Lords Sitting of 24 February 1970

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

PERSONAL STATEMENT BY LORD BESWICK
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a brief personal statement. It has been brought to my attention that in my winding-up speech in last Wednesday's debate on the Police Forces I referred in hypothetical terms to a case that is pending. Cases of this kind should not be referred to in this way, and I am sorry that I did so on this occasion.

M.I.D.As: PROPOSED COST/ BENEFIT STUDY
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Inter-Departmental Working Group on MIDAS have yet taken a decision on Professor Peston's report on the feasibility of a cost/benefit study.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, Professor Peston's report is at the moment still under consideration.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in seeking to thank the noble Lord for what is not, I am afraid, a very forth-coming or agreeable reply, may I ask him first of all whether the Government will press on with this matter, which has been hanging fire for a long time? Secondly, if the Working Group do come to the conclusion that there should now be a cost/benefit study, in addition to a feasibility study of a cost/benefit study, would the noble Lord draw the attention of those concerned to the point that it would be well if it was not simply on a narrow, discounted cash-flow basis but took account of the widest socio-economic considerations such as have been studied in Holland?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not catch the last words of the noble Earl. As have been studied where?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: In the Netherlands. As the noble Lord has raised that, may I follow it up? Would he consider whether the Netherlands Economic Institute, who have much experience of cost/benefit studies on the widest possible scale, might not usefully be consulted, as indeed they are being consulted by other bodies in Britain? But, above all, would he please press on with the matter?
LORD KENNET: Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to form a judgment of the desirability of doing all this extra work when he has seen this report.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, are the Government going to publish it; and, if so, when may we see it?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I under-stand that the National Ports Council have decided, in principle, to publish it.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that port traffic through nine West European ports grew by 33 per cent. over five years, while traffic through British ports grew only 11 per cent.?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am not in a position to endorse that figure at the drop of a hat, but if it is true I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government are aware of it.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government are content that one-sixth of our imports of grain should come to us through Continental ports, and also that Scotland's imports of ore from Australia are also to be trans-shipped through ports on the Continent?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, those are separate questions.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, are not these questions relevant to the whole issue of MIDAK, on which the Government have sat for three years doing, it would seem, very little indeed?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I gave the noble Earl yesterday a Written Answer in some detail about the phases of Government study on this matter.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Written Answer and the courtesy of letting me have it last night, may I draw attention to the fact—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the dates in that Answer bear out the very point I have been making?
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask the Government why there was a
4
delay in the Working Party originally commissioning Halcrows as consultants and why, when the report from the consultants came in, there was a further delay of 15 months before Professor Peston was commissioned to do his feasibility study of a cost/benefit study?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am not sure that the House would want a full account of every month occupied by everybody on this work, and if the noble Lord agrees I will write to him and seek to allay his curiosity.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: But is the noble Lord aware that there is a good deal of anxiety about this matter, and would he use his best influence to see that Professor Peston's report is published as soon as possible?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is a complex matter, and it has required pro-found study. We now have two reports about it. The latter and more general one, I understand, will shortly be published, as I told the House, by the National Ports Council.

EAST ANGLIA ROAD SCHEMES
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can say, having regard to the sum of £377·5 million which according to the White Paper on Public Expenditure 1968–1969 to 1973–1974 (Cmnd. 4234) is to be made available during 1970–1971 for the construction and improvement of major roads, what is the total value of such schemes likely to start on trunk and principal roads in the East Anglia Economic Planning Region during the year 1970–1971.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, in the five counties of the East Anglia Economic Planning Region the total value of schemes for new and improved major roads likely to start during the year 1970–1971 is approximately £7 million, but during the following year it is hoped to start schemes totalling more than twice this amount.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, and arising out of his Answer, I should like to ask him whether he does not think that for a growing region like East Anglia some £7 million for the construction and improvement of major roads, proposed for the East Anglia Economic Planning Region for the year 1970–1971 as he has told the House, is a quite inadequate share of the total of £377·5 million appearing in the White Paper?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps at first sight it would appear inadequate, but the noble Lord will be aware that, with the resources that we have available and that we have designated for road building, we have had to take into account the needs in other parts of the country. We have a scheme to assess the economic rate of return on this development, and it is for this reason that at present more money is spent in other parts of the country than in East Anglia.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, is that why the figure which the noble Lord has given is less than 2 per cent. of the national total? Could the noble Lord say a little more about the economic return to which he has referred?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the figure is just below 2 per cent. The manner in which my right honourable friend decides how much of the resources available to him shall be used for road building takes into account the traffic involved, the accident rate and the loss as a consequence of accidents. Accidents with heavy goods vehicles tend to give out a much higher loss to the economy; therefore the more densely-populated and industrial parts of the country have greater resources made available to them. Far more money is spent in those areas than in those which do not carry the same amount of heavy goods traffic.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Ministry's own Green Paper a year ago referred to the fact that these routes carry heavy lorries, running East to West across the region? Do the Government recall that in 1967 it was the Ministry itself which advised the East Anglia Economic Planning Council that £250 million would be needed before 1981 to prevent a worse congestion? Does the reply given to the
6
House this afternoon represent a change in the view of the Ministry?
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords, we do not dissent from the figures the noble Lord has given as to the needs of East Anglia; but one must balance the needs in other parts of the country. That is what my right honourable friend does.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether there are any plans for by-passing the two small towns of Saxmundham and Wickham Market on the A.12 road?
LORD SHEPHERD: Not without notice, my Lords. I have other names, but not those.

HOSPITAL SISTERS' PAY
2.45 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why a sister in hospital with general and psychiatric qualifications should on promotion to assistant matron incur a net loss in pay taking into account increased lodging charges.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, this would occur only if there were some improvement in accommodation and services justifying an increase in the lodging charge greater than the immediate increase in pay.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, but I would refute it. Would not the noble Baroness agree that the salary of the sister is £1,315, plus £10 for double qualifications, less a lodging charge of £183, making a net salary of £1,142? Would she also not agree that on promotion the sister, as assistant matron, receives an increase of £44, offset by an increased lodging charge of £54 and the loss of her £10, thus producing a net loss of £20 on her pay? If there is better lodging, she will obviously get it; but I understand that in any case this will be deducted.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I could not agree that unless I knew the

7
facts of the individual case. I suggest that if the noble Lord and I could discuss this matter we might perhaps reach some agreement on it.

HOSPITALS: REMOVAL EXPENSES FOR ASSISTANT MATRONS
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why removal expenses are payable to assistant matrons in general hospitals but not to the same grade in psychiatric and severely sub-normal hospitals.]
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, removal expenses are paid where it is in the interests of the service to facilitate movement from one hospital group to another. The types of post to which this applies are defined in a schedule agreed in the General Whitley Council. I understand that the present schedule does not include the grade of assistant matron in hospitals for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, because although the same title is used this grade is not equivalent to the grade of assistant matron in a general hospital. The schedule is, however, kept under review and I shall be glad to see that the matter is brought to the attention of the Whitley Council.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that it is very difficult to recruit young girls for work in psychiatric hospitals these days, would not my noble friend agree that it is very urgent to remove anomalies of this kind, which tend to irritate?
BARONESS SEROTA: Yes, my Lords. That is why I gave the assurance that I did to the noble Lord opposite.

