Lords Sitting of 21 July 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 Leicester

LORD REIGATE
The Right Honourable Sir John Kenyon Vaughan-Morgan, Baronet, having been created Baron Reigate, of Outwood in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Erroll of Hale and the Lord McFadzean.

LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH
The Right Honourable Sir Edward Charles Gurney Boyle, Baronet, having been created Baron Boyle of Handsworth, of Salehurst in the County of Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Butler of Saffron Walden and the Lord Fulton, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE MR. IAIN MACLEOD
2.50 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLCOE): My Lords, your Lordships heard this morning, with I am sure a deep sense of shock, of the tragically sudden death last night of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Iain Macleod. By this loss Parliamentary life has been diminished, I believe, in a very real sense. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me when I express the view that by the death of Mr. Macleod another place has lost a truly great Commoner. Those of your Lordships who have been Members of another place, and indeed those who have not, knew that Mr. Macleod had an extraordinary range of Parliamentary qualities. He had brilliance and
824
quickness of mind and in debate, albeit fair, he could be truly formidable.
The late Chancellor had other distinguishing characteristics. He was, I think it true to say, a subtle and a flexible tactician. But be that as it may, I think your Lordships would also agree that he was utterly inflexible in his dedication to those princples to which he was committed—and Mr. Macleod was a truly committed man. He was also, my Lords, a man distinguished by great courage, both moral and indeed physical. And there was, I think, another particular quality which those who knew him well recognised very much in Mr. Macleod, and that was his interest in the younger generation and the constant encouragement which he gave to younger people, both inside and outside this Palace of Westminster.
My Lords, Mr. Macleod's death is a great loss to his colleagues and to the Party which he so loyally served. It is also, I feel, a great loss to the Commonwealth. And more, my Lords, it is a loss to our country and to our national life, because Mr. Macleod was above all a true patriot, and I suspect that he died as he would have wished, in the service of his country—in harness. I know that your Lordships will wish to join with me in extending to Mr. Macleod's widow—whose triumph over physical adversity has been akin to her late husband's—and to his family our sincere and most heartfelt sympathy.
2.53 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we on this side wholly support and agree with everything that the noble Earl the Leader of the House has said. It is indeed a grievous loss not only, I freely acknowledge, to his Party but also to Parliament and indeed to the country. Those of us who knew Mr. Macleod well would echo most strongly the very moving words used by Mr. Michael Foot—and some of your Lordships will have heard him this morning on the radio—in his description of a man of quite exceptional quality.
I remember when he first came into the House of Commons—I think it was after the 1950 General Election. We very soon realised that we had somebody joining the ranks of the Conservative Party who was bound to reach the

825
highest office. I also remember his work as a Minister. Those of us who have had to deal with Ministers from time to time form a judgment as to the degree to which the individual is deeply concerned not only with the general policy that he is fulfilling but also with its administration. And the particular cases which I took to Mr. Macleod showed a degree of humanity, a degree of decision and a degree of willingness to override easy advice. It was therefore very fitting that he should have attained a great position in the State—the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I can think of no one, certainly of his political view and indeed of any Party, who was, in his personal qualities and intelligence, better qualified for that post. I am sure noble Lords will not think I make a Party point when I say that we are also deeply conscious of his service to the Commonwealth in carrying through difficult policies, following "the wind of change", and of the courage and determination with which he set about that task.
My Lords, we certainly extend the greatest sympathy to Mrs. Macleod and to his family. We are conscious that, as a family, they have had to show a great deal of courage in adversity, and one of my recollections of Iain Macleod was the courage with which he fought really acute handicaps and was always determined to give of his best to the country.
3.2 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches, too, would wish to be associated with the tributes which have just been paid by the two noble Lords. The news has come as a very great shock to those of us who knew Iain Macleod over twenty years in politics. He was indeed a brilliant man. He was a formidable opponent, but he was one who always commanded respect. We on these Benches particularly admired the attitude of mind which he brought to bear towards the problems of the developing countries of the Commonwealth. We regret that he should be lost to national politics at a time when he had just been given the opportunity to contribute so much, and I believe that he would have contributed a very great deal in the national interest. We would join in ex-
826
tending our deepest sympathy to his widow and the family.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, we on these Benches revered Iain Macleod as a man who, both within politics and far beyond politics, cared for his fellows; as a man of Christian conviction who was concerned about human suffering and the help to be given to those who suffer. One of my most vivid memories of Iain Macleod is this. It was a few days before last Christmas. There was a pilgrimage of hundreds of young people from Canterbury Cathedral—a kind of Canterbury Pilgrimage in reverse—with long marches, visiting many towns, raising funds for the hungry and the homeless. Iain Macleod came to Canterbury to speak to these young pilgrims at a very early hour of the morning, when their pilgrimage set out, and the words that he spoke to them, of concern for suffering, were of an inspiring kind that I shall never forget We shall long remember him as one who loved and served humanity.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I wonder whether a Back-Bencher may add to this tribute. I do so because of the great generosity of Iain Macleod to those of us in the opposite Party who were concerned about the issues with which he dealt, in the way in which he was prepared to consult with us. Speaking of his historical record, I think his contribution to the Commonwealth was absolutely decisive in the change that took place. But it is more because I wanted to pay my tribute to him as a friend who appreciated his great qualities that I have dared to intervene this afternoon.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, for two years while Iain Macleod was Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs I was his Minister of State I well recall, as will your Lordships, that those were difficult days, vitally important, when we were negotiating with one Colony after another to grant them independence. Different nationalities and races were very fearful for their future and anxious to safeguard their particular interests. To reconcile and to comfort these peoples needed great skill and clear thinking, kindness, understanding and courage. Iain

827
Macleod had all these qualities, and the determination and integrity to do what he believed was right, whatever were the pressures. With all this he had no thought of self or of his health. He was ready to work at all hours of the day and the night; and the record of many of the former Colonies, now nations, is a proof of the value of his work.
During those days, too, he kept open house—to be more exact, it was a flat—where all his friends, of all races and nations, could visit him. In this he was greatly aided by his wife, Eve, and indeed by his son and his daughter, for it was a family party which was ready to help in such problems. I believe, my Lords, that the country has suffered a grievous loss, for I can imagine no better qualified Chancellor of the Exchequer than Iain Macleod would have proved to be in what are difficult times for the country. I am sorry for his colleagues and for his friends, but above all—and I know that your Lordships join me in this—for his wife and his family, and our thoughts and our prayers are with him and them to-day.
LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, may I be excused if I intervene for one minute? I brought Iain Macleod into public life and into politics, and this is a great shock for all of us—a great shock for me, a great shock for his Party and a great shock for the country. He succeeded me in a variety of Offices, mostly with my own agreement and concurrence, notably as Leader of the House of Commons, as Chairman of the Conservative Party and as Chancellor of the Exchequer. We discussed often in the last week or two, before he got ill, his plans for his work at the Treasury, and it really has been almost more than one can bear to read the news this morning. I therefore want to pay this simple tribute as one who I think was a friend of his and who helped him in his political life.

COMMERCIAL RADIO: ADVERTISING OF CIGARETTES AND ALCOHOL
3.10 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: 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, in the event of the introduction of commercialised radio stations, advertisements for alcoholic beverages and cigarettes will be excluded.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, the form and content of advertisements is one of the matters my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will be considering in the course of his examination of the arrangements for commercial broadcasting.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he would not consider it most inconsistent that commercial radio should advertise cigarettes while television does not do so? Is it not also equally inconsistent that cigarette advertisements should be prohibited, but not drink advertisements?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord about cigarette advertising. There has been a ban on cigarette advertising on television since August, 1965, and the arguments that led to that decision could no doubt be taken into account by my right honourable friend in the case of commercial radio. I do not see the parallel with alcoholic beverages but, as the noble Lord knows, the distillers have voluntarily refrained from advertising hard liquor on television except at Christmas. No doubt this might equally apply to commercial radio.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if excessive cigarette smoking is banned because of its deleterious effect on human beings, and on their health, that would equally apply to the excessive consumption of drink?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not think that there is the same hazard to human health from the present consumption of alcohol as from cigarette smoking.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is not "alcoholic beverages" an intolerable expression to apply to wine?
LORD PLATT: My Lords, in considering this very important question will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that in the last annual report of the Medical Research Council it was stated as a fact that the deaths from lung cancer in this country are about four times the deaths from traffic accidents and that 90 per cent. of them could be prevented if cigarette smoking were given up?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords, we will certainly tear that in mind. I understand that the Royal College of Physicians is to publish a report in the autumn.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the term "hard liquor" is particularly inappropriate for something so softening?

PENSIONS: OVER-EIGHTIES AND STATE SCHEMES
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: 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:

(1) How many men and women currently over the age of eighty receive no pension under the National Insurance scheme;

(2) How many will qualify for pension under the National Insurance (Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Attendance Allowance) Bill 1970–71;

(3) Into what main categories the over-eighties who will not: qualify under that Bill fall by reference to the reasons for the failure to qualify for National Insurance pensions.]

LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the Government believe that very approximately 13,000 persons over the age of
830
eighty receive no pension under the existing National Insurance Scheme and that some 100,000 of them—that is to say, men over eighty-seven and women over eighty-two on July 5, 1970—will quality under the National Insurance (Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Attendance Allowance) Bill. The remaining 30,000 are of ages which would have enabled them to qualify for full pension under the present scheme, but who have failed to pay the minimum contributions necessary to qualify for any pension.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply and reserve any further questions and comments until later to-day?

ROAD BUILDING: INQUIRY INTO USE OF WASTE MATERIAL
LORD GARNSWORTHY: 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 are able to state when the Report of the Working Party jointly appointed by the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government "to consider what further encouragement can be given to use waste as 'fill' for road building" is expected.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it is too early to say when the Working Party will be able to conclude their work.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply may I ask how frequently the Working Party meets and whether they will continue to meet daring the Parliamentary Recess?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, when the Working Party meet is up to themselves. They have met twice, and my information is that they will meet again in the next three weeks.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords may I ask whether the noble Lord thinks that this matter is receiving the urgent consideration that it ought to receive? May I further ask that when the noble Lord replies to that question—which I

831
raise because the Working Party has been set up for some few weeks—he will give some indication of what industries have been invited to submit information for the consideration of the Working Party? Furthermore, can he give us any indication of how many industries have agreed to supply information?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I cannot accept that the Working Party have not made satisfactory progress. It is a very technical subject. They were appointed only last April and in a matter of this kind that is not a long time. On the question of with whom they have consulted, I can say that they have been approached by the Committee for Environmental Conservation who have been asked whether they wish to advise the Working Party on what interests them. The Working Party have themselves approached the following bodies for information: The Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, the British Quarry and Slag Federation, the National Coal Board, the British Railways Board and the local authority associations concerned. The china clay industry has also been approached.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to draw the attention of the Working Party to the work on the pipelining, and the critical cost advantage to be had thereby, which is being done by the British Hydromechanics Research Association?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's words will be passed on to the Working Party.

TOURIST BOARDS' REPORTS
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 when they expect to receive reports from the Tourist Boards set up under the Development of Tourism Act 1969.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, reports have now been received from the English, Scottish and Wales Tourist Boards; the British Tourist Authority's report is
832
expected tomorrow. The report of the Scottish Tourist Board is expected to be published on July 23. The other three Boards will publish their reports as soon as they are printed.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply.

SUMMER RECESS AND DOCKS STRIKE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as the House knows, the Emergency Regulations which are to be approved to-day have force for a maximum of one month. It may be necessary for the House to be recalled to consider further Regulations should the present emergency, regrettably, extend beyond that time or should other circumstances make recall essential. Subject to this contingency, it is proposed that the House should adjourn on Thursday, July 23, until Tuesday, October 27.

