine that he is best known to your Lordships from his time as general secretary of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and to that Union and to the cause of agriculture he has until fairly recently devoted most of his working life. It must be a source of great satisfaction to the noble Lord to have worked for a body of men who are both under-rewarded and under-regarded, and to have succeeded, at any rate in some degree, in making people aware of their skill and their competence, and in improving their pay and their standard of life.

I do not think there has ever been a strike in the agricultural industry. That fact says a great deal for the good sense of all concerned, and not least the leaders of the agricultural workers, such as Lord Collison. I may say that I remember when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture. now a long time ago, that formidable heavyweight team, Lord Netherthorpe, of the National Farmers' Union and Lord Collison, of the N.U.A.W., who when united were unstoppable but when on a collison course were much better left alone.

In the last ten years or so the noble Lord, Lord Collison, has become increasingly interested in the International Labour Organisation, and I congratulate him on sharing in the award recently given to the I.L.O., the Nobel Peace Prize. Certainly it is a well-earned award, and the noble Lord's interest, the work that he has done for the I.L.O., has made its contribution.

Though I do not see in the gracious Speech mention of a Bill to reform the House of Lords, or a statement of intention to implement the Boundary Corn-mission's proposals, or indeed an industrial disputes Bill similar to that of last Session (which, if your Lordships remember, was necessary for the continuance of this Government in office), even so it seems from what we heard this morning that we shall have a fairly busy and well occupied Session—and it may be perhaps too occupied. I would ask, incidentally, that the Leader of the House should ensure that we do not receive all this legislation in June and July. One day there will be a revolt, and it will not be only on these Benches.

I noticed in the Press some speculation about the conduct to be expected from your Lordships in this, probably the last Session of the present Parliament. I do not think there will be any change in the attitude of those who sit on these Benches. The Government's legislation and any proposals that they bring before this House will be examined, as they always have been examined by your Lordships, both on their merits and by the criteria which we have used over the past five years. If, as in the case of the boundaries Bill, we on this side believe that the Government are doing something which is constitutionally wrong and on which the people of this country have not been asked to make a judgment, we shall certainly examine it all the more carefully and shall not be afraid to do what we believe to be our duty. In the dying days of a Parliament any Government should be careful about the controversial legislation that they introduce. No doubt this is much in the minds of noble Lords opposite. But we are a sensible and fair-minded body, and I have no doubt that we shall survive this Session as we have survived the previous four; and when it is over, my Lords, let us hope and pray for better things.

Moved, That the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Carrington.)

4.20 p.m.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, in accordance with tradition, I rise from these Benches to second the Motion for the adjournment of the debate proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The occasion is one on which, again according to tradition, we congratulate the two Members of our House who have had the honour of moving and seconding the humble Address. This I do most sin- cerely, not only because it is the tradition to do so but because both speakers, as I know all your Lordships will recognise, have made speeches of the highest quality, well suited as an introduction to the debates which we shall have this week and next week on the actual merits (or, as some of us may think, perhaps, on the demerits) of the gracious Speech setting out the main lines to be followed in the coming Session by Her Majesty's Government.

I think it is something more than a formality and a tradition that the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the humble Address should be as non-controversial as possible. They cannot, in the nature of things, be entirely non-controversial, and certainly it is asking too much of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, to suggest that they should be completely non-controversial. But it is surely right that our perhaps heated and naturally largely Party political exchanges of the next few days should have as a prelude two speeches in which an effort is made to rise above the turmoil and say things of which most reasonable people—and it is the great merit of this House that it consists to a large extent of reasonable people—would approve.

In particular, I greatly welcome the opportunity of saying a few words in praise of the utterances of the noble Baroness who moved the humble Address. The noble Baroness has been a personal friend of mine for, I think, about thirty years, and it is my privilege and my pleasure on this occasion to bear witness to her splendid qualities. More especially, I have always admired what I might almost call her unique capacity for combining passion with common sense. She is indeed an ornament to this House in her own right, but when we hear her we always remember that great man, Hugh Gaitskell, whose untimely death nearly seven years ago was such an irreparable loss to British politics. The noble Baroness, in her passionate moderation, always keeps alive the ideals for which her husband stood, and in so doing she always succeeds in animating our debates and in firing our imaginations.