THE EASTER RECESS
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, subject to the progress of business it is hoped that the House will rise for Easter on Thursday, March 26, and return on Tuesday, April 7.
8
I should like to remind the House that dinner will be available tomorrow from 7 to 8.30 p.m.

HAMBROS BANK BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
PEMBROKESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ESTATES BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (EXPORT PROMOTION LEVY) ORDER 1970
2.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, I beg to move, That the draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) Order 1970, a copy of which was laid before Parliament on February 2, be approved. The Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1970 and the Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) Order are closely connected and I hope that it will be agreeable to your

9
Lordships that we should deal with them together. There must, however, be two separate Orders, as the purposes of the two levies with which they respectively deal are quite distinct; and separate bodies have to account through the Ministry to Parliament for each of them. These Orders are laid for the approval of Parliament under the authority of Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. That section gave to certain Government Departments and to certain Ministers, of whom under the Minister of Technology Order 1969 the Minister of Technology is the appropriate one for this purpose, powers to provide that charges might be imposed by Order on persons engaged in an industry if it were expedient for funds to be made available for certain purposes connected with the industry. Scientific research and the promotion of the export trade, with which these Orders respectively deal, are two of such purposes.
Under this section of the Act two Orders dealing respectively with these two aspects of the wool textile industry were made at the request of the industry in 1950. There have been various amendments since then. The last was in 1966. Perhaps, my Lords, I might add that Orders under this section of the Act and of a similar nature in respect of scientific research are in existence for the hosiery and knitwear industry and for the cutlery industry. The wool textile industry is unique in having a levy for export promotion purposes under Section 9 of the 1947 Act. The purpose of the draft Orders before your Lordships'
House, like the series of amendments to which I have referred, is in effect to bring the position up to date in the light of changes in the industry. The Orders are being introduced at the request of the Wool Textile Delegation, a body substantially representative of the whole wool textile industry. Their purpose is to restore the levy income to the equivalent level of 1966 by taking account of the changes in the industry since that date.
In general, the considerations which have to be taken into account apply to both the scientific research levy and to the export promotion levy. There is one special consideration in the case of the Scientific Research Levy Order and
10
perhaps it would be convenient if I dealt with that first. Until now the body for which funds are to be made available by the levy on the industry has been the Wool Textile Research Council. The Order now before your Lordships changes the destination of the funds to the Wool Industry Research Association. This change arises from a recommendation of a firm of management consultants that the governing structure of the Research Institute should be simplified by the elimination of the Wool Textile Research Council, most of whose functions were in fact a duplication of those of the Association. The Government are satisfied that the change will in no way result in less control over the use of levy funds.
The major changes, however, which affect both the Orders are that in the last three or four years there has been a considerable change in the use of manmade fibres in the wool textile industry, and, further, there has been a sharp fall in employment. These two developments could not be foreseen at the time of the last revision of the Order arrangements in 1966 and the present draft Orders are designed to recognise the extent to which they change the background against which the levy arrangements have to be made. The first of the results of these developments is that under the new Orders the industry, for the purpose of the Order, is more widely defined. This is done by including processing of fibres which are not at present subject to any levy but which are being increasingly substituted for fibres whose processing is covered by the existing Orders. Man-made as opposed to animal fibres are being increasingly used in the wool textile industry, either alone or more generally as blends with wool. At the present time about 25 per cent. of the fibre used in this industry is man-made and it is expected that this will increase to 40 per cent. by the mid-1970s. The result of the change which has been taking place has been a steady fall in the use in the industry of the animal fibres which were liable for levy. It was put to us by the Wool Textile Delegation that it was a serious anomaly that the processing of the wool content should attract levy while the processing of the manmade fibre content of the yarn, cloth, et cetera, did not. We have accepted this argument and rectified the anomaly in the Orders which are now before your Lordships.

11
The second major development in the industry is that there has been since 1966 a sharp fall in employment. The total numbers employed in the industry in 1966 were about 155,000. In November, 1969, the last date for which we have a figure, they had fallen to 146,000, and it has recently been forecast by outside consultants that by the mid-1970s the numbers employed will be down to about 121,000. Hitherto the levy has been very largely based on numbers employed. Clearly, if that basis is maintained there will be a continual fall in the yield of the levy unless the rate is periodically raised. In the light of this situation we have accepted the Wool Textile Delegation's proposal that the levy should no longer be based on employment but on a percentage of emoluments. The reduction in employment has been accompanied by a rise in productivity; and as productivity increases so does pay. Therefore to base the levy upon emoluments rather than on numbers employed seemed to us a sensible change in the basis. We have further made a change in the rate of levy charged on the weight of fibre supplied. I should make it clear that this refers only to fibres which are already liable for levy under the existing Orders. The draft Orders do not extend the supply levy to man-made fibres. We are satisfied that the reduction in the rate of levy payable on supply is fair as regards the levy yield between suppliers on the one hand and processers on the other.
A word about timing and the timetable of the placing of this Order before
Parliament. The Wool Textile Delegation first applied to the President of the Board of Trade for an amendment to the existing Orders at the end of 1967. It took some time to clarify the new basis and to establish that it satisfied the criterion laid down in the 1947 Act that the incidence of charges as between different classes of undertaking in the industry was in accordance with a fair principle. It was not therefore until May, 1969, that we began the process of consultation with sectional organisations representative of substantial numbers of employers and employees who might be affected by the new Orders. Fifty-five such organisations were consulted and as a result of objections raised by seven of them detailed discussions took place, which led to some
12
substantial amendments to the proposed draft Orders.
The purpose of these amendments was to limits so far as is possible the incidence of the levy outside what are generally acknowledged to be the limits of the wool textile industry. I may here say, perhaps, that the drafting of these Orders has taken into account the observations which your Lordships made on a similar Order last year in respect of the hosiery and knit-wear industry in as much as a clause has been inserted exempting from the payment of levy any person whose charges for the designated activities as defined on an emoluments basis do not exceed £2,500 in the base year. These consultations therefore took some considerable time, but we were mindful that what was being done was a substantial change from the previous levy arrangements and we had to be fully satisfied that the incidence of the new arrangements as between the various sections was in accordance with a fair principle.
It might be argued that we allowed the process of consultation to carry on too long. This I cannot accept, for I am sure that it was right that every possibility of removing objections was examined. This has, however, had the disadvantage that the Orders are being introduced at a relatively late stage in the levy period. But I want to emphasise that no one will be liable to levy because of something done before the Orders come into operation. The Orders apply only to a person, who, on the date on which these Orders come into operation —that is to say, subject to the approval of Parliament, on March 16—is carrying on or thereafter begins to carry on a business comprising one of the activities designated in the Orders or is undertaking or begins to undertake the business of supplying as defined in the Orders.
I am sure that your Lordships will be of the view that funds should continue to be made available to the wool textile industry for the purposes of scientific research and export promotion. I am further satisfied that the amended charges as set out in the draft Orders reflect the changes in circumstance and are in accordance with a fair principle, and I commend them to your Lordships for approval.
Moved, That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) Order