SOUTH AFRICA AND SUPPLY OF ARMS
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which was made by the Foreign Secretary in another place yesterday.
"Her Majesty's Government have an overriding duty to take account of present and future strategic needs of the United Kingdom and in that context a particular concern for the free passage of ships in all circumstances on the vital sea routes round Southern Africa. It was to that end that the Simonstown Agreement was negotiated. It is our intention to give effect to the purposes of that Agreement and we believe that as a consequence we should be ready to consider within that context applications for the export to South Africa of certain limited categories of arms, so long as they are for maritime defence directly related to the security of the sea routes. The Government have made abundantly clear their fundamental disagreement with the racial policies of the South African Government. In no circumstances would there be sales to South Africa

833
of arms for the enforcement of the policy of apartheid or internal repression.
"It is on this basis that the Government have naturally been concerned to consult with Commonwealth Governments and to discuss these matters with them. A number of these Governments have not yet replied and a number request further information and discussion. At the same time the South African Government is also seeking clarification of the interpretation of the Simonstown Agreement; this will need consideration with the South African Government.
"The Government propose to complete these consultations and discussions before decisions are finally taken."
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure are other noble Lords, for making rather exceptional arrangements to repeat here a Statement made in another place yesterday. We should not have asked for this were it not for the exceptional gravity of the issue before us. I am bound to say—and I have some questions to ask the noble Lord—that the Statement made in another place (now repeated by the noble Lord with greater eloquence than I think he showed on the occasion of our debate) and the discussions that took place there have produced a degree of confusion that I do not recall ever arising in foreign affairs since Suez. The Government have only themselves to blame in this matter. As soon as they came into office they informed everybody, except Parliament, of their intention to start the re-export of arms to South Africa. At the same time the Foreign Secretary said—and I would refer to his Statement in another place—that he was "communicating" with Commonwealth countries. I am glad to see that that has now changed to "consultation", rather than "communication", and I can only conclude that it is as a result of the pretty dusty answers the Government have so far received.
My Lords, we still do not know how the Government are going to proceed. In another place the Foreign Secretary said that no action would be taken—and
834
he repeated that statement and attempted to clarify it on a number of occasions—with regard to the export of arms to South Africa without notification being given to the House and Parliament. I would ask the noble Lord whether he can expand a little on this point. Does it mean that while the Government may take their decision, that decision will, in the first instance, be announced to Parliament and not to anyone else, which is what I understand is the meaning, though I accept that they may wish to communicate it to other Governments? Does it mean that there will be no discussions on the types of equipment and of their use? The noble Lord knows well that there are technical difficulties, particularly with the use of the Nimrod aircraft, which, I understand, has American electronic equipment in it; and the Americans are unlikely to wish this to be used. Or does it mean, as I hope, that the Government will now think again?
The purpose of our Amendment to the humble Address was to urge the Government to think again; and I must ask that the noble Lord will now treat this matter—as I am sure personally he does—with rather more seriousness than he did in winding up the debate on the gracious Speech, when he advised us all to go home to bed. The issues had been seriously deployed then and I hope that he will take them seriously. There is one further point which I should like to ask him. We are informed, and I have no doubt that it is correct, that Mr. Vorster is on record as saying that the British Government had privately and officially promised to resume arms sales, and he was certain that that promise would be honoured. If Mr. Vorster was speaking accurately, how can the noble Lord square it with the repeated statement that no decision has yet been taken and, as was indicated by the Foreign Secretary, the possibility that argument might prevail?
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord this question, even though I appreciate that his right honourable friend is engaged in negotiation. What reaction have they had so far from Commonwealth countries and from friendly countries, such as the United States of America? We feel most strongly that the Government are embarking on a course which they would appreciate, if they were to

835
consider it more closely, presents real dangers both to world peace and to our national interests. I beg the Government to consider very carefully the advice they have had; and if the noble Lord cannot tell us what that advice is, could he tell us whether there are any, and if so how many, of the countries—other than possibly Malawi—who have been consulted who approve of what appears to be the Government's intention?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I know it is customary for the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party to make his observations next; but the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has practically made a speech—certainly it was much longer than the Statement— and I think it would be—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am not complaining about it. All I am saying is that since the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has done so, I think it is right, perhaps, while it is fresh in my memory, for me to answer some of his questions, if the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will forgive me.
My Lords, I am sorry that noble Lords opposite should be confused. I am sure that noble Lords on this side are not—
A NOBLE LORD: Look behind you!
LORD CARRINGTON: I must say, my Lords, that I had hoped for a rather higher standard of intelligence in your Lordships' House than in another place. I am also sorry if the noble Lord was offended by the concluding words of my speech the other day. I thought that after a debate lasting some eight and a half hours it was not very offensive to suggest that we should come to a conclusion and then go to bed; but never mind. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has asked me a number of questions. He has asked me to clarify what the Foreign Secretary said about no action being taken. He asked me whether any decisions would be taken and announced when Parliament was not sitting. I would not be prepared to say that decisions would not be taken and not announced while Parliament is not sitting. But what the Foreign Secretary said is
836
that no action will be taken with regard to these arms until a Statement is made in Parliament and there has, obviously, been an opportunity for debate.
My Lords, on the question of the Prime Minister of South Africa's speech, I am afraid I have no knowledge of that speech; and the situation is as I have stated it in the Statement. Lastly (I hope I have answered the noble Lord's questions; he will tell me if I have missed one out) he asked me what Commonwealth countries have agreed or disagreed. My Lords, some have agreed, some have disagreed and some have asked for clarification; but it certainly would not be proper to divulge in your Lordships' House the messages which have passed between Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, in our view, the best part of this Statement is the condemnation of the racial policies of the Government of South Africa. May I press the noble Lord on this matter? Is it not possible for him to give us an assurance that on a matter which is so vital to the interests of peace and the Commonwealth, both Houses will have the opportunity of debating it before irrevocable decisions are taken?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, may I ask—
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg the most reverend Primate's pardon, but I think it would be easier if we had one question at a time. What I have said—I think it is fairly clear—is that both Houses of Parliament will have the Statement before any arms are sold and any action is taken in that respect.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think a very few words from this Bench would be appropriate. I have listened to the Government Statement with feelings of profound relief. I am relieved, above all, because the Government have declared their readiness to take time and to give mature consideration to all the facts and to the arguments, all the arguments, which Commonwealth countries are putting before them. I am particularly encouraged by the unequivocal answer to a supplementary question put in another place: that Her Majesty's Government can be influenced before a final decision is taken

837
and that they will consider all the arguments, even to the point where somebody could, by argument, break them away from their former intentions.
As a part of this process of mature judgment which has been promised, I sincerely hope that the Government will seriously reflect upon those ethical considerations which have been put to them from within the Churches, among others, a good many times, and which indeed a delegation of churchmen specifically set before the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, only last week. It was those considerations which, last week, led myself and five of my brother Bishops to support the Amendment to the Humble Address proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. My relief at the Government's present Statement goes with a strong hope that the time for reflection which the Government have given themselves will be a time for weighing again the serious ethical issues involved.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that all your Lordships, and certainly the Government, will read very carefully and will weigh what the most reverend Primate has said. I confirm what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place yesterday: that, of course, consultation means consultation.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, perhaps I am not quite as relieved as the most reverend Primate at hearing this Statement. I am, in fact, depressed; and, as my noble friend has said, confused. I wonder whether the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government can clarify a few points about these various terms, "decision", "action", "intention", et cetera. It has seemed to me that there was on June 22 a Press conference at which certain intentions or decisions were announced to the Press. This seemed clear from the reports that appeared in the Press next morning. May I ask, as my first question, whether the noble Lord can confirm that such intention and decisions were communicated to the Press.
Secondly, may I express surprise that the noble Lord did not know of the remarks made by Dr. Vorster yesterday in South Africa? If he is not aware of them, I can assure him that both the
838
B.B.C. and the Daily Telegraph are fully aware of them, and as we have full diplomatic representation in South Africa, I am somewhat surprised that he is not also aware of them. One thing that Dr. Vorster said (or perhaps to be more accurate is reported to have said) is that the British Government of the moment are honourable men—I hope that he was not using this phrase in the same way as Mark Antony used it of Brutus—and that he hoped they would honour their public and private pledges. So my second question is: are there any private pledges to Dr. Vorster of which Parliament is not yet aware?
Thirdly, may I ask a question about the weapons which are implied in the Statement by the Foreign Secretary in another place? The Statement says, and the noble Lord has said, that there is no intention to supply arms which could be of use in advancing the policy of apartheid. I reminded the noble Lord in our recent debate that he himself had said that there could be no guarantee that any weapon could not be used for that purpose. As he did not reply to me at the close of the debate, may I ask him whether he is still of that opinion and, if so, how it squares with the statement that no arms will be sold that could possibly be used for that purpose?
Finally—I do not want to keep the noble Lord, but these are important questions—I should like to ask him whether he can clarify the situation about decision, action, intention and consultations. Is it right that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to supply these arms? Are they consulting with their Commonwealth partners or communicating with them? If they are consulting, how many Commonwealth countries have so far indicated their total disagreement with this intention? That, surely, should be a matter that the House is entitled to know. And may I further ask for a final and unequivocal undertaking that, if there is an overwhelming objection by our Commonwealth partners to the present intended policy, that policy will be changed.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that is about six questions—
LORD CHALFONT: Five.
LORD CARRINGTON: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I miss one out or get one wrong. With regard to the question about a Press conference, I do not know whether there was a Press conference; certainly I was not there and I have not the smallest idea of what was said. I do not work in that Department and even if there was a Press conference, I am unable to answer the noble Lord's question. We are discussing the Statement which is before your Lordships' House this afternoon. With regard to the statement of the Prime Minister of South Africa, the position is as in the Statement. There have been no private pledges to the Prime Minister of South Africa.
With regard to the arms question, the noble Lord said that I had made some observation that all arms could be used for the purpose of apartheid. I remember the occasion very well. I was then in the Foreign Office and was discussing the matter with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, and I said that of course all arms could be used in this way. But there is a difference when one says that and sees it in cold print. All arms could be used but, to be frank, I think it is a rather remote possibility that a frigate, armed with a 4·5 inch gun, some anti-aircraft weapons and depths charges, would be used for the purpose of internal security. I may say that I looked up some of the debates that we had on this in the past, and the predecessor but one of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in a Question and Answer we had in 1963, when I was answering for the Government, said something rather interesting. He said:
"We have certain strategic defence commitments with South Africa: they are particularly naval. Would it not be quite reasonable if, apart from those commitments, the Government could interpret their Answer to-day as excluding anything else which could be used, inland and internally?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18/12/63, c. 248.]
That is precisely the Government's intention in this Statement.
Lastly, the noble Lord asked about the number of Commonwealth countries which agreed or did not agree. I do not think that, when Prime Ministers are communicating confidentially and consulting confidentially, it would be proper for me to go any further than to say that some agreed and some did not.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, does what the noble Lord said in his last reply mean that no aircraft which could be used in an anti-personnel role will be sold?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Statement is quite clear about the general weapons which will be sent—for maritime defence on the sea routes; but which weapons, of course, is a matter for discussion and consultation.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, aircraft do have a maritime role and they can be used in anti-personnel ways—which does the noble Lord mean?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is difficult in question and answer to go into what particular weapons this includes, but presumably the noble Lord is talking about the Buccaneer. If the noble Lord knows anything about the Buccaneer, he will know that it is about as unsuitable a weapon for doing what he suggests as he could imagine.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, on the question of the Buccaneer, I really must press the noble Lord. In my view he is quite wrong in saying that the Buccaneer cannot be used in this kind of role—I myself have seen it used in this role. I should like to ask him whether he is aware—perhaps the noble Lord will listen to me for a moment and then he might be able to answer all my questions at the same time—that it has been reported recently in a Sunday newspaper that the Buccaneer has already been used against guerrilla forces on the Northern Borders of South Africa? Can he confirm that that is so? If he cannot, will he make inquiries to find out whether it is so?
Before I sit down, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for assuring the House unequivocally that there are no private pledges to South Africa of which we know nothing. Perhaps also, as he has not apparently been in communication with the Foreign Office about this matter, I can assure him that there was a Press conference on June 22 and that at that conference it was announced that arms supplies would be resumed to South Africa.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, because the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, does not like my answers, I hope that