I also much appreciated the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Collison, who embodies the sturdy qualities of our trade union leaders. As a man who has devoted most of his life to the improvement in the lot of agricultural labourers, he must indeed be happy at the result of his work. Few men can have to so great a degree accomplished what they set out to achieve. Conditions on the land in Britain are incomparably better now than they were at the end of the war, and for that the noble Lord must certainly take his full share of the credit. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, the noble Lord has for long been associated with the I.L.O., and he must feel happy at the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to that organisation and take his full share of the reflected glory.

For those reasons, I should like again to congratulate both the Mover and the Seconder of the humble Address and to second the Motion for the adjournment.

4.25 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)

My Lords, before I congratulate my two noble friends who moved and seconded the humble Address I should like to congratulate the two noble Lords who have just spoken. I think it is the first time the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has replied to the gracious Speech; and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, improves year after year—his was a brilliant speech. He has had five years' experience; I could never do as well as he does in this, and I hope that he will long continue to be able to do it. It was a charming speech, greatly appreciated.

That leaves rather less for me to say about the Mover and Seconder. The tributes that have been paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and to her husband, were clearly tributes which she appreciated were deeply felt by the House. She certainly is the forceful, charming, and courageous wife of a very great man, one who was himself forceful, charming, and courageous; and I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the quality she has brought and the services that she is now able to render to this House—a service which it had also occurred to me could not have been greater in any other walk of life. Her contributions to your Lordships' debates show her deep concern and interest in human rights. I am very glad that the noble Baroness referred to her work at the United Nations. I do not believe that many of your Lordships can be aware what a heavy burden she carried for this country in the Committees on which she served, and where she always spoke up positively and strongly in the face of some of the very unfair criticism that we have received there.

It was given to me to think of those who should move and second the Address, and I believe I was right when I wrote both to her and to my noble friend Lord Collison and said that in the House of Commons they ask young and promising M.P.s, but that in this House we tend to ask distinguished, promising, and young-at-heart Members of your Lordships' House—which applies to both my noble friends. I believe that the speeches of my noble friend Lord Collison, and indeed of others of my trade union colleagues, have been something of a revelation to those who have not had the opportunity to meet some of our great trade union leaders. The degree of wisdom and ability, the sense of fairness, and indeed the intellectual quality that they bring, are very striking and were very marked in Lord Collison's speech this afternoon.

We know that lie first entered the trade union movement and took up union work as an agricultural worker in his anger over the treatment of a fellow worker, and he has carried on this work through a life in which he has made great contributions, culminating especially in his work in the I.L.O. More recently he has been appointed Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, a great responsibility, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ilford (who in his day gave great service as Chairman of the National Assistance Board) will agree. And I am sure we shall all agree that we are fortunate that Lord Collison should be taking on this responsibility. There is only one complaint that I have about my noble friend Lord Collison, and that is that as a West Countryman, as a man born in Worcestershire, he supports Gloucestershire in cricket. But my Lords, both he and my noble friend Lady Gaitskell can be very proud of the contributions they have made to-day.

My Lords, I should like to say a few things about the gracious Speech, really against the background of how we might organise the debate—and here let me hasten to add that no one can really organise a debate on the Queen's Speech. I think that, on the whole, we do rather better in this House than they do in another place. I should first of all like to emphasise that the Queen's Speech is relevant to the economic and social needs of the country, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for saying that your Lordships would examine the proposals with care; and, I hope, with fairness. I would not wish to suggest that they should not be Party political issues.