13
1970, laid before the House on February 2, be approved.—(Lord Delacourt-Smith.)
3.4 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has explained these Orders to us. He has gone out of his way and taken some trouble to explain why the Orders are rather late, in the sense that they are due to come into effect on March 16 when they relate to the levy year beginning on October 1, which means that the year has been going on for some time without anybody knowing exactly how much they are going to be levied in respect of the year. I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the fullest consultation is of the greatest importance and I have no doubt that the Government were fully aware of the desirability of starting the levy not later than the beginning of the year. I was proposing to ask a question about this, but the noble Lord has explained the matter so fully that I do not intend to pursue it any further.
The noble Lord has not said much about what the levy is estimated to bring in. When the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, introduced the last amendments on May 21, 1966, he said that the two levies were expected to bring in about half a million pounds—£214,000 for export promotion and £286,000 for scientific research. He drew attention to the comparatively small percentage of turnover involved—one twenty-seventh of 1 per cent. of the turn-over in the case of export promotion and one twentieth of 1 per cent. of turnover for scientific research. These are not large figures and the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, indicated that he would have been happy to see them larger, particularly in respect of export promotion. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, what these two Orders will produce and what Government assistance, if any, is given?
On the last occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, said that it was Government policy to let these funds stand on their own feet so far as possible, particularly the export promotion fund, although in 1966 there was a grant of £50,000 towards export promotion in the United States of America on a pound for pound basis and a grant of £82,500 for scientific research. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, can bring us up to date on these figures.
14
I would fully agree that it is a great improvement to change these grants from a per capita basis of emloyees to a levy on total wages and salaries, if only because, as salaries rise, so the funds will tend to keep up with expenditure and it will be less necessary in future to bring in amending Orders purely to keep funds up to a viable level.
So far as the wool trade is concerned, I wonder whether the noble Lord would say something about the Government's estimate of the effectiveness of these two levies. From the Monthly Statistics, it looks as if wool trade exports have fallen in volume by about 10 per cent. since the last levy amendments were made. Perhaps the noble Lord would tell us what were the total of wool trade exports for last year. And I hope that he will say something about the effectiveness of this kind of promotion. He has made clear that the differences between the two Orders is that one refers to the National Wool Textile Export Corporation and the other to the Wool Industry Research Association.
The noble Lord also explained that it had been thought advisable to adjust the position of man-made fibres so far as research is concerned. He said that there is a growing proportion of man-made fibres in textiles and presumably this will be the case for textiles exported as well as for those used in this country. Therefore it would seem logical for the man-made fibres to be subject to the export promotion levy in the same way as wool textiles, by which I take it is meant the pure wool textiles. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say a little more about this, because if it is the case that the proportion of man-made fibres is now 25 per cent. in wool textiles, and is likely to increase to 40 per cent., it seems that the man-made fibres manufacturers should be associated in the export promotion levy.
Perhaps the noble Lord will also tell us (I think it would be wrong to part with these Orders without this information) what results have been achieved from levies for scientific research in the past three years, and what has so far been achieved by grouping together research on textiles composed partly of wool and partly of other fibres. Lastly, I would ask the noble Lord whether the exclusion of the manufacturers of other

15
fibres from the export levy does not tend to handicap the export promotion of textiles composed both of wool and man-made fibres.
3.12 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, perhaps I can say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the £50,000 which was put up by the industry on a pound for pound basis was, as I understood it, a once-and-for-all contribution to make a particular defence in the American market which had been so badly eroded by the Japanese infiltration of fine worsted market. But I should have thought that the justification for these two Orders, and for the money that has been spent on research and export promotion, is obvious. Out of the mouth of the Minister comes the fact that the number of people who are to be employed in this industry will be less. There is no suggestion that the value of their exports is going to fall.
The comparatively small amount that the Government give in assistance to the wool industry for export promotion is more than justified by the industry's export performance. I understand that in 1969 this great industry was back where it stood in the better years and contributed, in terms of exports, £158 million. I have waited in vain for a little pat on the back from the Minister, and I hope that he will avail himself of his second opportunity to speak to say something to this industry, and to tell it that it has done well—because it has done well.
It is a striking example of a refutation of the demand for size that everybody thinks will bring us to a point of efficiency that we have never seen before. There are thousands of firms in this industry, or connected with it, which firms in most countries in the world, despite advantage of having wool on the spot, good water, good labour and so on, have not yet been able to emulate. I think it is highly creditable that this industry stood four-square and has been able to export the amount it has exported during the years since the war. It is one of the real pillars of strength to which the Board of Trade look, and a word from the Minister would not be out of place. The House certainly ought to give these two Orders its blessing. They are com-
16
mon sense; they have been recommended by the wool trade, and that is good enough.
3.15 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am conscious that in speaking in your Lordships' House on the subject of this industry I am speaking in the presence of a man with great knowledge and experience of the industry in the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes. I endorse wholeheartedly what he has said. I have been asked a number of questions by the
noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I will do my best to respond. We are talking of an industry which has a turnover of something of the order of £315 million, and which meets 95 per cent. of the requirements of the home market. I am afraid I am unable to give precise figures of exports, but the industry is exporting a substantial amount —to the order of about one-third of its total production. Indeed, I think that what has been said of the industry in itself constitutes a powerful argument for the two Orders now before your Lord-ships, because in export promotion and in the application of scientific knowledge the funds which have been raised under Orders of a similar kind in the past have made a valuable contribution.
I was asked what the estimated yield of the Orders would be. It is expected that the Order for export promotion will raise something like £200,000, and the levy for scientific research something like £250,000. We are not, therefore, very far away from the figure of £500,000 which was mentioned on an earlier occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, in introducing similar Orders at an earlier date. With regard to the contributions made for these purposes from other sources, the Government, as part of their general programme of assistance to research associations, provide about £100,000 for research in the wool textile industry. So far as export is concerned, the position has changed somewhat. The special arrangements which applied are no longer in existence, but the Government provide export assistance to industry as a whole by way of their financial support for trade fairs, store promotions, co-operative advertising and in a variety of other ways. The wool textile industry can benefit from this general help in the same way that other industries can.

17
I now come to what I think was the last point raised; namely, the position in
regard to the relationship between man-made fibres and animal fibres. Perhaps I can clarify the position a little further. The man-made fibre producers, as such, are not being made subject to levy; no levy is being charged on the supply of man-made fibres. The fibre becomes chargeable only after it enters the traditional wool textile processes, and man-made fibres will be leviable only from the carding process. Earlier processes, such as extrusion, are not included in the Order. It seems to be reasonable and fair that the processing of man-made fibres in the industry should be leviable in the same way as animal fibres: for, after all, much of the research expenditure is concerned with the problems of using and blending man-made fibres with the animal fibres. The same firm spins and packages hand knitting yarn made from wool and hand knitting yarn made from man-made fibres. Expenditure on export promotion does not differentiate between all wool and wool/man-made fibre blends.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the spirit in which he received these Orders, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for what he had to say. I trust that the House will show its appreciation of the contribution to our economy which this industry has been making by giving approval to these Orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) ORDER 1970
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg to move that the second Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1970, laid before the House on February 2, be approved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BANKING COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS) REGULATIONS 1970
3.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN)THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN) rose to move, That the Draft Banking Companies (Accounts) Regulations 1970, laid before the House on January 27, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Eighth Schedule to the Companies Act 1948 sets out the matters on which companies are required to give information in their accounts. Paragraph 23 of that Schedule exempts from many of the requirements of the Schedule any company which satisfies the Board of Trade that it ought to be treated for the purposes of the Schedule as a banking company. A bank so exempted is entitled to draw up its annual accounts in a way which does not disclose the full amount of its reserves, and does not show its true profit or loss for the year.
The purpose of these Regulations is to repeal paragraph 23 of the Eighth Schedule in relation to two classes of banks; namely, the London clearing banks and those Scottish banks which carry on a business similar to that of the London clearing banks. The Scottish banks are defined in the Regulations as those which are represented on the Committee of Scottish Bank General Managers. The effect of the repeal will be that any bank in one of these two classes will be subject to the provisions of the Eighth Schedule, which applies to companies in general. It will be required to prepare its accounts in a way which gives a true and fair view of the state of its affairs, and of its profit or loss for the year.
Most Members of the House will be aware that in September of last year the London clearing banks and the Scottish banks concerned announced that after discussion with the authorities they had decided that in future they would prepare their annual accounts in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 1948 which apply to the generality of companies, and would cease to take any advantage of the exemptions available to them under paragraph 23 of the Eighth Schedule. It is because the banks came to that decision that the accounts to be published in the near future, such