841
nevertheless he will remain courteous. I have no knowledge of the Press conference. With regard to the other question he asked me, I have no knowledge of the Buccaneer being used in an internal security role, but I will find out and let him know. The matter of the sale of particular weapons is a matter for consultation.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, who certainly has not been particularly courteous to this side of the House, will not start accusing us of discourtesy when we attempt to get answers to questions to which he refuses to give any answer at all.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the minuscule case for the Simonstown naval base, made out so far, does not really hold water? And would he not agree that by the time we have lost our reputation and our trade with the Commonwealth—and he is a great Commonwealth man—the whole exercise will not have been worth while?
LORD CARRINGTON: NO, my Lords, I would not agree with the noble Baroness about that. I think it is the duty of the British Government to have concern about British strategic needs.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, could somebody from this side of the House say something? Would by noble friend recollect that after the debate lasting eight and a half hours which we had the other day, the Government had overwhelming support from this House and will have it again, if they stick to their intentions.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for that welcome relief from noble Lords opposite. May I perhaps remind the House that it is a fairly well-known fact that noble Lords opposite when in Government—or at least some of them in the Cabinet—were perfectly prepared to sell arms to South Africa.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a courteous question? With his great naval experience, has he no experience of any Government in the. past using frigates to interrupt coastwise traffic of which they disapproved?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sure that that does not seem relevant.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate that it is very difficult indeed to differentiate between arms which may be used for external purposes and those for internal purposes. But would the Government consider, when they intend to supply maritime arms, that two of the most critical areas are on the coast—Transkei and South West Africa—and that they might easily be used when in South African hands to further apartheid in those territories.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords. It is considerations of this sort that will obviously come into the consultations that we have about what sort of arms we sell.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if he thought that I was being discourteous. May I assure him that my intense commitment to this question intends no disrespect to the noble Lord, or to your Lordships' House? May I ask him a question as courteously as I know how? If he has not yet found out whether Buccaneers have been used by the Government of South Africa in anti-guerrilla operations on its borders, will he find out? And when he has found out, will he give us an undertaking that no weapons of that type—in other words, no Buccaneer aircraft—will be sold to the Government of South Africa until Her Majesty's Government have full information about the question that I have now asked?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course I will find that out; and I have already said so to the noble Lord. But of course I will not give any undertaking of the kind for which he asks.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for not so far intervening. I admit that this discussion is continuing rather longer than is, perhaps, usual, but I think he will agree that when we were in Government we were fairly tolerant on such occasions. I should like to make two points. One is that it is quite clear that any aircraft can be used for internal security purposes. I do not wish to make any personal point when I say that Shackletons were so used

843
in South Arabia: this was before I arrived there myself for that purpose. But the noble Lord made one serious point which needs to be met. He said that members of the previous Government were in favour of exporting certain arms to South Africa.
LORD CARRINGTON: Some.
LORD SHACKLETON: Some arms?
LORD CARRINGTON: Some members.
LORD SHACKLETON: Some members of the previous Government. I have never underestimated the difficulty of this subject, but a time comes in all the great issues, which are frequently complex, when it is necessary to come down on one side or the other. We believe that we came down on the right side and that the present Government have leapt firmly to the wrong side.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord let us know where we can best obtain some short statement of the allegedly great advantages in the context of a modern war of the Simonstown base so that we can study it during our long holiday?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will wait until the day after tomorrow he will be able to read the speeches of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Defence in another place, who will no doubt speak on the subject.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, as we have had an unusually long debate on this Statement, may I ask this? Would not my noble friend agree that in this categorising of arms it is not sufficiently recognised that South Africa, with her immense industrial strength and know-how, is now able to manufacture herself pretty well all the armaments that she would need to deal with any internal situation? Surely it would not be intelligent for the South Africans to employ for that purpose expensive arms manufactured either in France or anywhere else when they can produce them themselves.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion in italics standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like briefly to explain why I am asking the House to agree to an abbreviation of the usual 10 days allowed for depositing Petitions against this Bill to a period expiring at 1 p.m. to-morrow. The Bill is a Commons Bill, and it received its Third Reading in that House late on Thursday of last week. The Bill having received its formal First Reading in this House this afternoon, in the normal course of events 10 days' petitioning time would then ensue. This, of course, would extend into the Summer Recess, and so the Bill could not receive the Royal Assent before the House rises. Such a postponement could not, of course, justify curtailing petitioning time in the case of any Private Bill other than the Greater London (Money) Bill.
Under the London Government Act 1963, however, the expenditure of the Greater London Council on capital account and on lending to other persons, such as housing loans to individuals and associations, is required to be regulated by annual Private Money Acts promoted by the Council—each of which authorises expenditure for a period of 18 months ending on September 30. If the current regulating Bill does not receive the Royal Assent by that date this year the financial consequences for the Council will be most serious. So far as I know, no Petition has ever been deposited against such a Money Bill. For these reasons, and in these exceptional circumstances, I believe it is proper for me to ask the House to agree to this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That Private Business Standing Order No. 101 (limit of time for presenting petition against Bill) be dispensed with in respect of the Bill, and that no Petition may be deposited against the Bill later than one o'clock To-morrow afternoon.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL
Reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

WEST HERTFORDSHIRE MAIN DRAINAGE BILL
Reported with an Amendment.
Then, Standing Orders Nos. 4 and 147 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolutions), Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

WILLIAMS & GLYN'S BANK BILL
Reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ABERDEEN EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

MALLAIG HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has risen to his feet and subsided twenty-two times in the last ten minutes. If we go on with the remainder of these Scottish Order Confirmation Bills (which I understand are unopposed) he will have risen to his feet and subsided a further fifteen times. I am sure that this is not a physical imposition on him, but it seems to me that this is something on which the procedure of the House might be improved to the extent that this business should be taken as a whole, on one vote, rather than going through procedures which would appear to most of the spectators here to be slightly unusual.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I can well imagine that it might well be for the convenience of your Lordships that this course should be adopted with Bills of this sort, but it obviously cannot be done without referring the matter to the Procedure Committee. If the noble Lord would like it referred to the Procedure Committee, he can, of course, ask for that to be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a and passed.

FIFE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

MIDLOTHIAN COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

WEST LOTHIAN ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

LAKE OF MENTEITH FISHERIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

PERSONAL BILLS COMMITTEE
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the second page of the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to whom all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

V. Gage,

V. Simonds,

L. Cohen,

L. Grantchester,

L. Silkin:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the next Motion standing in my name on the second page of the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of this House which may arise from time to time, and
848
whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered to effect such alterations; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Jellicoe,

E. Longford,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Colville of Culross,

V. Dilhorne,

V. Goschen,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Brooke of Cumnor,

L. Byers,

L. Caccia,

L. Carrington,

L. Champion,

L. Clwyd,

L. Henderson,

L. Henley,

L. Merthyr,

L. Rea,

L. Shackleton,

L. Shepherd,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang,

L. Wade,

L. Wilberforce,

L. Willis,

B. Wootton of Abinger:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FIJI INDEPENDENCE BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed, pursuant to Standing Order No.45; read 1a.
HARBOURS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911, and printed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45; read 1a.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (COL- LECTION OF LEVY) (AMEND- MENT) REGULATIONS 1970
3.56 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be agreed to. I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we discussed them and the following ones together Under the Cinematograph Films Act 1957, the operation of which has been prolonged until 1980 by the Films Act 1970, the Board of Trade is required to provide for the imposition of a levy upon film exhibitors from the proceeds of which the British Film Fund Agency make payments to or for the benefit of makers of British films.
The levy is collected from exhibitors on the basis of weekly earnings: but so that this should not inflict undue hardship on the smaller cinemas, many of which are finding it hard to keep going, an exhibitor is exempt from levy in any one week in which his box office takings do not exceed £400, or when his weekly average, taken over the preceding part of the levy period, does not exceed £400. The Board of Trade does this by regulation, subject to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses, after consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council. The draft Collection of Levy (Amendment) Regulations propose no change of any kind. All that they do is to prolong the existing Regulations for another ten periods of fifty-two weeks. To save your Lordships from too much mental arithmetic, this brings us up to the week ending September 20, 1980.
The Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations is a somewhat lengthy document, but most of it is concerned with consolidating the Regulations which were made in 1963 with subsequent Amendments, with adding drafting Amendments consequential on the 1970 Films Act, and with prolonging them for a further ten periods of fifty-two weeks. There are only two changes of substance. The first is the addition of sub-paragraph h, paragraph 1 of Regulation 3, which defines an "eligible film"; that is to say, a film which is eligible for levy earnings. Up to now, films otherwise eligible and made in studios in the Commonwealth or in the Republic of Ireland have been able to qualify for levy earn-
850
ings. The whole purpose of the levy is, of course, to encourage film production in this country, and there seems to be no justification for continuing an arrangement whereby film makers can make their films in studios in the Republic: of Ireland or in any Commonwealth country and still benefit from the levy. The revised definition in sub-paragraph h of the Regulations will have the effect, subject to one proviso, of requiring that if a studio is used it must be in the United Kingdom. The one proviso is this: it is recognised that sometimes when a film is being made on location, it may be more economical to use a local studio for a short time, and so long as photographs taken or sound recordings made in a studio outside the United Kingdom do not exceed 7½ per cent. of the total playing time of the film, the film will not be disqualified from eligibility. This first change will not apply to films registered up to March 31 next year, so that producers will have ample notice of the change.
The second change; of substance is also to be found in Regulation 3. Under the existing regulations a "low cost film" earns levy at two and a half times the standard rate. A low cost film was defined as:
"a long film the labour costs of which do not exceed £20,000 in the case of a film registered before 6th October, 1968 and £25,000 in any other case."
The film producers have told us that experience is showing that the increase from £20,000 to £25,000 was not enough, and have asked that films with labour costs up to £50,000 should qualify for the enhanced rate. The Cinematograph Films Council recommended that this should be done, and we have accepted the Council's advice. I think that no section of the industry made any objection to the proposed change and I ask your Lordships to approve it. In my view, these new Regulations embody all the changes that are desirable at the present time. In administering the law concerning the levy the Board of Trade's job is to hold a balance between the interests of the producers and those of the exhibitors, and I trunk that the present Regulations, as amended by Regulations before us to-day, provide arrangements which are fair to both sides. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations 1970, laid before the House on July 2, 1970, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
4.2 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for explaining these Regulations so clearly. I should also, if I may, like to congratulate him, because although I realise that the noble Lord has already answered some Questions, I believe this is the first time he has moved Regulations of this kind from the Dispatch Box. My task is even pleasanter because these Regulations are of course continuing the legislation passed in the last Parliament by the former Government. As the noble Lord has said, they flow in part from the Film Act 1970. I hope, therefore, that this will be a precedent for the future and that we shall see the noble Lord, Lord Denham, moving other Regulations to continue legislation passed by the previous Government.
I also welcome the Regulations for themselves. What the noble Lord has said is quite right: that the levy should be extended for a further ten years. Indeed, this levy has now been in operation for a great many years, almost since the end of the war—the late 1940s—when the idea of the Eady levy and the National Film Finance Corporation was conceived by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place when he was President of the Board of Trade. I think all sections of the film industry acknowledge what a great contribution these two measures have made towards the stability of the British film industry during the last twenty-five years.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the three main provisions of these Regulations. I particularly welcome the one which refers to films which are made outside the United Kingdom, in Commonwealth countries and in the Republic of Ireland. It is absolutely right that these should not qualify for the levy if the 7½ per cent. limit is exceeded. Of course, these films will still qualify for quota. This matter was debated at length during the passage of the Film Act and the previous Govern-
852
ment gave an undertaking to watch the situation. I hope, therefore, that the present Government will do this. It is a matter that should be kept under constant review—that a film made away from this country should still qualify in this way.
I also welcome the increase for the low-cost film which will qualify for the enhanced levy payments: an increase from £25,000 to £50,000. I believe this was a recommendation of the Film Producers' Association, and I am glad that the Government have adopted it. It will have the effect of encouraging producers to make low-budget long films, which are becoming increasingly popular nowadays, particularly if they have some social content. They have great export potential. For this reason alone they should be encouraged, as well as for the fact that they provide better entertainment for home cinema audiences. Therefore, my Lords, I welcome these Regulations, and certainly from this side of the House we hope that the House will pass them.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for what he has said, both about myself and about these Regulations. The only point he raised which I have not mentioned myself at all concerned the quota. I assure him that we will look into this point of films made outside the United Kingdom being eligible for quota.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DISTRIBUTION OF LEVY) REGULATIONS 1970
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be agreed to. In doing so, may I do what I should perhaps have done on the previous Motion and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on what is, I believe, the first speech he has made from the Opposition Dispatch Box. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations 1970 laid before the House on July 2, 1970, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT (AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULES 1 AND 3) ORDER 1970
4.7 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Weights and Measures Act (Amendment of Schedules 1 and 3) Order 1970 laid before the House on July 8, 1970, be approved. In a Written Reply in another place my right honourable friend said yesterday that the Government have noted from the Metrication Board's First Report the extent of the plans and commitments already made towards the general adoption of the metric system, and that the new Government propose to encourage these voluntary developments. We are, however, not as yet committed to general enabling legislation involving the amendment of Statutes. Before such legislation is introduced we consider it right and proper to provide time in your Lordships' House, and in another place, for the general question of metrication to be debated after the Recess. None the less, where individual industries have voluntarily progressed to the point where amendments are required to regulations couched in non-metric terms, we are ready, after consultation with interested parties, to introduce amendments under existing statutory powers. These two Orders to-day arc; examples of the process which we have in mind.
The first Order before your Lordships is concerned with changes in Schedules 1 and 3 of the Weights and Measures Act 1963, which set out the units of measurement and weight that may be used in the United Kingdom, and the physical measures and weights which can lawfully be used for trade in Great Britain. These Schedules were drawn up when the Imperial system was expected to remain predominantly used for trade, but they allowed for some use of the metric system. Now that much of British industry is maving rapidly towards the adoption of the metric system, certain changes are necessary to facilitate the changeover. The sand and ballast industry asked the Government to make certain changes, and we have included in the draft Order certain other changes
854
which discussion with industries suggested would be useful. Nothing in this Order will compel anyone to adopt the metric system; it will merely make the changes easier for people who wish to make them. We have carried out widespread consultations with interested parties and we have succeeded in meeting almost all their wishes. The draft Order proposes three changes. The first is a change in nomenclature to bring us more into line with Continental practice, so that our industries can use the same terms as their trading partners. It proposes—and I hope your Lordships will not object to this—to add to the metric units in Schedule 1 the "tonne" or "metric tonne", usually pronounced to rhyme with "con", as in Sir Con O'Neill. This is a unit equal to 1,000 kilogrammes.
The second change affects Schedule 3. It provides for certain additional metric linear measurements and metric weights, and also for metric cubic measures for which there had been no previous provision. The new linear measures will result in a metric series as flexible as the series of Imperial linear measures. Fifty metre and 30 metre measures will be used by surveyors, 1·5 metre measures are needed by glass manufacturers, and the half metre rule will fill a useful gap between one metre and one decimetre. The two additional small metric weights are being added at their request to help pharmacists in their weighing operations. The cubic measures are needed to enable the building industry to adopt the metric system on January 1, 1971, and further provision is made to assist this changeover in the second draft order which I shall be asking your Lordships to approve.
The remaining change relates to the apothecaries' units and weights and measures. Section 10(3) of the Act provides that these may only be used for trade in drugs. Since the former Secretaries of State for Social Services and Scotland used their powers to require She use of metric units for dealings in drugs from January 1, 1971, the old apothecaries' system will become obsolete on that date. The draft Order therefore proposes to delete the references to apothecaries' units and weights and measures from Schedules 1 and 3 from that date. The medical and pharmaceutical interests have agreed with this proposal. This is