The Queen's Speech provides, on the one hand, a drive for increased industrial efficiency, and, on the other hand, care and concern for society as a whole, especially those in need. It falls naturally into three parts and, in discussion through the usual channels, we have suggested that we should direct our remarks as far as possible to the subjects which we have indicated for certain days. I appreciate that, quite apart from the fact that no one could silence noble Lords—and we should not wish to do so—it will not always be possible for noble Lords, who may want to talk on a number of subjects, to confine their remarks precisely to the main theme of the day. So that since, as I said, they can take part only once, I am sure noble Lords will feel absolutely free to deal with any matter within the ambit of the general debate. Nonetheless, I hope that the indication of the subjects will be of help.

To-morrow the main theme is Home Affairs, with the Lord Chancellor speaking early for the Government and with my noble friend the Lord Advocate winding-up at the end of the day. Before I mention some of the subjects I should particularly like once again to mention law reform. Here there is an important development which is not referred to in the gracious Speech and which concerns the Beeching Report—the Royal Commission on our judicial institutions. Let me first pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, and his colleagues for one of the most fascinating Reports I have ever read. I started to read it out of a sense of duty, but, speaking as a layman, I found it quite compulsively interesting.

It is a satisfaction to me that my noble and learned friend who sits so patiently and so selflessly on the Woolsack and who has worked so hard in the field of law reform in the face of some difficulty and frustration—there is always the problem of finding Parliamentary time—will be able to speak to-morrow on one of the most important issues, the organisation of our system of justice. Therefore, I shall not take time to explain it beyond mentioning that there has been practically no change since Plantagenet times in the arrangements for holding assizes and quarter sessions. (My noble friend the Lord Advocate has told me that in Scotland, as always, they have been further ahead than we have in England.) More serious is that the delays in the law have become intolerable, in criminal and civil courts alike, and that in recent years we have been moving closer to something like—and I hesitate to use the word—a breakdown. So there will be general agreement about the importance of this subject.

The Government warmly accept, in principle, the recommendations of the Beeching Report. Certain issues, detailed recommendations about the siting of new courts and other matters, will have to be looked at in detail. But I hope that the consultations which must take place will be speedy and forward looking, so that there will be a possibility of introducing legislation as soon as possible. I believe that the reforms which will flow from these proposals, when they are set before your Lordships, will, by making justice more efficient and, above all, quicker, be some of the most important reforms that the Government will have initiated.

There are other important proposals in the field of law reform, and I especially draw attention to the fact that the Lord Chancellor has fulfilled his pledge that legislation will be introduced to deal with financial provision for parties to marriages which have broken down. I hope that we shall see that Bill very soon. There are also some important measures of Scottish law reform, particularly those relating to the feudal system of land tenure, and other Scottish reforms of a kind which will be regarded as rather esoteric by English Members of your Lordships' House. But it is especially appropriate, as well as something of a historical event, that my noble friend the Lord Advocate will be winding-up to-morrow. Of course we shall not be concerning ourselves to-morrow—and my noble friend certainly will not—only with Scottish issues, for there are other important proposals relating to superannuation, social insurance and the importance of a partnership between occupational schemes and the State. I regard as of the greatest importance the issue of protecting pension rights on changes of employment. I believe that this will be a real contribution both to personal freedom and also to greater industrial efficiency. It will, in fact, be the most important measure since Beveridge, and, having had something to do with it, I can assure your Lordships, as you will not be surprised to hear, that it is a not uncomplicated measure and that we shall no doubt have to give careful attention to it.

There are other important measures in the home affairs section which are concerned with environment, and I think they have all, practically speaking, been mentioned by my noble friends who moved and seconded the Address. In particular, we have had a forthright statement from my noble friend Lady Gaitskell on the subject of comprehensive education. Despite the passions which this subject arouses, and keeping in mind her clear acknowledgment that there are many excellent schools in all sectors of education, I hope we shall be able to discuss this subject calmly and coolly, as I am sure we shall well manage to do in this House.

On Thursday there will be a debate on Foreign Affairs and Defence, and I must apologise to noble Lords for some inconvenience which may have been caused by the change in the arrangements. There are certain reasons for this. First, there is the fact that on November 19 we are to have a debate on the Duncan Report. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who had a Motion down in the last Session, will be particularly interested in this issue. They will obviously have to raise not only the organisation of the Diplomatic Service but also, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, issues of foreign policy. But, having agreed through the usual channels to devote one more day than we had last year to the humble Address, it seemed right that two days should be devoted to economic and industrial affairs.