19
as the accounts for 1969 of banks with years ending on December 31, will be full accounts. For the same reason, the preliminary results which the banks published
last Friday were results based on full accounts. It seems right in a matter of this importance that the law should require full accounts, and that will be the position in relation to the accounts prepared and published after April 1, if these Regulations are approved. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Banking Companies (Accounts) Regulations 1970, laid before the House on January 27, be approved.—(Lord Brown).
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his brief explanation of these Regulations. They confirm, as the noble Lord said, what the banks had already themselves decided to do, and since the Regulations were laid the banks have published their accounts in a way which I understand complies with the Act in all respects but one; namely, that most of them have not disclosed their true profits for 1968 for comparison. If that is so, it was certainly not unreasonable, as the Act itself did not require a comparison of profit between the year of report and the previous year when the first accounts to be issued after the Act came into force were published.
No doubt the banks would have preferred to be allowed to continue to comply voluntarily with the provisions of the Act, from which they were previously exempted, rather than have their exemption removed by statute; but if they can and do comply voluntarily there is no apparent reason why the exemption should continue. Indeed, if having once complied voluntarily a bank decided in a subsequent year not to comply, there might be considerable objection. The formal removal of the exemption is, therefore, quite logical, and the banks themselves have not demurred. The fact that the exemption is no longer necessary is surely in itself a source of strength to the banks. The Jenkins Committee in 1962 were divided on whether the exemption was any longer necessary or desirable. That the banks themselves should have decided that it was not, is a mark of their conviction of their own ability to maintain public confidence
20
just as the introduction of the Order testifies that the Government believe in that ability.
There are not many countries, I under-stand, which require disclosure in the accounts of the banks to the extent that will be required by these Regulations. We can all take pride in the solidity and stability of our leading banking institutions. I, for one, do not complain that an interval of over three years from the passage of the 1967 Act should have elapsed before these Regulations were laid before Parliament. I believe that it was entirely proper that both the banks and the Government should have time to consider carefully the implications of this change. We all know that banks can suffer sudden and severe losses, the disclosure of which might adversely affect their standing—particularly in the eyes of overseas depositors—even although the bank's position was not fundamentally affected and, indeed, remained fundamentally sound. Adjustments have been made in the intervening time, including, I am glad to see, specific provision for the unfunded benefit in pensions funds. Above all, it was much better that the banks should take this step of their own free will rather than have it imposed on them by Government. The Regulations should lead to greater competition between the banks, and to the interest of the community as a whole, and should give added stimulus to efficiency.
I would conclude by asking one question. Circumstances might change and arise—though I hope they never will —in which it might be deemed necessary to restore the exemption. Such circumstances would, obviously, have to be very grave indeed—for instance there might be something of the order of a national emergency; it might come on the nation quite suddenly. If this should happen, would the Board of Trade be able to restore the exemption by regulations? Since the regulations would clearly not be more onerous to the banks, would it be legally necessary to obtain the assent of Parliament to such regulations? If it would not be legally necessary, would the Government give an assurance that the Government would, nevertheless, seek the assent of Parliament?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord

21
Drumalbyn, for his extremely wise words, and I entirely concur with him that it is very much to the credit of the banks concerned that they should have moved voluntarily in this manner, and it will stand their status well in the world. I am sorry that I am not able now to answer the noble Lord's question about the position of the Government in relation to the restoration of the exemption, should it become necessary. I hope that if I investigate this matter and write to the noble Lord about it he will be satisfied. I should have known the answer to this question, but I am afraid that it did not occur to me to explore this matter before presenting these Regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CENSUS ORDER 1970
3.28 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA rose to move, That items 2, 7, 8, 10, the words in item 11(a) "and the month and the year of birth of each such child", 11(b) and (c), 12, 13, 14(a)(vii) and (viii), 15, 18 and 19 in the Second Schedule to the draft of the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order 1970, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Motion before the House is concerned with the draft Order in Council directing that a Census be taken in 1971. The proposal is for a full count of the population to be made to maintain the series of Censuses which have been taken in Great Britain every ten years since 1801, with the exception of the war year, 1941. Your Lordships will probably remember that a sample Census of 10 per cent. of the population was carried out in 1966 on account of the greater mobility of the population which nowadays renders figures—particularly of local area populations—out of date more rapidly than was the case in the past. The reasons which led to the decision to hold that sample Census also dictated the need for a Census in 1971—a further five years later. The Government's intention to hold a Census in that year was announced by my right honourable friend the then Minister of Health in December, 1967. It will form part of the round of Censuses that is being taken in most countries of the world either in 1970 or in 1971.
The date prescribed in the draft Order is April 25, and this, in common with previous Census days, is a Sunday. The reason for selecting this day of the week is that most people are to be found at home on a Sunday evening, and the date corresponds to the Sundays on which the previous Censuses were held. It falls at a time of the year which is clear of most holiday movement but which offers sufficient evening daylight to the enumerators.
In addition to prescribing the date of the Census, the Order specifies the persons by whom returns are to be made, and the persons to be included in the returns, and sets out the particulars to be given. The House will have noticed that it is proposed to ask all the relevant questions in respect of everyone, and not to restrict some questions to a sample only, as in 1961. This will enable us to produce basic figures relating to the entire population and to compile more detailed statistics for particular sections of the population, and indeed for particular areas of the country where special studies might be needed in the future. A Census based wholly or partly on a sample of the population would not, in the view of the Government, provide sufficiently accurate data for these detailed analyses.
The subjects of the proposed questions are set out in Schedule 2 to the draft Order, and your Lordships may wish me to say something about the way in which the proposals have been arrived at, in view of the comments of the Special Orders Committee on the increase by comparison with previous Censuses. The two General Register Offices—that is, for England and Scotland—have consulted closely with other Government Departments concerned with Census information, and there have also been very wide and detailed consultations with representatives of local government and with university research departments and other users outside Government. Many of the suggestions we received had to be resisted on the grounds that information could not satisfactorily be obtained without a good deal of guidance for the form-fillers, or that it was applicable to only a very small section of the population and could more suitably be obtained through some smaller-scale survey. The outcome of the consultations was a set of questions rather longer than that now proposed, and these