855
in fact abolishing part of the old Imperial system, but the Act recognised that these particular units were indeed obsolescent and gave us special powers to abolish them.
I emphasise again, my Lords, that the draft Order is designed to help those who wish to adopt the metric system; it does not force anyone to do so. It meets the wishes of industry and so far as we can tell after wide consultations no responsible body is opposed to any of its proposals. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures Act (Amendment of Schedules 1 and 3) Order 1970 laid before the House on July 8, 1970, be approved.—(The Earl of Bessborough.)
LORD BROWN: My Lords, of course we support these further steps towards modernisation of our means of measuring, but I should like to make one comment and perhaps get an assurance from the Minister. If my schoolboy arithmetic is correct. a "tonne" will be equivalent to 2,200 lb. whereas a "ton" is equivalent to 2,240 lb.—that is a difference of 40 lbs. It seems to me possible that somebody could "con" you into expecting to get a ton when you only get a tonne. In other words, if you mispronounce the word you are likely to get 40 lb. less. I mention this because it seems to me that these two measures will continue to be used, and if raising the matter in this House to-day results in a little publicity so that people are warned of the dangers, it might be helpful.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having made that observation, and I hope that any publicity that is given will assist in the matter. Otherwise he might be right; there might possibly be a danger of some misunderstanding, and I am grateful to him for making the point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will
856
make certain, in consultation with his colleagues, that equivalent changes are made in neighbouring Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act? I am not certain whether that has yet been done.
Following on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, it is with a little misgiving that I regard the prescribing by legislation as to how things are to be pronounced, or indeed spelt. I do not think we can possibly prescribe how a "tonne" is to be pronounced or spelt and it will probably continue to be called a metric ton, as it always has been. As to the kilogramme, I do not see why we should adopt the French spelling. We send a telegram—ending with "m"—to France but we get it back with the "mme", and I do not see why we should adopt their spelling. This does not appear to be in accord with the preferred spelling of the Oxford English Dictionary. I think the briefer the better. Can we not have "kilogram" and "gram" without the "mme"? At any rate, I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure us that no one will go to prison for spelling words incorrectly.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his comments. On his point about the Food and Drugs Act I will certainly make inquiries, but I am afraid that I cannot give him an answer to-day. In regard to the spelling, noble Lords are perfectly free to call it a metric ton if they wish to do so. This is a suggestion, and I can assure the noble Lord that neither the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, nor any other noble and learned Lord will have cause to reprimand him or to suggest that he might be incarcerated. None the less, I know that my right honourable friend will take account of what the noble Lord has said about the pronunciation and the spelling of both the ton and the kilogram. I will look into this matter myself, although I should have thought that if we were intending to go into Europe the greater the degree of rationalisation in these weights and measures, the better.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT (AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULES 5 AND 7) ORDER 1970
4.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I wish to make one further brief comment about this second draft Order, which I now ask your Lordships to approve. This will enable the sand and ballast industries, and the ready-mixed cement mortar and concrete industries to adopt the metric system on January 1, 1971.
As your Lordships will know, the building industry has been well advanced in adopting the metric system. The previous Order will make the use of metric cubic measures legal and will enable the Board of Trade to make regulations about trucks calibrated in metric units. But even with these trucks the industry cannot adopt the metric system, since Schedules 5 and 7 do not allow the sale of sand and ballast by the cubic metre. This draft Order removes that obstacle. It proposes to amend Schedule 5 to the 1963 Act to permit sand and ballast to be sold in England and Wales by volume in units of 0·2 cubic metre, as an alternative to units of half a cubic metre or by net weight. It also proposes a slight increase in the exemption limit for small sales in England and Wales and, if the control were applied there, in Scotland.
The draft Order also proposes to amend Part II of Schedule 7 to the Act to permit ready-mixed cement mortar and concrete to be sold in England and Wales in multiples of 01 cubic metre as an alternative to multiples of a quarter of a cubic yard. It proposes a slight amendment to the exemption limit for small sales, and also that sales in Scotland should be subject to the same rules and with the same exemption limit as those in England and Wales These proposals have been agreed by all the trade interests and other parties consulted.
My Lords, I would explain that although this Order allows sales in metric units it does not require them to be conducted on this basis. I understand that most sand and ballast merchants propose to adopt the metric system next year, and this draft Order will enable them to do so. However, some traders and their
858
customers may prefer, at least for the present, to retain the cubic yard, and in that event they will be free to do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures Act (Amendment of Schedules 5 and 7) Order 1970, laid before the House on July 8, 1970, be approved.—(The Earl of Bessborough.)
LORD BROWN: My Lords, when I was at the Board of Trade I found it in nearly all respects, an excellent Department, but there were some small pockets with a romantic love of obscurity. They have been good enough to provide a memorandum explaining this Order, and it is a real exercise in obscurity. I will pick out one point and ask the noble Earl if he can explain it. The memorandum says:
"The Draft Order specifies the whole of Scotland for the provisions relating to the sale of ready-mixed concrete but not of sand and ballast."
Why should the sale of sand and ballast in Scotland not be subjected, exceptionally, to the same procedure as regards metrication as in England? The memorandum is a foolscap page. It explains in rather obscure words everything one does not need to know. But it poses this question and leaves it unanswered. I wonder whether the noble Earl can oblige with an explanation.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think I can satisfy the noble Lord on this point. There are two reasons why it has not been done. First, sand and ballast, unlike ready-mixed cement, can be sold by net weight and there is a shortage of weighbridges in some areas of Scotland. Secondly, unlike ready-mixed cement, sand and ballast when sold by volume have to be carried in calibrated lorries or in brim measures, and such lorries are not used to any appreciable extent in Scotland. I hope that the noble Lord understands that answer.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I intervene? I should prefer the Minister not to talk about "ready-mixed cement", because it does not become the subject of this Order until the cement is mixed with something else.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF JUDGES ORDER 1970
4.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I rise to move that the Draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1970, laid before the House on July 9, 1970, be approved. As noble Lords will see from studying paragraph 2 of the Draft Order, its purpose is to raise the maxima of Judges in the Court of Appeal, the High Court and county court respectively. I emphasise that this Motion relates solely to maxima and does not commit either the House or me to particular appointments, which are the subject of quite a laborious procedure in themselves.
May I briefly explain the need and the machinery? Under Section 1(1)(b) of the Administration of Justice Act 1968 the maximum number of Judges in England and Wales was fixed as follows: ordinary Judges of the Court of Appeal, 13; puisne Judges of the High Court, 70; county court judges, 97. Section 1(2) and (3) of the same Act enables the maximum in each case to be increased by Order in Council provided that the draft is laid before Parliament and approved by Affirmative Resolution of each House. The maximum number of county court judges was thus increased from July 1 last year from 97 to 105.
I shall deal first with the Court of Appeal. The increase in the civil and criminal business of the Court of Appeal in recent years has been very large. Civil appeals set down in the six years between 1964 and 1969 increased from 618 in 1964 fairly steadily to 948 in 1968, and was again 948 in 1969. The number set down from January 1 to June 29, 1969, was 467, and in the corresponding period this year it was 473. I am sorry to say the intervals between setting down cases and the actual hearing was about three months in April, 1966, but increased last year to eight months. It has recently been reduced to about five months, but, though the position has improved, in the opinion, I think, of all those concerned with the matter it is still unduly long.
It has been possible for the Court of Appeal to deal with its civil business and even slightly to improve the position only by sitting in four Divisions hearing civil
860
appeals. However, it has always been necessary for two, and it is frequently necessary for three, Lords Justices to give their time to the criminal business of the Court of Appeal, and the Master of the Rolls has been able to keep his four Divisions sitting continuously for civil appeals only by using one Law Lord, when one was available, or, when one was not, a retired Lord Justice. I fear it would be unsafe to assume that it will be possible to continue to manage the business of the Court of Appeal in this makeshift way. It may well be necessary to have another Lord Justice before long. It is accordingly desirable to increase the maximum number of Lords Justices by one; that is to say, from 13 Lords Justices to 14.
I now come to the number of puisne Judges of the High Court. The large increase in High Court business has entailed a substantial increase in the number of sittings of the Judges and commissioners of assize. In 1969 they spent 12·8 per cent. more time than in 1968 trying prisoners on circuit. The indications are that criminal trials will occupy even more of the Judges' time in the next two years, and they will have to give at least as much time to the trial of civil actions in London and on circuit. There are now 66 puisne Judges of the High Court and the authorised maximum is 70. In view of the present growth in the volume of criminal business it may well be necessary to increase their number between now and the end of 1971 by as many as five Judges. For this purpose it would be necessary to have an authorised maximum of 71, but so as to allow a reasonable margin for contingencies and for the needs of 1972 as well it would be desirable to increase the maximum, as proposed in the present Draft Order, from 70 to 75.
I come now to the county court judges. As I think I told the House a moment ago, during the last year it has been necessary to increase the number of county court judges to the statutory maximum, which is 105. In spite of this increase, it was necessary on about 1,000 occasions in 1969 to arrange for members of the Bar and for retired judges to sit as deputies to relieve the congestion in the courts. It is undesirable to have to depend to this extent on the appointment of deputies, and more judges are urgently needed to avoid using deputies so often.