I say that because we did not have our usual debate on the Finance Bill, which went through "on the nod"—a matter which I imagine would arouse considerable jealousy in another place. Moreover there are two lines to this debate. First, there is the general management of the economy, and secondly, there are the industrial issues: the conduct of industry, industrial relations and general efficiency—to use the popular jargon, if I dare do so in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, the macro and the micro. Those two days will be concerned with, and will cross, the whole field of economic and industrial affairs. My noble friend Lord Beswick will be speaking early next Tuesday, which is the first day, and my noble friend Lord Brown, who has made a big contribution in encouraging British exports, will be winding-up. On Wednesday I shall be speaking early, and my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith, who is heavily involved in this field both through his experience as general secretary of a trade union and now with his duties at the Ministry of Technology, will be winding-up.

It has been suggested that one of the reasons why we wanted two days for this debate was so that the Government could boast about the success of Government policy, reflected in the encouraging swing into credit of the balance of payments. I am glad that the Government's success in this area is acknowledged, though I must emphasise again, as the Government have consistently done, that it would be unwise for us either to relax our efforts or to assume that all is over bar the shouting. Indeed, there is still a hard slog in front of us. None the less, this Government's success is acknowledged, and I think it is right that we should be able to discuss future progress.

But our reason, basically, for the second day was to discuss those important measures in the industrial field which are foreshadowed in the gracious Speech in order, to use the words of the gracious Speech: to foster the fullest use of resources in all regions … We ought not in this area to underrate the importance of the institutional devices, quite apart from the great efforts that are being made in industry itself. The success of the Shipbuilding Industry Board is one, the I.R.C. is another; and it is interesting to note, in relation to the I.R.C., that the European Community, and indeed the French Government, are examining the possibilities of setting up similar institutions. It is in this context that there will be an important measure to bring together the Monopolies Commission and the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

My Lords, I will not list the various Acts which we hope to pass into law, the various Bills that will come before us, but they are all designed to encourage and help industry, both privately and publicly owned, to contribute to our balance of payments and to the raising of our living standards. No doubt there will be noble Lords who will wish to discuss agriculture, and although my noble friend Lord Beswick will be speaking early in the Economic debate—and he is our expert in this matter—we shall certainly listen carefully to what noble Lords say, and we have certainly listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Collinson has said.

Let me, finally, refer to the very important subject of improved safety and health in industry. Noble Lords on this side of the House, particularly those with trade union experience, have constantly drawn attention to the problems, the risks to life, limb and health, which are still excessive in a society that calls itself civilised. New measures are being introduced here, specifically related to offshore drilling rigs, to trawlers, and generally to industry. I believe that these measures complete the circle of Government policy and bring us back, through efficiency, to the quality of our society.

My Lords, we are going to have a heavy Session—the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is quite right—and I can assure your Lordships that in the arrangement of business my noble friend Lord Beswick will have regard to the convenience of the House at all times, though noble Lords like the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, will know how difficult it sometimes is to suit everybody and of the efforts that my noble friend has made so manfully. We have done our best, as always, to get more legislation at the beginning of the Session. We have not totally failed in this, but we have not been as successful as we should have liked. I personally deeply regret that House of Lords reform has not gone through, and that we are not carrying this legislation forward in a reformed House. But I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for what he has said on the matter of co-operation. He uttered a warning note about the importance of being careful in what is possibly the last Session of a Government. I remind him that it is, of course, only a Labour Government who have to be careful in relation to the House of Lords; and I would say to the noble Lord, since he has been inclined in the past to talk about the Government of the day with a temporary majority in another place, that all the signs are that it will not be as temporary as he would wish. None the less, I recognise that. your Lordships, sometimes in difficult circumstances, manage a great deal of constructive and co-operative work, and we look forward with interest and with some care to seeing that that co-operation continues.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.