23
were tried out in pre-tests, conducted with the co-operation of members of the public, in 1968 and 1969.
The present proposals, as some of your Lordships may be aware, were accepted in the recent debate on the draft Order in another place as striking just about the right balance. The proposals in Schedule 2 are concerned with the same broad subject fields as those in past Censuses; for example, housing, education, employment and fertility. Within those fields a number of the proposed questions are entirely new, but many of them are concerned with particulars which were obtained in either one or other, or in both, of the Censuses held in 1961 and 1966. Some of the questions asked previously have been omitted from the present proposals, and the resulting range of questions is only a little longer than in 1966 or in the longer of the two forms used in 1961. The questionnaire, we believe, should be of a size which our experience indicates to be within the capacity of those who have to fill it in. I should like to make it clear that the items in Schedule 2 are not worded in the same terms as the questions themselves will be on the day of the Census. They will appear on the Census forms in more everyday language, with guiding notes where necessary. The forms of return will be laid before the House, with the Census regulations, in a few months' time, when noble Lords will be able to see for themselves the exact form of questions that will be put to individual members of the public.
The Census Act 1920 specifically authorises certain topics to be included in a Census, and many of the proposed questions in the Order fall within this range. Others may be included only if sanctioned by Affirmative Resolution, and these have been, for the sake of clarity, printed in italics in Schedule 2 of the draft Order. Nearly all the items which are new are among those shown in italics. But there is also just one group of items printed in normal type to which perhaps I should refer briefly, as they represent an extension of previous Census questions. Your Lordships—and, I am sure, some of them with pleasure—will have seen that it is planned to ask questions about the speaking of Welsh in Wales and Gaelic in Scotland, as in 1961, and this
24
time we intend to extend the questionnaire to find out also about people's ability to read and write these languages.
To turn, then, to the italicised items, I do not I think need to take up your Lordships' time with explanations of those such as the relationship (that is item 2), previous address (item 10), transport to work (item 14), which have been included before; but I should like to explain just briefly the reasons for introducing the new ones. The first of these, item 7, has not been included in any previous Census, and, taken in conjunction with information about country of birth, will enable studies to be made of the rate at which immigrants from different countries achieve the general national standards in employment and housing. Another new item—item 8— concerns the countries of birth of the person's parents; and this information, again, will allow similar studies to be made about those sections of the population born in this country of immigrant parents.
Information relating to fertility, in item 11 of the Schedule, is required of married women, or women who were formerly married, and will be restricted to women aged under 60 years. Questions about date of marriage and date when the first or only marriage ended have been included before, but the proposal to include the month and the year of birth of the children is new. This information will be restricted to details about children born alive in marriage, and therefore will exclude illegitimate births, as some people, we believe, would be unwilling to record details about these. Statistics derived from the proposed questions on fertility will show the average sizes of families in different sections of the population, the spacing of children in families of different sizes, and the changes in the way families have been built up in different generations. Statistics of this kind are, we believe, the essential foundation for understanding population trends, and therefore for estimating the future growth of the population. The limitation of the information to legitimate births and to women under 60 will not, in our view, seriously detract from the value of the information obtained.
Among the items concerned with education there is one which I think calls for

25
special comment. The question on the educational attainments of the standard of the G.C.E. "A" levels, and its Scottish equivalents, will extend our information of the kind given in item 13 on higher qualifications to that large group of the population who reach "A" level standard but do not continue to higher levels. The information, we believe, will be useful in the planning of educational facilities in the future and in the examination of the return on investment in education.
In the series of proposed questions in the Schedule concerned with employment, the new item relating to occupation one year before the Census will, when combined with the information on present occupation, permit analyses of the pattern of movement between occupations. The last three italicised items in the Order relate to questions to be answered by heads of households and concern housing tenure, the use of certain household amenities and the number of cars. None of these is new.
I think the House would also wish at this stage to know of our intention to conduct a voluntary sample survey on the subject of income immediately after the Census has been taken. Almost all the users of Census information have emphasised the need for statistics on this subject, in most cases in a form in which it can be correlated with other characteristics featured in the Census, and in particular data on the relative wealth of different areas is required for the planning of services and for the formulation of economic policy. For these reasons, a question on income was pretested, but as one might have expected, it was found that the space available on a Census form does not permit the question to be worded suitably, and some public opposition was also encountered. Our proposal, therefore, is to send questionnaires by post to a sample of 1 per cent. of householders. There will be a separate form for each person, and those who are willing to respond—and I would stress that this is voluntary participation—will post them direct to the Census office. This voluntary survey, of course, does not require legislation.
I would like now to say a word on the question of confidentiality in respect of the completed Census returns, as I am sure this must be a matter which is
26
in the forefront of your Lordships' minds when we are considering this particular kind of national Census. The public, quite rightly, having given information about themselves, will wish to know what will happen to the forms and will clearly require safeguards against the disclosure of the information to anyone outside the Census organisation. These safeguards are partly provided by the Census Act itself and partly by the now well-established policy of the Registrars-General. The Census Act prescribes a fine and/or imprisonment for up to two years for anyone employed in taking the Census who discloses or uses the information obtained for any but its proper purpose.
No information about identifiable individuals or households is released from the General Register Offices to other Departments of Government or to anybody else. When the Order was debated in another place the question was raised as to the possible dangers in the sale to a commercial organisation of what are described as ward library data—that is, statistical information about relatively small areas. I must explain that the size of population involved in the areas to which these relate, taken in conjunction with the very broad classifications used, make it impossible to identify data about any individual household or person. There is practically no cross-classification in the ward library data, which means that if one knows one fact about a person and looks for him in the ward library it will not reveal any other characteristics of that person. The forms themselves of course are not available for public inspection while they are at the General Register Office. When processing is completed they are despatched to the Public Records Office, where again they are not accessible to members of the public until a period of 100 years has elapsed. I have given the House some detail on this particular aspect of the Census because I am sure that noble Lords would wish to have these assurances from me.
Finally, my Lords, there is the cost. The estimated total cost of the Census for Great Britain is approximately £10 million. About half this amount is to meet the pay of the field staff and over-heads associated with their employment. Almost one-third is for the cost of the staff at the two General Register Offices,