861
In 1969 the increase in the sittings of the judges and their deputies as compared with those in 1968 was about 6·5 per cent. The annual increase in the previous five years had been about 5 per cent. The divorce business accounted for most of the increase in the judges' work last year, but there was also an increase in ordinary county court business. It is to be expected that both types of business will require more judicial time in 1971 and 1972 and the appointment of more judges is thus unavoidable. Many of the county court judges also sit as deputy chairmen of the Greater London Sessions and as commissioners of the Crown Courts of Liverpool and Manchester. This work now in effect occupies the time of twelve judges but it can be expected during the next two years to require as many as fourteen. The effect on the judges' work of recently increasing the jurisdiction of the county courts is expected to be more than offset by the relief which they will derive as a result of increasing the registrars' jurisdiction.
The net effect of these steps is likely to result in a saving of some judicial time. The abolition of the judgment summons procedure, when attachment of earnings for civil debt is introduced under Part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, will give the county court judges some further significant relief. On the other hand, some additional work will fall on them when the Divorce Reform Act 1969 and the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 come into force in the early part of next year. Although these changes in jurisdiction can be expected to lead to some saving of the judges' time, it will shortly be necessary, as the result of the increasing load on the courts referred to in my previous observations, to strengthen the County Court Bench; and further increases in the number of judges are likely to be needed in 1971, and again in 1972, especially if delays in trial are to be avoided. This entails an increase in the statutory maximum. In the circumstances, I hope that the House will agree that it is appropriate to increase the statutory maximum from the present figure of 105 to 125, as proposed in the Order.
The net result is thus to increase the statutory number of Lords Justices of Appeal from 13 to 14, of puisne Judges
862
of the High Court from 70 to 75, and of county court judges from 105 to 125, the actual appointments being made, of course when the need for them arises. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Maximum Number of Judges; Order 1970, laid before the House on July 9, 1970, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.32 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, we on these Benches hope that this House will approve this Order, though there are one or two points that we should like to raise. Until fairly recently, if the Lord Chancellor thought there ought to be additional Judges it was necessary to pass an Act of Parliament to increase the statutory maximum. One situation in which no Lord Chancellor liked to find himself was that in which he was of the opinion that the Judiciary ought to be increased but that it could not be done without an Act of Parliament and there was no Parliamentary time available. However, that difficulty has been removed now that, much more conveniently, the statutory maxima can be changed by a Statutory Order of this kind.
I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is quite right to seek an increase of one in the statutory maxima in the number of Lords Justices. For while it is true that there has been no increase in the number of appeals in 1969 as compared with 1968, I know that it is only by the unremitting attention of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls that he has been able to keep up to date, and only then by making use of the services of noble and learned Lords of Appeal, when they were free, and of retired Lords Justices to a degree which, if I may say so, was perhaps not really desirable. Therefore, I think there can be no doubt that it is right to increase the maximum number of Lords Justices by one.
With regard to the High Court Judges, the increase proposed is of course fairly large, the present maximum number being 70, and the number in post 66. There is a current margin of four, and it is now proposed that the maximum should be increased to 75. I hope that this does not mean that we shall have too many additional Judges in the near

863
future, and I am a little surprised at the statement that it may be necessary to appoint another five. After all, this is an increase of something like 8½ per cent. of the whole of the High Court Bench within a period of 18 months.
As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack knows, what tends to happen is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice suddenly says, "Next month there is a four-week-long fraud case in the West country. There is a three or four week affray case which has been set down at Kingston. There is another long case at Liverpool. As my present Judges will be occupied with the rest of the work, I really want three commissioners appointed. "This may be simply for this one month, and some use of commissioners is essential. Obviously, there should not be too great a use of commissioners. But the sort of problem to which I have referred is not met by saying, "Well, let us have one more Judge". And if you say, "Well, let us have three more Judges", because it has been shown that at some time during the year there may be for one month a need for three more, you may then have an unnecessary number. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack can explain to us why he thinks that there may be a case for as many as an additional five High Court Judges within the next 18 months.
So far as county court judges are concerned, some increase in the present maximum is obviously essential. The maximum number is 105, and there are 105 in post, so it is certainly necessary that this number should be increased. I would readily have agreed that it should be increased from 105 to, say, 110 or 115, or perhaps 120; but an increase to 125 seems a very large increase indeed. I think that no one can say to what extent an increase will or will not be necessary. This is particularly difficult in the case of county court judges, because there are factors which should result in additional work being placed on the county court judges and there are other factors which should result in less work being placed on them.
The increase in jurisdiction, though relatively modest, will increase their work; and there may well be some further increase when the Divorce Reform Act
864
comes into force on January 1 of next year. On the other hand, they are losing their judgment summons work. This work occupied 8 per cent. of the whole of the work of all the county court judges. That has now gone. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the registrars is being increased: they will try cases which otherwise the judges would have tried. So, although the work will increase—and we shall probably need some extra county court judges—it is difficult to say, on balance, how many will be needed in the next 12 months. But the number proposed seems large.
I do not know what are the proposals of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with regard to any further increase in the jurisdiction of the county courts. As he knows, it has been recommended that there should be a still further increase. Perhaps he can tell us what his intentions are in that regard. Can he also help us by saying whether there is any difficulty in the recommended further increase of the jurisdiction of the registrars arising from the fact, if it be the fact, that it is not easy to get good registrars, who of course are all solicitors of experience, at the rates which the Treasury are at present prepared to sanction? It would be unfortunate if Parliament, intending that a larger proportion of the smaller cases should be triable by registrars, were to be thwarted simply because the powers-that-be in the Treasury were not prepared to sanction a rate of remuneration at which alone suitable candidates can be found?
I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the Order. What troubles me most is the suggestion that so large an increase in so short a time may be required on the High Court Bench, always bearing in mind that, whereas during all my time at the Bar (as I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would agree) the standard of the Bench, both of the High Court and of the county court, has visibly risen all the time, there is a limit beyond which the Bench, particularly the High Court Bench, cannot be increased in numbers without their average quality being affected.
4.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I have the right to reply without the leave of the House. I am

865
extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the general support that he has given to this Motion. I would agree with him that the Order in Council procedure, which derives from fairly recent legislation, is far more convenient than the need to legislate for the maximum number of Judges. I am glad also that I had his wholehearted support over the number of Lords Justices of Appeal. The case there is urgent and clearly made out based upon the actual workload at the moment because, as the noble and learned Lord agreed, the work of the Court of Appeal has been falling into arrears and is maintained precariously by the use of drafts from the judicial talent of this House and also from retired Lords Justices. That is manifestly undesirable, and I am glad that I have the support of the noble and learned Lord about this.
When you come to the High Court and the county court you are, of course, dealing with a more questionable figure which is not demonstrable in plain terms, but I hope the House will, on the whole, agree that, as I am dealing here with maxima and not with actual appointments, I should be given (as previous Lord Chancellors have under the existing legislation until we more or less came up against the buffers) a certain amount of elbow room in the appointment of Judges. I should like to say, in relation to the last remarks of the noble and learned Lord, that I recognise as much as he possible can with his greater experience the need for keeping up the standard of the High Court Judges. I do not think there is anything more important in the whole administration of justice than that this standard should not fall down. I also recognise something which he did not mention but which I know he would equally have at heart, the necessity for keeping up the highest standard among the leaders of the Bar, because if you recruit all your best leaders on to the Bench, litigants will suffer from inadequate presentation of difficult cases. Since I have been in my present position I have been really amazed and delighted to find how high the standard of the Bar really is. I had not really realised it until I saw the talent that there was available. Bearing those limitations in mind, I think I can promise the House, whatever else
866
may be true, that no appointments are likely to be made (except by the human fallibility of the Lord Chancellor in the selection of personnel) which would either reduce the quality of the High Court Bench or of the remaining members of the Bar available to take difficult work. Any mistakes which are made will not be due to the shortage of talent; they will be due to the shortcomings of the Lord Chancellor.
As regards the actual need, it is of course the fact that five is a fairly large number. I think, however, that two facts should be borne in mind: first, that there has been no increase since the Statute, so far as I know, in the High Court Bench, although there has been an increase in the County Court Bench; and secondly, some increase is admittedly necessary within the next few months in order to enable me to deal with foreseeable difficulties. It is largely a question of judgment as to how much elbow room one is going to ask for over and above that amount. It will be remembered that one of our great tasks in this Session of Parliament when we return after the Recess will be an attempt to legislate and implement the Beeching reforms. It was part of the policy of those reforms that perhaps fewer commissioners should be used and more full-time Judges. That again is a question of judgment. I fully agree with the noble and learned Lord, and he is obviously right, that commissioners serve a very useful purpose in dealing with what one might call peak loads at particular points. They also serve a particularly useful purpose in enabling Lord Chancellors, who may have to appoint judges, to see how particular advocates shape on the Bench. I would not in the least doubt the value of this means of dealing with the work load, but using the best judgment I can and telling the House, as I do, that I certainly shall not be coming to the authorities for actual appointments unless I feel the situation demands it, I would ask the House to pass this Order as regards the puisne Judges. I do not think we want to take two bites at this particular cherry. As regards the county court, again I anticipate that the county court jurisdiction will be raised, and, for that matter, that of the registrars, but I am not in a position to make a statement yet.

867
The question again arises as to how far one can go on using deputies. I think the House would probably agree that to use deputies on 1,000 occasions in 12 months is really too much of what is undoubtedly a very good thing; and to rely more on judicial talent, based on salaried Judges with full-time appointments, is probably fairer both to litigants and to the Bar, who sometimes find deputising both inconvenient and onerous. On the whole, I think that these are the best figures we can arrive at. To some extent, of course, the increase in business is problematical. In my judgment, based upon looking at the total High Court work on crime and civil cases over the last few years—it has been rising fairly steadily in both departments and in the county court—the graph will continue to go up, though I am the first to admit that extrapolation is the most dangerous of all scientific processes. But I think it will go up, and I think it will go up in the new Family Division of the High Court as a result of the divorce reforms—probably quite sharply for a time, and then level out. Again, to some extent the increase is speculation, and we may prove to be wrong—in many ways I hope we are—but I think it is reasonable to ask the House, as a matter of good housekeeping, to give me this extra facility should I be able to obtain the proper authority for the actual appointments. In these circumstances, I hope the House will grant me the elbow room for which I have asked.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WHITE FISH (INSHORE VESSELS) AND HERRING SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1970
4.47 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1970 be approved. This scheme provides for the payment of subsidy in the twelve months beginning August 1, 1970, for vessels under 80 ft. in length engaged in fishing for white fish and for vessels which fish for herring. All but a few of the herring vessels are also under 80 ft. in length. Your Lordships will no doubt recall that
868
subsidy for the large white fish vessels of the deep sea fleet is provided under a separate scheme.
As the operating results for the previous year are one of the important factors in considering a subsidy settlement, I may mention that in 1969 the landings of white fish and herring by the vessels with which this scheme is concerned were valued at £19·3 million. This is about one-third of the United Kingdom catch and was £1 million higher than in 1968. The herring fleet in particular had a good year. Its performance was helped by increased demand from overseas, leading to a 44 per cent. increase in herring exports. The average profits of the Scottish inshore and herring vessels increased by 16 per cent. in 1969. The Northern Ireland fleet showed an increase of 20 per cent., while in England and Wales profits were down by about 20 per cent. We have only the statistics of landings to help us to judge the position so far in 1970, but I am glad to tell your Lordships that in England and Wales the value of the inshore white fish and herring landings up to the end of May showed an increase of about 25 per cent. compared with the corresponding period of 1969. In the same period the Scottish catch rose by 22 per cent. in value.
Against this background of a generally profitable year in 1969 and encouraging prospects for 1970, and after considering the views of representatives of the industry, the Government decided that the current subsidy rates should continue for a further year. The only changes which have been made are in the stonage rates set out in Parts I and II of Schedule 3. The purpose of these adjustments is to facilitate the change to decimal currency next February, and although one rate has been increased and the three others decreased—in all cases by very small amounts—it is estimated that the overall effect will be a marginal bonus to the fishermen. There are no significant changes in the conditions governing the payment of subsidy, but since your Lordships have shown a keen interest in the subject in earlier debates I may mention that the Statutes concerned with subsidy have now been consolidated in the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970, which enables a short preamble to be substituted for the complex wording found in previous schemes. We are also revoking the

869
schemes listed in Schedule 4, as they are now spent.
The Government consider it important to promote the interests of the inshore and herring industries, not only for their value to the economy but also for the important social role they play in coastal communities. We, consider that the subsidies set out in this scheme are appropriate to this end, and I commend it to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme laid before the House on July 9, 1970, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
4.52 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am very happy to support this Order and I wish to express pleasure at the figures which the noble Lord has mentioned. The all-round increase in the results for 1969 and the indication that these favourable conditions have carried on to the end of May this year will give satisfaction to all of us. I have one query—I had two originally, but the noble Lord has explained that the changes arising from decimalisation are expected to balance out, more or less, at the end. The 11d becoming 1s. makes up for the other adjustments at the lower level where metrication has meant a fairly heavy percentage reduction, and I am content with what the noble Lord has said.
He also mentioned that the consolidation effected by the 1970 Act has enabled a simplification of wording, which may account for the remarkably large number of changes in language in the course of the Order—something which I do not think is desirable when Orders have to be made year after year. For instance, I found it difficult to understand why last year's Order used the words.
"…of which he is the owner or charterer",
and in this year's version the words have become,
"…owned or chartered by such owner or charterer".
I do not think there is any advantage in one or the other, and perhaps it is too much to expect that in these Orders we should have clarity.
There is one point about which I should like to ask. I appreciate that it is sometimes not too easy to be certain
870
what is or what is not in an Order, but I noticed that in last year's Order there was an Article 9 which referred to arrangements
"…for the purpose of giving effect to but subject to the provisions of any agreement or arrangement for the remuneration of the officers or crew of a vessel."
And then it set out certain conditions. There is no such section in the 1970 Order, a draft of which is before us. Is this change something which arises from the consolidation, or is it something which results from the new wage conditions in the industry? I should be grateful if the noble Lord would let me know—if not to-day, in due course—why there is this omission from the 1970 Order. With those comments, I am happy to give support to the new Order.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question? With regard to the improved figures for England and Wales up to the end of May, 1970, am I right in thinking that most of that improvement is in the white fish industry and not in the herring industry?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's question, I think what he suggested is mostly correct. As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I will, if I may, take advantage of his offer and let him know in due course.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL
4.55 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is a short and simple Bill. Its purpose is to enable the United Kingdom to take up its increased quota in the International Monetary Fund, in accordance with arrangements for increasing the resources of the Fund which were set out in a White Paper published in April (Cmnd. 4353). Some noble Lords may be entirely familiar with the technicalities, and with the significance of quota and quota increases, and some may not be. Therefore I will very briefly explain the background here.

871
The main objective of the I.M.F. is to promote a free system of world trade and payments, so as to help member countries to achieve economic growth, high levels of employment and improved standards of living—objectives to which we all subscribe. Member countries can draw on the Fund's resources in times of balance-of-payments difficulty. These resources derive from member countries' subscriptions, and under the new arrangements they will be raised to a total of 29 billion dollars. Each member of the Fund has a quota, equal to its subscription, which determines its voting rights, its access to Fund resources and, since last year, its allocations of Special Drawing Rights.
The Articles of Agreement provide for reviews of the quotas every five years. In these reviews, member countries decide what across-the-board increase would be relevant for all members, in view of the growth of trade and payments, and thus the growth in the possible need for help from the Fund. They also consider the totality of an appropriate general increase for all members, and of special increases for those members whose position may have changed markedly since the last review.
So the eventual outcome of this regular five-yearly process reflects a process not only of calculation, given certain economic calculators, but also of negotiation. It was as a result of this process that our own quota was raised by 360 million dollars to 2,800 million dollars, which is still the second largest quota, after that of the United States. That is really the part covered by Clause 1 of the Bill. Our own use of the Fund's resources has, of course, illustrated that the drawings on them can be very large indeed, as we know from recent experience, and the so-called Group of Ten has agreed to stand ready to lend the Fund some 6,000 million dollars to facilitate major drawings by individual countries, under a scheme called the General Arrangements to Borrow—or, in short, GAB.
This brings me to the second clause of the Bill. It is longer in words than the first but of less significance. United Kingdom participation in GAB was authorised by the International Monetary Fund Act 1962, and I am obliged to
872
tell your Lordships that a technical amendment to this Act is necessary. It provides for any sums which we may lend to come from the Consolidated Fund. This outmoded reference to the Consolidated Fund was not picked up in the National Loans Fund Act 1968, but the deficiency—a purely technical one—will be corrected if the present Bill becomes law.
Your Lordships may wish to consider briefly the nature of the payment which we have to make for our increased quota: £37 million of the 360 million dollars will be payable in gold The remaining 75 per cent. is paid to the Fund in sterling, but is immediately lent back to us without interest. The Fund already holds large amounts of sterling, so that there will be no question of its needing to make early calls on us in respect of this new payment. So much for the details of the United Kingdom quota and the Bill itself, which is extremely simple and straightforward.
I should like, in conclusion, to say a few words about the international monetary background—a matter of rather greater general interest—so as to fit these I.M.F. quota increases into their more general monetary context. They are part of a series of important developments in the last year or so affecting world liquidity. Noble Lords are of course only too well aware that much of the past year, 1969, was characterised by great difficulty and great tension in the foreign exchange markets, with severe bouts (with which we became all too familiar) of speculation. But there were forces steadily at work trying to improve the situation, and I think it is fair to claim that by the end of last year, as the result of a very helpful process of international co-operation, there had been a dramatic change for the better. In the first place, of course, the changes in the parities of the French franc and the German deutschmark, together with the great improvement in our own balance of payments, restored confidence in the main parities; and this was a very considerable gain.
Second, of course, at the annual meeting of the I.M.F. Governors in the autumn of 1969 the important decision was taken to activate the Special Drawing Rights scheme—and this, of course, is a development of very great importance.

873
The member countries of the I.M.F. now have it in their power to determine rationally how the world's needs for liquidity are to be met in the period now stretching out ahead of us. I think it is worth remarking here that while total world reserves have grown substantially in the last decade or so, the total in relation to world trade has declined by over 50 per cent. since the early 1950s. This decline was of course masked up to 1960 by the redistribution of dollars away from the United States, but in more recent years growth in liquidity has been seen to be much less rapid. I think that international discussions as to how to meet this rather threatening position have been going on more or less continuously since 1963. They have certainly been protracted, but the outcome, in the S.D.R. scheme, is a good one.
My Lords, the other useful and helpful development was a settlement, towards the end of the year, of the troubled question of sales of South African gold. The two-tier gold system set up in March, 1968, at a time of crisis, insulated gold inside the monetary system from gold transactions in the free market, and it worked quite well. The agreement reached at the end of last year, under which South Africa will normally sell her new gold production in the free market but has recourse to sales to the I.M.F. when the free market price is at or below 35 dollars an ounce, has, however, helped to remove further the potentially dangerous anxieties and frictions caused by the continuing uncertainty over the monetary price of gold; and this, I think it is fair to claim, is also a gain for stability in the international monetary system.
In conclusion I should like to say only two further things. First, I believe that it is fair to claim that as a result of these important, protracted but co-operative efforts the international monetary scene has shown some very desirable improvements in the last year or so. Whether it will remain so encouragingly stable depends, of course, on how the Governments concerned continue to act, and on their continued recognition of the need for co-operation in an increasingly interdependent world. This will need a lot of hard work and hard slogging; but all the recent developments, I think it is
874
fair to say, reflect fruitful co-operation, and I feel that we can be reasonably optimistic, therefore, about the future.
I think it is also worth remembering, when we deal at this five-yearly period with the Fund, that we in this country were influential in setting up the Fund; and indeed the World Bank, the other Bretton Woods institution. They were conceived in the dark days of the war, and many of your Lordships who knew him will be aware of the great part which the late Lord Keynes played in helping to establish this system. They have been the foundation of unprecedented growth in world prosperity since the war, and I think the Fund has deservedly established its position in the world payments system. It is in the light of that, and in the light of the part which the United Kingdom has played and is continuing to play in developing the system, that I commend this Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
5.5 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Earl has said, this is a short and simple Bill, but he will also agree that it is a Bill of quite profound implications. It is a Bill we all want, and I appreciate the need to get it through this week. I hope that the noble Earl will not take it as a criticism if I say that it is rather unfortunate that it has been necessary to rush the Bill through this week, and therefore possibly limit, both in this House and elsewhere, a discussion which might have taken place on matters of quite significant importance. Having said that, I also want to say how much I appreciate the careful and courteous way in which the noble Earl introduced the Bill, and to say that we are all grateful to him.
As the noble Earl said, this review of quotas to the I.M.F. is a five-year process, and it seems to be a point of time at which one might stock-take a little as to not only what the Fund is and how it was set up, but what we want it to develop into. I should have liked the noble Earl to go on to say what the Government's thinking was about the I.M.F., and how they would like it to be developed. I should also have liked him

875
to have dealt specifically with the relationship as the Government see it between the problem of international liquidity and the general financing of international trade and the system of fixing exchange rates as between one national currency and another. There seems to be a formidable lot of experts about on this subject, and so far as I can see almost as many different views as there are experts. I personally do not claim to be an expert, but I take an interest in the subject and I am anxious to have as much information from the Government as is possible.
There is one comment I would make—and in this I agree with what the noble Earl has just said. Although there have been many upheavals in this area of international finance, the truth is, surely, that it is very difficult to sustain an argument that world trade has been restricted in the past decade by lack of liquid resources. When one considers the situation which has developed, especially, as I say, in the last decade or so, and if we compare it with the experience which some of us had between the two world wars, we are bound to agree that in this area international co-operation certainly has made progress. I take very firmly the view that the introduction of the Special Drawing Rights and the increasingly rational attitude towards gold are among the most significant of our gains.
It is not, therefore, in the management of international systems that we face the sharpest problems—and this Bill will strengthen that proposition. Where the weakness lies is in the control and management of national currencies. What concerns me as a non-expert is that it is becoming almost unthinkingly fashionable among the experts to suggest that if we have less precision in the rate at which one national currency is exchanged for another all our problems will be solved. There is all this talk about floating rates, crawling pegs and wider bands, as if some device of this kind is going to solve for us the problem of competing with other nations of the world in the sale of goods and services.
My Lords, I certainly should not like to experience again all the trauma associated with a decisive adjustment in the exchange rate of sterling, and it
876
would obviously be of some advantage if we could devise a different method of adjusting the rate of exchange if, in the case of one currency, the economy which backs it has permanently deteriorated in competitive power. But it also seems to me that a country which has some basic inadequacy in its economy is not necessarily going to find it easier to compete if its currency slips by degrees in its exchange value. For a temporary difficulty the answer seems to me to be adequate international liquidity. None of the possibilities of flexible exchange rates is necessarily a better solution.
I am asking the noble Earl to tell us what the Government thinking is about this; what is going to be the Government attitude when this matter comes to be discussed, as I understand it will later this year, and what sort of ideas the Government have on it. Are they going to support the proposals that we should have a more flexible rate of exchange? Have they a formula; do they support one system rather than another? Or do they agree with me that basically the answer is to have sufficient liquidity to tide over temporary difficulties, and that a rate of exchange as stable as possible is the most helpful situation so far as manufacturing industry is concerned? I hope that the noble Earl can say something on this problem of exchange rates and the way it is proposed to manage them. If he could do that, I have no doubt that we shall have no difficulty in giving this Bill a Second Reading.
5.12 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reception of this Bill. I, too, very much regret the fact that, not perhaps the Bill itself but the background to the Bill has not been further discussed this week and last week in both Houses of Parliament, because the I.M.F. and the World Bank, too, are institutions of fundamental importance and I think their affairs deserve more discussion inside and outside Parliament than they sometimes get. I agree with the noble Lord that this is a pity. I would only say that the fact that time has not permitted this is not something which can be entirely laid at the doors of Her Majesty's present Government; that it was at least one of the side effects of the fact that we had a little local Election a month ago.

877
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, quite reasonably, asked me for some further indication of our general approach to some of the issues which are being discussed within the I.M.F. forum at the present time. There is something I can say here, but perhaps not altogether sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord's not unnatural curiosity. All I would say is that I agree in general with the line that I think he was taking: the fundamental problem here is to secure that the liquidity resources are sufficient, if only to help offset what could be a very dangerous tendency, the tendency towards greater restrictiveness in world trade—which is something which could very easily come upon the system if it began to freeze up. That is the great danger. That is where liquidity is so important.
He asked whether I could do something to indicate Her Majesty's Government's attitude on this fascinating area of wider bands, floating rates, crawling pegs or any other of the curiously-named pieces of possible mechanism. All that I should like to say is that I feel that the advocates of some of these approaches—and some of them may have merits—at times overstate those merits. There are both costs and advantages in the present system of stable but moveable parities and there are costs and advantages in any alternatives which have been put forward. I doubt whether any particular system is necessarily a cure-all. Nor does it absolve any particular Government from taking the internal measures which are necessary.
Therefore, if we are going to change the system and lend our support to change, I believe that it must be in a way which we can see will bring a net advantage to the system as a whole. That said, I am sure that it is right that the merits of the present system should have been discussed, and at the moment they are subject to close scrutiny in the I.M.F.; because as the noble Lord doubtless knows, their executive board has been examining these proposals for the past years. It is my impression that it is probable that the member countries of the I.M.F. will conclude that major changes in the system, like recourse to freely floating exchange rates or very wide margins around a parity, would be destabilising and therefore unhelpful.
878
That is why discussion at present within the I.M.F. is for the most part centred on the possibility of introducing more limited changes: of introducing margins slightly wider than the present 1 per cent. on either side of parity which is permitted by the Fund rules, of purely temporary floating rates with adequate safeguards and of facilitating possibly smaller and more timely changes in parity than have been usual in the past—a rather narrower band of possibilities.
With the subjects under such close discussion, I do not think it would be right for me at the present time to go into too great detail; nor, indeed, has the time come when Her Majesty's Government must take a final view of these various possibilities—and I have sketched the range of those most under discussion at present—on the proposals now under discussion. But what I do believe is important is that the outcome should be one having the full support and full agreement of all the countries concerned. To that extent the desirable course would be the agreed course. That is essential. In any event, nothing in the I.M.F. debate on flexibility which has been going on has caused us, or other member countries, as far as I know, to believe that the present proposals to increase additional liquidity which are written into this Bill by adding to the Fund's resources are in any way unnecessary or untimely.
I recognise that I have not given the noble Lord all the information he was seeking. I hope that I have given him some indication of the way in which Her Majesty's Government's mind is moving on these matters and the way in which discussion seems to be going in the I.M.F. With that, I hope very much your Lordships will agree to give this important Bill a Second Reading.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, before the noble Earl concludes, may I ask whether what he has said means in effect that any negotiations are entered into with the preliminary idea that no change should take place at all? Because I understood from what he was saying that Her Majesty's Government are very sympathetic towards any modification provided that it essentially leaves things as they are. One would have thought