27
while the balance is mainly for the computer, the building works and the printing charges. This estimate amounts to about twice the cost of the 1961 Census, as adjusted to take account of the increased prices and the growth of the population actually to be enumerated. The increase is due to the greater scope of the proposed Census, the introduction of the new procedures to give more speed and flexibility in the production of results, and the modification of the field organisation to secure more effective control over the enumeration and thereby to improve the quality of the information obtained. My Lords, I hope that with that explanation the House will agree that the proposals for the 1971 Census are sound, and in particular that the items of information to which my Motion refers should have their place in the range of data to be collected. I beg to move.
Moved, That items 2, 7, 8, 10, the words in item ll(a) "and the month and the year of birth of each such child", 11(b) and (c), 12, 13, 14(a)(vii) and (viii), 15, 18, and 19 in the Second Schedule to the draft of the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order 1970, be approved.—(Baroness Serota.)
3.45 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sure we are all most grateful to the noble Baroness, not only for the clarity with which she has explained a somewhat complicated matter but even more for the brevity, considering that it is a large subject. I will keep your Lordships for only a minute or two, because we on these Benches think the Government are right to have a Census now. On looking at the Schedule, we think that the balance of questions to be asked is about right. There were originally certain suggestions for additional questions, some of which we thought wrong, and I am glad that the Government have also thought them wrong.
The noble Baroness did not say anything today about something that was mentioned in the other place; namely, the question of publicity before the Census. In my view, this is of the utmost importance. Some people are always frightened about privacy in a Census. The noble Baroness has told us that the information will not be available to anyone outside the people to whom
28
it should be available, except statistically, and I hope that this point will be stressed in the publicity that will be put out before the Census. In this connection I wonder whether the noble Baroness could tell us why, once the information has been extracted, the forms have to be kept for a hundred years. It may be necessary, but I have an idea that the public would rather that they were absolutely destroyed. I should myself. I simply do not know why it is necessary to keep them, but perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us.
There are two other matters I should like to talk about. The first is the notes on the actual Census form. I did not quite understand what the noble Baroness said about the Census form being shown to the House in advance. If that is to be done, will it be possible, if we do not understand one or two of the questions, to have the Census form altered before it is distributed to the public? People who compile forms find them perfectly clear, but those who fill them in are sometimes in some doubt about them. Here, again, I hope the notes on the Census form will be abundantly clear, because some people have an absolute terror of forms. They find them extremely difficult to fill in, and unless they have explanations in words of one syllable they simply cannot tackle them. So I hope that the notes will be very clear indeed. Apart from that one question and two or three comments, we, on these Benches, welcome this Order and hope your Lordships will approve it.
3.49 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to raise three points. The noble Baroness referred to the importance of confidentiality of these Census returns, and, of course, if house-holders are to be encouraged to make accurate returns the important thing is to convince them that these returns will be treated in a completely confidential manner. I should have thought that it was of great importance to be able to say to householders: "You are being required on these forms to give information only about the particular people who are being counted and no other person need be referred to by name by you on the Census form".
My Lords, that principle, which I should have thought was a sound one, is

29
breached, so far as I can see, in two rather unimportant particulars in Schedule 2. Thus, in item 13, where the academic qualifications of people over 18 are to be given, it is not only the qualifications that are to be stated but the names of the institutions which awarded them. Is this really necessary? In any event, would not a rather more accurate answer be obtained by applying to the institutions themselves for the particulars of the awards which they have awarded?
In item 14, not only are hours and conditions of employment to be given, but also the name of the employer. However much it is said that this information is to be confidential, I feel quite sure that there are people who will say: "If I have to give particulars of my conditions of work and the name of my employer, then I dare say my employer is going to be tackled about some of the answers which I may have given about some of my conditions of work". Is it really necessary on this form for the name of the employer to be given?
My next point is a very small one. In item 11 on fertility, the information about marriages which have been terminated is to include not only the year but even the month of termination. Granted that it is necessary for statistical purposes to know the fact that a marriage has been terminated; granted even that it is necessary to know the year, is it really necessary to know the very month? It occurs to me that some divorced persons are going to have difficulty in trying to remember the month and also to understand the difference between the decree nisi and the decree absolute. I should think that in a good many cases the wrong month will be given and, therefore, that that piece of information probably will not be very accurate when it is entered on the return form.
Finally, items 23, 24 and 25 on the speaking and understanding of the Welsh language. These items are not ones which your Lordships are being asked to consider today, and I suppose that strictly speaking I am out of order in mentioning them. I can only say that when an honourable friend of mine in another place raised this point Mr. Speaker did not call him to order, so I hope that perhaps your Lordships will bear with me for a moment or two. The information about
30
Welsh speaking is to be included only on the Census forms in Wales itself, including Monmouthshire. There must, I think, on any given day of the year be quite a large number of Welsh-speaking people who are earning their living in other parts of the United. Kingdom. They will be people who maintain their ties with Wales, probably go home to Wales for their holidays and intend to return to Wales to live when they retire. If this statistical information is to be used, for instance, by the B.B.C. in order to discover how many people are going to be interested in broadcasting in the Welsh language, these expatriate Welsh-speaking people ought to be taken into account. Of course, to include these questions in every Census form in the whole of the United Kingdom does lengthen it a little, but on the other hand I should imagine that any given householder is not going to have to think for more than two seconds whether any member of his household does or does not understand the Welsh language. Possibly the Registrar General has a formula whereby he takes into account the percentage of Welsh-speaking people outside Wales at a particular time, and if we could be assured that this formula was satisfactory then perhaps that would be a reasonable solution. I should have thought that it was not much of a burden for every householder in the United Kingdom to have to tackle these last three questions —whether any member of his house-hold speaks or understands the Welsh language—for the sake of getting a. really accurate return about these people.
3.55 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I think that a Census form requires a balance of considerations. There is, first, a balance between the statistican's avid wish for every bit of knowledge which can be gained and, on the other hand, the encroachment by the Executive upon the personal privacy of citizens; and secondly, a balance between the statistician's needs and common sense. My few remarks are based upon those two considerations, those two balances.
I would refer particularly to Group II, under which the manager or chief of any hotel or lodging house will be responsible for preparing the form. I think that the question included in item 11 (c), is a borderline one: when a marriage has

31
been terminated, the month and year of termination. I think it is just acceptable, but I would support what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale has said. Is it really necessary to ask for the month when the marriage was terminated?
I next turn to Schedule 2, Nos. 12 and 13, which are requirements from any person over the age of 15 of information about his educational past. Surely there could be some limitation to the age limit —say, aged 15 years up to 30—because I do not imagine that an old lady of 80 will be able to say that in the following term she will be a student attending full-time at an educational establishment. Equally, I think it would tax some of your Lordships' memories to say whether you obtained the General Certificate of Education at Advanced Level, or Higher Schools Certificate, or Scottish Certificate of Education, or Scottish Leaving Certificate at the Higher Grade, or an Ordinary National Certificate, or an Ordinary National Diploma. When I look around your Lordships' House I have grave suspicions that many noble Lords would not be able to answer that question with great accuracy. I suggest that in the interest of common sense there should be some age limit to govern the answer to that particular question.
I turn to Schedule 2, Question 15(iii):
"Whether the living accommodation to which the return relates is owned by any person usually resident therein and, if not, whether it is—
otherwise occupied, and if so, stating the terms on which it is occupied."
I have in mind still Group II, the hotel or boarding-house and the manager or chief who will be responsible for preparing the form for all those within that hotel or lodging house. Does "the terms on which it is occupied" mean in money, or in rental, or in respect of whether it is furnished or unfurnished, short lease or long lease? I think we should be careful in that question not to press citizens to disclose, if they do not wish so to do, the financial terms under which they are living.
My final question is on Question 18:
" Whether the persons in a private house-hold occupying the dwelling or the part of a dwelling to which the return relates have exclusive use or shared use of a water
32
closet with entrance inside or outside the dwelling ".
What does that mean—a shared or exclusive use of a water closet? In a house the lavatory is, broadly speaking, used by all the persons in the house. I do not see how anyone can say that he has exclusive use. If what is meant is whether the lavatory is shared with another premises, another flat or some other office outside, then I can understand it, but as it is at present, the question is extraordinarily badly drafted.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that it perhaps refers to the old family "two-holer" which they used to have in farmhouses?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I put down recently to the Government a Written Question on this Census form, and the Answer says that if these regulations are approved by your Lordships today the actual wording of the questions to be asked in the Census will be laid before Parliament in the next few months. That means that the position is still wide open for consideration by the Government, and I hope that they will take into consideration what I have tried to put forward as commonsense points before the actual words are brought forward.
4 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I say just a few words about this matter, because, as the noble Baroness thought people might be, I am a little worried about the secrecy aspect of the Census. This problem has come more and more into our lives. It was brought home particularly by a Bill introduced in another place but subsequently withdrawn, which in fact would not have covered questions of this sort because it did not cover Government forms. None the less, I think that many of us suspect that Government forms are not so secret as one would imagine them to be.
The noble Baroness explained the penalties for people who gave away unauthorised information to anyone outside the Census organisation. The Census organisation is going to be a vast one. To take a census of 55 million people, or however many people there are in this country, will require a number of enumerators. Are those enumerators going to be local people who know the