879
that if one was going to have serious discussions one ought to start the discussions with the idea that modifications might well be desirable. Could the noble Earl enlighten us?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord should have asked that question, because I was at pains—my powers of exposition were perhaps at fault—to say that the discussions have been wide-ranging but that at present it would seem that most of the member' countries of I.M.F., if they favour change, are going to favour it within a rather narrower margin than some of the schemes which have been mooted up to now. I was not closing my mind or that of the Government to our endorsement of some of these proposals; nor was I saying that no change was either possible or desirable. I thought that I had made my position clear. I hope that I have now made it a little clearer.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

FIJI INDEPENDENCE BILL
5.20 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Fiji Independence Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is of course to provide for Fiji to become an independent sovereign country. The White Paper (Cmnd. 4389) describes the proceedings and conclusions of the Constitutional Conference which ended on May 5. Here I should like to pay a most sincere tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the considerable part he played in the events leading to the Conference reaching a successful conclusion.
The intention is that Fiji should have The Queen as Head of State and have a
880
bicameral Legislature. The Upper House will be so designed as to provide representation for special traditional interests. Fiji would become independent on October 10, precisely 96 years since the day when the British Government accepted the cession of Fiji to the British Crown at the request of the Fiji leaders of the day. It is similarly at the request of Fiji's present leaders that this Independence Bill is presented; and I emphasise that the provisions of the new Constitution which are outlined in the White Paper are also the work of the Fiji leaders and their people.
I should also like to take this opportunity to pay a sincere tribute, in which I am sure all Members of the House will join, to the people and leaders of Fiji for the fine example which they have set of inter-racial tolerance, mutual co operation and true sense of patriotism reflected in the agreements concluded at the Constitutional Conference. This, to- together with Fiji's improving economic outlook, augurs well for her future as an independent country.
In the United Nations, increasing understanding has been shown for the problems of Fiji as she approached independence. During a recent visit to New York, the Chief Minister of Fiji, Ratu Mara, and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Koya, jointly addressed the Committee of 24. On that occasion the Chief Minister explained that Fiji's relationship with the United Kingdom had always proceeded by consultation and agreement. He added that Fiji had voluntarily ceded itself to the United Kingdom and had never been conquered. The Fijians had been brought up to find solutions for themselves, and their country was unique in having welcomed an immigrant population. His statement was supported warmly and strongly by Mr. Koya.
Turning now to the provisions of the Bill itself, I should point out that these are in absolutely standard form. Clauses 2 and 3 make provision on the usual lines regarding national status and citizenship. These should be read in conjunction with paragraphs 15 to 17 of the White Paper which describe the citizenship provisions that are to be embodied in the Fiji Con stitution. The effect will be that the vast majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are living in

881
Fiji will automatically become citizens of Fiji at independence. This includes all those born in Fiji; all those naturalised in Fiji and all those who became citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by registration in Fiji up to May 5, 1970. With certain exceptions mentioned in Clause 3, all these categories will lose their United Kingdom citizenship when they become Fiji citizens. The only substantial group of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who will remain in Fiji after independence will be those having some special connection with this country or with one of its remaining dependencies.
With that explanation, my Lords, I ask the House to support the passage of this Bill. I am sure that noble Lords on both sides of the House will wish me to express their sincere good wishes to the people and Government of Fiji for the future, and their confidence that in our new relationship as independent partners within the Commonwealth existing ties of friendship and co-operation will be further strengthened. I do not wish to say any more except that I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
5.26 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the debate on the gracious Speech I took the opportunity of giving good wishes to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, during his period as Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. An opportunity did not arise for me to express to the many officials with whom I worked for quite a number of years my deep appreciation of their work, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I think those years represented to me perhaps the happiest time of my life. I I should also like to express particular appreciation to the members of the Oversea Service, the Diplomatic Service and the few remaining members of the Colonial Service. I do not think that this country fully appreciates what service these people render, often in the most difficult circumstances.
My Lords, looking back on the Report of the 1965 Constitutional Conference, it is hard to believe that some five years later we should be considering an Independence
882
Bill for Fiji. When I was asked to go to Fiji at the beginning of this year to discuss with the political leaders the possibility of Fiji becoming independent, many voices were raised saying that this was premature; that the racial difficulties and differences were such that it would be wrong, in the interests of that country, for Fiji to go to independence. My Lords, I went to Fiji; I saw the political leaders, and during those ten days I went as far as possible to see Fijians. I use the phrase in its bigger sense, covering Fijians of national stock, Indians, Hindus and Moslems, Europeans, Australians, New Zealanders—you name them, they have them. I did not feel any sense of racial tension. I found an Indian Commissioner, or a Commissioner of Indian origin, acting in a totally Fijian district, with no problems at all. It was perhaps as a consequence of that, more than as a consequence of the assurances that I received from the political leaders, that I felt that it was right that Fiji should proceed to independence.
There are problems in Fiji—clearly there will be when you have an Indian majority, a Fijian minority, the presence of Europeans and the problems of land. But I am absolutely convinced that none of these problems would be solved, or could be solved, while Fiji remained a colonial territory. I felt that the whole issue had to be put to the responsibility of the Fijian leaders. There was only one issue outstanding after my visit to Fiji, and that was the question of the composition of the Lower House and the method of election. One political Party believed in the principle of one man one vote, one value. Others, recognising the differences that existed, felt that it was too early for this and that they should proceed by what is called cross-voting. We could not reach agreement then, at the beginning of this year, but it was agreed that if there was still disagreement at the Constitutional Conference, the British Government should rule and those in Fiji would accept our ruling. It is a tremendous achievement that the Chief Minister, Mr. Ratu Mara, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Koya, and all the elected representatives present in London in May, after many hours of discussion arrived at a solution. The size and membership of the Assembly and the method of election were all their decisions. I think that the fact that the

883
political Parties could sink their differences and arrive voluntarily at a solution is the sign of real future for Fiji. It is this spirit which will solve the problems of Fiji.
I have no doubt at all that Fiji will be a new star within the Commonwealth and will set an example to other countries within the Commonwealth which have their racial difficulties, for I have no doubt that the political leaders in Fiji will succeed in solving this problem. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish Fiji well and we look forward to her playing her full part in Commonwealth relations.
I should like to put three points to the noble Marquess. First of all, on the question of economic development, Fiji has made great progress. She has received large sums of money from the United Kingdom but these, of course, were all given to her, as a colonial territory, on a soft basis. Clearly the arrangements will need to be different now that she becomes an independent country. I hope that the noble Marquess will give us an assurance that the Government will view with generosity any request by the Government of Fiji for aid for their economic development. I hope that the noble Marquess will remember that Fiji has always played a big part in regional development, particularly in education and health. Anything we can do to help Fiji will have a "spin-off" within the Pacific territories.
There is the question of defence. I made it quite clear to the Chief Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition that in the context of our military withdrawal from South-East Asia a defence treaty was not possible. I understand that the present Government intend to change this. I wish to know whether the Government intend to have defence discussions with the Government of Fiji.
The noble Marquess will be aware of a small community for whom we have a special responsibility, the people of Rambe, colloquially known as the Banabans. These people were brought from Ocean Island in order that the phosphates on that island could be developed, and they receive the royalties from the development of phosphates free of tax. I hope that the noble Marquess will give me an assurance that it has been firmly agreed that these revenues
884
will be available to the Banabans free of tax, and I wonder whether he could tell us anything about the manner in which these sums will be made available to the people of Rambe.
In conclusion, I would ask the House to endorse this Bill. The independence of Fiji does not in any way weaken her links with this country or with the Queen. I believe firmly that independence will strengthen the links between us, because they are freely adopted by two independent peoples. I hope that all noble Lords will join together in wishing the wonderful people of Fiji Godspeed, all good fortune and a very happy and peaceful life.
5.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I happen to be connected with one of the banks which operate in Fiji and for that reason I found myself in the territory shortly after the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had been there. I only want to say that my impression of what was happening in Fiji coincides exactly with what the noble Lord has just told us. It seems to me to be a most remarkable performance to have got so far as they have so quickly and so smoothly. I think that the reason was that everybody concerned was determined to make a success of independence and that it should come about by their own effort, without intervention or pressures from anywhere outside. If a move like this is carried out so quickly, there are bound to be certain things not completely settled—I fancy that currency matters are some of them. In saying that, I am not saying that I expect any difficulty in solving the remaining problems, if they are approached in the same spirit as that in which our friends in Fiji approached the problems of independence, both in the islands and in London. May I join with my noble friend Lord Lothian and with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in wishing all success to the independent Fiji.
5.38 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise because my name is not on the list of speakers. Like other noble Lords, I was expecting this Bill to come later in the week. I appreciate the necessity of passing this Bill immediately and therefore do not make any complaint on that score. I am rising because I want

885
to join with other noble Lords in welcoming this Bill. Those of us who have followed the situation in Fiji would never have expected five years ago that it would now have reached a position where independence would be welcomed. There were then racial difficulties between the indigenous population and the large Indian immigration. I regard it as one of the most hopeful things in the Commonwealth that there should now be this sense of racial co-operation in Fiji, the ground of hope for these islands under independence.
The second reason why I wish to take part in this debate is to pay a sincere tribute to my noble friend Lord Shepherd. I have sometimes criticised him, but your Lordships should be aware of the extraordinarily constructive contribution which he has made to enable us to have this Bill before us, not only by his visit to Fiji, but in his chairmanship of the Constitutional Conference which was held in London. I was in touch then with the delegates to that conference. They were in a mood of disagreement; they were in the mood of saying that it must be for the British Government to make a decision. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, very wisely in that situation, said that it was not for us to impose a Constitution, and insisted that in their discussions they should reach a solution of the problem. That solution was reached, and as one who believes so tremendously in the right of people to decide their own future I want to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the attitude which he then took, and which has had such good results. I express my hope that as a result of those discussions the difficulties which in the past existed in the Fijis may not prevent them from moving forward with racial co-operation to the fulfilment of their aims.
I want to ask just one question, and to make one suggestion. In asking us to accept this Bill, the noble Marquess emphasised Clauses 2 and 3 which refer to,
"Retention of citizenship of United Kingdom and Colonies by certain citizens of Fiji."
I welcome those clauses. I ask the noble Marquess, who says that those citizens will remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, whether he can assure us that they will have all the rights
886
which that citizenship implies, including the rights inscribed upon the passports to which they will be entitled.
The noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, have referred to the aid which has been given by this country to Fiji. Clearly, with the aid that is desired by so many countries it will be difficult for the British Government alone to contribute all that is necessary for the development of those areas. Australia is deeply involved in investment in Fiji, and is now drawing considerable sums from that area, and I want to suggest that we should seek to create the position in which aid for the development of Fiji is not made just the responsibility of this country, or indeed mainly the responsibility or this country, but that Australia and New Zealand, in the Pacific, should be involved in what should be contributed. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government should approach the Commonwealth Secretariat, and through them make the proposal that Austrailia and New Zealand should be associated with us in assisting the development of this newly independent island.
Finally, my Lords. I recognise that there are problems to be solved. I hope that the Opposition will co-operate with the Government in the solution of those problems. I appreciate that there are economic and social problems, and particularly the remnants of old feudalism, in that territory, but I hope that it will be possible for the people of Fiji, by democratic methods, not only to express their full sovereignty of independence but also find a solution to those social and economic problems.
5.47 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have given a welcome to this Bill, and I am sure that we should all wish to associate ourselves with the sentiments that they have so eloquently enunciated with regard to Fiji. There is a good deal of business ahead of the House this evening, and I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily. However, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me two or three questions which I should perhaps try to answer. He first of all said that he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would be generous with regard to any aid requests which came from Fiji. I think