33
households from whom they are collecting the forms, who know the people themselves; or are they going to be brought in from outside areas? In the latter case it is going to be much more difficult for them, from the practical point of view, but I think that the secrecy aspect will probably be rather better. Secondly, is it really necessary to put one's name on these forms? If they are to be secret, obviously if we do not have to put our names on the forms they are much more likely to remain secret. I do not imagine that the Census is used for finding out the number of people in this country having the Christian name "Michael", or, to take the noble Baroness as an example, the surname "Serota". Therefore I cannot see that it is necessary to put one's name on the form. One can fill in a form without one's name, in which event secrecy is more likely to be maintained.
Turning to Schedule 2, to which this Order relates, I find Question 8 rather offensive. I know why the answer to this question is required. Many local authorities wish to have more details about where immigrants have come from. But when we are trying to integrate the immigrant population, I think that Question 8 relating to the country of birth of the father and mother is somewhat offensive and a rather retrogressive move. If I were an immigrant I am confident that I should resent that question. I should like the Government to give consideration to that point. Is it worth while getting this information? Although it may be of help to local authorities in planning schools and so on, it will possibly upset immigrants to this country.
I turn next to Question 13. I imagine that in the notes to the Census form "vocational qualifications" will be explained in detail. It gives rise to difficulties. I remember feeling that some questions in the last Census form were extremely difficult to answer. With the best will in the world one was not sure whether one had answered them correctly. What exactly is a "vocational qualification"? If, for instance, you have a certificate for lifesaving, is that a vocational qualification or not? Is it or is it not covered by Question 13? Question 18 is obviously extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has drawn attention to this question. We have all recently had to
34
fill up for the rating authorities a form which covered this aspect in far more detail. I should have thought that this information could have been obtained more accurately through the local authorities and the rating authorities, who have accurate records of the state of each house and whether the water closet has an entrance which is outside or inside, or whether there is a fixed bath in the house. Now they even wish to know whether or not there is central heating in the house. Therefore, is it really necessary to have this somewhat lengthy question in the Census form when we have just had a similar and much more detailed question to answer for the local authorities?
Finally, Question 19 seems to me to have little to do with the Census. It has to do with the number of motor cars and vans. Again, I should think that the licensing authorities were the people to whom one could go for information on this subject. It is also an extremely difficult question to answer. Many of your Lordships have registered in your names innumerable vans and cars which you have to buy for your employees. If they are yours, presumably they are available to you; but normally they would not be sitting immediately outside your door. This is a difficult question to answer from that point of view, and also it is not the kind of question that should be contained in a Census form.
I have been giving some thought to the question of secrecy. Presumably, the
Censuses will all be processed by computer. People who feel strongly about it might be happier if they could punch their own cards and feed them into the computer, thereby making sure that the information does not fall into unauthorised hands. That is something that I fear we may not be sufficiently advanced to achieve in 1971; but possibly by 1981 it might be a way of conducting a Census which would get over the difficulty in regard to those parts of the Census form which we want to keep secret but which some of us feel may not be kept entirely secret.
4.7 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am most grateful for the way in which the House has received this Order, and particularly for the interesting suggestion made by the noble Duke that this should

35
be a "do-it-yourself" Census. I doubt whether that would commend itself immediately to the Registrars-General, but I can assure your Lordships that all the points that have been made in this debate have been carefully noted and will be considered by the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, reminded us, the problem of designing a Census which will be answered by every
member of the nation is to strike the right balance between the statistician's dream and common sense. Especially for those of us who always have great personal difficulties in filling in forms there is a special need to keep the form as sensible, as simple and as practical as possible.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who asked at the outset for a further explanation of what stage the process of designing the Census had reached. If the Order is approved by the House today, as I hope it will be, it will then be for the Secretary of State to make the Regulations, which will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure of both Houses. They must lie before Parliament for 40 days; and until that period has expired, I can assure your Lordships that the printing of the 28 million Census forms cannot be started. It is in that context of timing that we shall be considering the various suggestions that have been made today.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I am not quite clear on one point. When that moment arrives will it be possible for the House at any period to ask for the Census form to be amended? If it is a Regulation it can only be rejected completely; it cannot be amended.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, it cannot be amended, because it is under the Negative Resolution procedure. But it would be open, presumably—I hardly dare think that this would happen—for both Houses to reject the Regulations laid before them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is there any method by which they can be amended? Once the Order is laid, I quite see that they cannot be. Are we going to see a draft of the form on which we can then raise questions?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I do not think it would be open to the House to amend the Regulations when laid; but through this debate we are, I think, expressing views to the Government on the form of the questions.
The first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is one with which I wholeheartedly agree; namely, this very important question of pre-Census publicity. Clearly it will be essential for the Government to take every possible measure to make the population fully aware of the purpose of the Census, of the range of questions in the Census, and the reasons for them, and also to secure their active co-operation in the collection of the Census. No final decisions have been taken on this question. We take the point fully, and I can assure the House that these matters are very much in the forefront of our minds. The noble Lord also asked why we have to keep this information for 100 years. I gather that this is historical and that the data is needed for research purposes. But I take the noble Lord's point and I have no doubt that it will be noted.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised a number of points in relation to three specific questions. All three are designed to give much more accurate information. As I have said, it is a matter of opinion and of balance, and, on the question of the month, we are advised that this should be included in the form in an attempt to get our information as clear and as precise as possible, particularly in relation to education and the housing situation. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, about the name of the employer is one that I cannot answer off the cuff. I am sure there is a good statistical reason for this, but I will get the answer for the noble Lord and let him have it privately.
On the question of the date of marriage, again this will enable us to be much more accurate in our calculations on the duration of marriage and of fertility. I hope the House will agree that we should have the best possible basis for the very necessary work that has to be done in connection with population forecasting. That is the reason for the inclusion of these particular pieces of material. With regard to the point about the Welsh and the Gaelic languages, and the fact that it is intended to ask these questions only

37
of householders in Wales and in Scotland, I can only say again that one is faced with this problem of balance: is it right to ask additional questions of millions of people where only a very few thousand would be involved? After full consultation and discussion the Government decided to ask only the questions enumerated in the proposed form.
I hope I have dealt both broadly and in particular with the issues and questions raised. I can assure the House once again that the comments of noble Lords will be noted and borne in mind as we move further forward with what is an immensely important operation. I am glad that the House and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, feel that in the main we have got the balance right, and I hope the House will now agree to approve the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OPEN SPACE THEATRE AND FILM SEIZURE BY POLICE
4.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT NORWICH VISCOUNT NORWICH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether, in view of the fact that no charges have been preferred against anyone, and no proceedings have been issued for forfeiture, the police will now return the print of the film Flesh which they seized on Tuesday, February 3; and if not, on what grounds they justify its continued retention. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I should like, if I may, to take up a few minutes of your Lordships' time to tell you a little (some of your Lordships may know it already) about the Open Space Theatre from which the film was seized three weeks ago, and about the events of the night of February 3.
The Open Space is an experimental theatre club—what in New York would be called an "off-Broadway" theatre— which exists in order to put on worth-while plays which, for one reason or another, have little popular appeal and, but for establishments like the Open Space, and several others, would probably never see the light of day at all. As such, I think it performs an extremely
38
useful service to the artistic life of this country, and I am delighted to see that this contribution has been recognised in the form of a £1,500 grant from the Arts Council. It also appears that recently the results of this theatre have gone beyond our own shores, because in the last week or two it has received invitations to take its production of Macbeth—which I have no hesitation in saying is the most exciting and intriguing performance of Macbeth that I have ever seen—to both the Rome Festival and the Holland Festival.
Until last month, the Open Space had never shown a film. It did so, ironically enough, because of the intervention of the Secretary of the British Board of Film Censors, Mr. John Trevelyan. Mr. Trevelyan was shown the film to which my Question relates, Flesh, by the American film maker, Andy Warhol. He decided, understandably, that it was not the sort of film that was suitable for public release for the local Odeons. He did, however, see considerable merit in it, and he suggested to the distributors that they should approach the Open Space with a view to having it shown there. The Open Space agreed to do this. The film ran for three weeks without, so far as could be seen, causing any annoyance. Then, on the evening of February 3 the police swoop occurred. By that time the film had been seen not only by a great many members of the Open Space Club but also by all the principal theatre critics of the leading London newspapers. Dilys Powell of the Sunday Times wrote of the film chat it,
"is often funny, sometimes pathetic, and once when the handsome naked boy plays with his baby and feeds her, warm, delicate and pretty ".
Miss Margaret Hinxman of the Sunday Telegraph described the film as:
"intermittently amusing, sad and quite moving."
Finally, another lady reviewer, Miss Charlotte Jennings, said that the film,
"is neither sordid nor snotty. There: is no feeling to laud or condemn. It leaves me with a sense of peace."
My Lords, a sense of peace was not what anybody else had at half past seven on the night of February 3, and I think I can do no better than tell your Lordships what happened that night in the words of Miss. Thelma Holt, who is the

39
executive director of the Open Space. She says:
"On the evening of February 3, 1970, at approximately 7.30 p.m., a police superintendent and thirty-two constables and plainclothesmen stormed into the Open Space, … seized the copy of Andy Warhol's Flesh, which had been playing here for three weeks, and proceeded to confiscate our projector, screen and sound-equipment. At the time, the superintendent informed the theatre's directors that the seizure was being made under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The following day, … we were obliquely informed that the offence was not 'obscenity' but infringement of licensing laws. The day after that it was implied that the real offence was violation of fire regulations."
Here I may interject: if this were so, one wonders whether 32 policemen were really necessary. She goes on:
"Towards the end of that week, after consultations between solicitors and the police, is was darkly hinted that we were suspected of being concerned in a 'conspiracy to defraud' —although it was never made clear whom we were defrauding of what, and by what means…. We are still uninformed as to the charges that may be brought against us. The books, letters, records and accounts seized along with the copy of Flesh, are still being kept."
The distributor of the film, who was present at the Open Space that evening, immediately telephoned Mr. John Trevelyan, who came round in a taxi to try to minimise the effect of what was occurring. But he failed, I am afraid, to do any good. Meanwhile, it was three days before the Open Space were even able to recover their file cases and card indexes with the names and addresses of their members, many of whom they had immediately to communicate with to send back the money that had already been paid in advance bookings.
This leads me, my Lords, to the second question that arises: the amount of money that the Open Space have lost through this seizure. The film was to run for another two weeks. Not only did the Theatre lose all the income that would have accrued from those two weeks; they were put to very considerable secretarial expense. They also had to continue to pay the expenses of extra rehearsal space which they had rented, since they were preparing their future presentation and they anticipated that their theatre would be used in the evenings. Subsequently they found that they did not need the additional rehearsal
40
space, although they would have to continue to pay for it. All this is to say nothing of the mental and nervous strain of not knowing where they stood; not knowing what charges, if any, were to be preferred against them. They estimate that they have lost something in the nature of £600; that is to say, very nearly half the grant made to them this year by the Arts Council. The distributors of the film calculate that they have lost roughly the same amount of money.
I know that the police have a difficult job to do—it has become almost a cliché to say so—and they are doing it in extremely difficult and trying circumstances. I also agree that it is our duty to help them. But, as I pointed out last week, when they set themselves up as guardians of public morals the effects are almost invariably disastrous. As we all know, within half a mile of the Open Space Theatre in Soho, there are "strip clubs", "clip joints" and pornographers galore. If any swoop had to be made— and I am not saying that one did—surely such places as these would have been better targets. I am well aware that the police have not in this matter infringed any regulations: they are perfectly within the law. We have looked up the laws, and I understand that they can hold on to this film for a year, if they wish, without preferring charges. But there are occasions when justice and the law do not march quite so hand in hand as one would like to think, and I believe that this is one of those cases. Surely it is common justice and fairness that if the authorities are going to prefer any charges, they should inform the Open Space as quickly as possible of what those charges are.
Meanwhile, my Lords, the Open Space, who have, as I said, received invitations to travel in May to Rome and Holland, do not even know whether they can accept those invitations. They do not know whether they will be in gaol by
then. They know nothing. The film Flesh lasts for an hour and a half.
Surely it does not take three weeks to discover whether or not it is obscene, and whether or not proceedings are going to be taken. If no proceedings are going to be taken, I hope that it will be possible for the police to return as quickly as they can a film which, if they had thought about it a little more, or if they had been better advised, they would never have taken in the first place.
4.23 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I indicated earlier to the noble Viscount that I thought it would probably be better if this matter was not raised this afternoon. I appreciate the reasons for the concern which he has expressed to us, but I say again that it is a little piemature to raise it at this time. It is true that no charge has been preferred or other action taken. But, as was said on February 19 in another place, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has sought the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions about possible offences relating to licensing and obscenity.
That remains the position, and in view of that it would be inappropriate for me, or indeed for others, to comment until a decision has been reached. If there is a prosecution and we debate the matter now, then surely we are in danger of prejudicing the case. It is therefore my duty to advise the House that it would be better not to discuss this matter further at the present stage. If noble Lords agree to that, and will leave further discussion for the time being, I undertake for my part, to answer any other Question or to make another Statement as soon as possible, or to let the noble Viscount know personally what decision has been taken. I hope that a decision would be taken certainly before Easter, and indeed within the next few days.

EARLDOM OF DURHAM
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that he had received from Antony Claud Frederick Lambton an Instrument of Disclaimer of the Earldom of Durham, the Viscountcy of Lambton and the Barony of Durham, delivered in accordance with Section 1 of the Peerage Act 1963.
AMOCO (U.K.) BILL [H.L.]
Committed to a Select Committee.
BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL [H.L.]

  HOOKER ESTATES LIMITED (TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION) BILL [H.L.]
  Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been
  42
  complied with: ordered to lie on the Table, and Bills committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.