887
I can assure him that this will be the case.
The second question the noble Lord asked referred to defence. Of course, as I think he realises, the question of defence, so far as Fiji is concerned, will not alter as a result of the passing of this Bill. I do not think I can go into the whole defence operations in the Pacific and what might happen in that regard; but so far as the independence of Fiji is concerned, the only alteration, if it is an alteration, is that we shall no longer have any residual responsibility for the external defence of the island of Fiji. I think that is what the noble Lord had in mind.
As to the other point that he raised, I can assure him quite categorically that the royalties due to the Banabans are certainly going to be paid, and that they will be free of tax. How the actual payment will be made is something that has to be worked out, and I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord any further information on that point at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked a question concerning the rights of the citizens of the Island of Fiji who will remain United Kingdom citizens. This is something which goes a good deal wider than the Bill, but I think I can say that a citizen of the United Kingdom is always to be regarded as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and there will be no difference so far as citizens who are residing in Fiji are concerned. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question. He also paid tribute to the people of Fiji, in which I should like to join him. He then made a suggestion, which I will certainly take into account, regarding the possibility of Australia and New Zealand sharing in aid to Fiji. I should like to consider the point that he raised about the Commonwealth Secretariat.
Having said that, my Lords, I would once again thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and again associate myself with those noble Lords in their tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It must be rather sad for the noble Lord now to see a Bill of which he is the father possibly passing into the hands of a foster-father; but I hope that, even so, he will not mind too much.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord that all I am concerned about is the children, and they are all right.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (OLD PERSONS' AND WIDOWS' PEN- SIONS AND ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE) BILL
5.51 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships are already acquainted with the main proposals of the Bill, to which I referred during the debate on the Address. These are briefly the provision of some pension to those who because of their age could not be insured under the National Insurance Scheme when it was introduced in 1948, better provision for women widowed between the ages of 40 and 50 and the provision of an attendance allowance for the very severely disabled.
The total number of people who will benefit under the various provisions of this Bill will be about 250,000. Its provisions amending the conditions for the widow's pension and making attendance allowance payable to those who are very severely disabled substantially correspond to clauses of the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill introduced in another place last Session. So I commend the Bill to your Lordships with every confidence that it will secure a welcome.
The first proposal in the Bill is to provide a pension under the National Insurance Act, without regard to resources, for the elderly non-pensioners I have mentioned. Its principal feature is that it provides pensions for all those who on July 5, 1948, were over pensionable age—that is to say, who were then aged 65 or over, if they were men, and 60 or over if they were women. Now, of course, these people will be aged over 87 if they are men and 82 if they are women. The pensions are subject only to a further simple residence condition which will be set out in regulations. Secondly, provision will be made for the wives and widows of men who are in

889
this age group, including the widows of such men who have died since July 5, 1948. The pensions to be paid under this provision will be at the rate of £3 a week for the principal rate and £1 17s. a week for a married woman, making £4 17s. a week for a married couple. Widows will receive the £3 rate.
Similar proposals have been made in another place and in this House on many previous occasions by supporters of the Government. I would mention in particular my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who introduced a Bill to this effect in 1965. These proposals have been resisted in the past principally because to pay retirement pensions without regard to resources to people who have not paid a penny in contributions was held to be a breach of the contributory principle of National Insurance. We have come to see the matter differently. As the years have passed, the unenviable distinction of not having a retirement pension, and, what is more, never having had an opportunity to enter any State scheme, has grown more and more invidious; and at the same time the course of inflation has made the lack of a pension increasingly serious for those living on occupational or private pensions and other fixed incomes. These human aspects of the situation in the view of the Government have acquired such importance as to outweigh the narrower arguments of principle. The essential fact is that most of these very elderly non-pensioners were, through no fault of their own, denied the opportunity to contribute to the pre-1948 schemes.
Some of your Lordships may be disappointed that the Bill provides for pension at a rate lower than the full standard rate National Insurance retirement pension of £5. The Government recognise the importance of providing a pension for these people which should be universally accepted as fair. On the one hand, there are the great body of pensioners, over 7 million of them, many of whom have contributed to the old pre-1948 schemes and to the present scheme for thirty or forty years. On the other hand we have the non-pensioners who have not during their working lives been subject to the regular weekly levy of contributions from their income. The Government believe that in fixing the amount at £3 they have struck a fair balance
890
between the legitimate interests of both sides.
As noble Lords will be aware, we are pressing this Bill through all its stages with the utmost urgency in order that it may receive the Royal Assent before the Recess. We are determined to get these pensions for the very elderly paid just as quickly as we can. We shall need about three months to secure claims and make awards, and we aim to pay these pensions in the week beginning November 2, 1970, when supplementary benefit rates are due to rise. We shall ourselves identify those on supplementary pensions, and we intend to advertise for the remainder. But these are very elderly people, who may not see the advertisements or respond to them. May I appeal to noble Lords to let me know of anyone who they think may benefit, and we will look into the case?
I turn now to the clauses dealing with changes in the conditions for widows' pensions. Under the present conditions a woman who is widowed when over 50 qualifies for a pension of £5 a week; if she is under that age and has no children she does not qualify for a widow's pension at all. This sharp difference in treatment, due perhaps to a day's difference in the date of the husband's death, has been much criticised and there has been some general desire for some better arrangement. The proposals we are putting forward are the same as those which the previous Government had devised. I gladly acknowledge our debt to them.
Any woman widowed between 40 and 50 will be eligible for a pension; the rate of the pension will depend on her age; at the time she is widowed: it will be £4 13s. 0d. if she is 49, ranging to £1 10s. 0d. if she is 40. For those widows who qualify for widowed mother's allowance the pension rate will depend on her age when the allowance comes to an end. As a widow may draw this allowance so long as she has at home a son or daughter under 19, it will be very rare for a widowed mother to fail to qualify for a pension.
These new conditions will come into force next April—April, 1971—and will then apply immediately to about 100,000 women who are already widows and have previously failed to qualify for pension because of the age rule. This is in Clause

891
2. The following clause deals with a rather smaller point—the rule which at present prevents a woman widowed at over 50 from qualifying for a pension if her marriage has lasted less than three years. This rule is being repealed, and here again widows who have in the past failed to qualify for pension will now qualify. I am sure that both these changes will be generally welcomed as a sensible way of dealing with longstanding grievances.
My Lords, I now turn to the other major provision in the Bill, one in which I know many of your Lordships take a particularly close interest. This is the new attendance allowance for the most severely disabled in the community. The need for such an allowance over and above the other benefits available to disabled people—sickness benefit, retirement pension or widow's benefit, and, where appropriate, supplementary benefit—has been increasingly recognised in recent years; and we are well aware of the work done in this connection by Mrs. Ann Armstrong, of the Responaut, and by the late Megan du Boisson and her colleagues of the Disablement Income Group. This proposal, too, owes its origin to the previous Government's National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, and I am glad to pay tribute to the work they did for it.
The present Bill provides (in Clause 4) that the attendance allowance will be payable at £4 a week to those who are in need of attention by day and by night, or who need continuous supervision. The allowance is not intended to cover short-term illnesses, however, and, in order to limit it to those who are likely to be disabled over a long period, the Bill provides that the allowance will not become payable until a disabled person has needed attendance to the extent defined for six months. The allowance will be payable subject to conditions as to residence in Great Britain which are to be laid down in regulations. The disabled housewife will qualify for the allowance. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that in the present circumstances the allowance will not be taxable.
Clause 5 provides for the setting up of an Attendance Allowance Board, which will decide whether a particular applicant satisfies the conditions relating to the need for attendance. The Board will not
892
only give decisions on the need for attendance, but be able to review those decisions—for example, in the case where someone's condition has grown worse or where, perhaps, there has been a mistake. There will be no right of appeal against the Board's decisions on questions of fact or medical judgment, but there will be a right of appeal to a National Insurance Commissioner on any question of law. The Board will not, of course, be able to deal individually with all the claims which are likely to be made, and it will therefore have the power to delegate its duties to medical practitioners throughout the country. These medical practitioners will be working under directions given by the Board. The Board will also have a further function: to advise my right honourable friend on the operation of the provisions relating to attendance allowance in general.
From what I have said, your Lordships will see that the role of the Board in the administration of the allowance will be a most important one, and we have given very careful thought to its composition. The Bill provides in Clause 5(2) that it should consist of a chairman and between four and nine other members appointed by my right honourable friend. All but two of these members must be doctors, and it is our intention to secure for service on the Board those with the very highest medical qualifications and experience in relevant fields. We intend that there shall be two members who are not doctors; and we intend, in the process of assembling the membership of the Board, to consult with all the appropriate bodies. There are in addition powers under Clause 5(3) for my right honourable friend to appoint additional members to the Board, either medical or non-medical, to join in the more general advisory work of the Board.
We expect up to 50,000 people to benefit from this allowance (including perhaps about 10,000 children) at a cost to the Exchequer in a full year of £10 million. In the words of my honourable friend Mr. Dean in the other place:
"With this allowance we are making a significant advance by making additional cash provision for the most seriously disabled. I can assure the House that we realise that much more might be done, and that we shall be looking at various ways in which further help might be provided for the seriously ill and the disabled."—[OFFICIAI. RFFORT, Commons. 10/7/70; col. 1092.]

893
My Lords, we believe that this Bill in its three separate provisions will go some way towards our objective of concentrating our resources on those members of the community whose need is greatest. I confidently commend the Bill to the House, and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
6.3 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, this Bill will do some good to a number of groups of people in difficult circumstances. It is in that sense a Bill to be welcomed, and my noble friends and I certainly wish to facilitate its progress through the House. At the same time, it must be said that it is clear that it merely touches the fringe of some of the problems of poverty and deprivation. Seen in the full setting, it is a useful but limited measure. The background, of course—and the noble Lord has to some extent touched upon this—is the scrapping of the substantial and comprehensive scheme put forward by the preceding Government in the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill. That was a bold, comprehensive measure and there is no indication of any similar comprehensive approach in sight. The measure before us today is indeed the only one of this character to which reference was made in the gracious Speech. I am rather of a mind with the writer of an article in The Times of July 7, who said:
"But there is a quite a possibility that it"—
this Bill—
"may have to stand for some time in splendid isolation as legislative testimony to the Tory social conscience."
It therefore merits a little examination in some of its respects.
As the noble Lord has clearly and truly said, much of the Bill before us is quarried from the larger measure to which I have made reference; indeed, two of the three main proposals come from that source. The first to which I should like to refer is the provision for payment of pensions to widows who become bereaved between age 40 and 50. That is a proposal which on this side of the House we welcome and endorse. We welcome, too, so far as it goes, the proposal for the £4 attendance allowance.
894
However, while taken from the legislative proposals of the preceding Government, it has been taken somewhat out of its context, because in those more comprehensive proposals it was seen as related to proposals for an invalidity pension. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could indicate whether the Government intended to move towards a longer-term earnings-related sickness benefit provision. We on this side regard this as a vital part of any proposals to deal adequately with the long-term sick and with the disabled.
It would be valuable to know what the intentions of the Government are for those persons who exceed the 28 weeks for which earning- related sickness benefits continue to be payable. It is welcome news that the £4 attendance allowance is not to be taxable, but a perusal of the proceeding upon this Bill in another place left in my mind, at any rate, the unhappy anxiety that it might well be that some of the most distressing cases in which this attendance allowance will be payable will in fact find themselves little or no better off as a result of the present Bill. For it appears that there will be examples of Supplementary Benefits discretionary payments being reduced or offset against the attendance allowance. It would be a very unhappy situation if it proved that families who are mainly or entirely dependent upon payments from the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and who fall within the very exacting conditions sot out in the appropriate part of this Bill, found themselves at the end of the day no better off, despite the Bill, because the statutory attendance allowance was offset against a Supplementary Benefits Commission payment of a similar sum. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look sympathetically into this point. I am not pressing him for an answer or to pronounce upon it in the House to-day, because I appreciate the difficulties involved, but I should be glad if he could give us an assurance that he will look into this point. Possibly he can let me know by correspondence or in some other way the outcome of his examination.
The last point to which I should like to make reference in connection with the attendance allowance for disabled persons is the composition of the Attendance Allowance Board. This was the subject

895
of a good deal of discussion in another place, where an opinion was strongly expressed that there ought to be assured provision for the appointment of one, at least, disabled person to the membership of the Board. It was not felt possible by the Government to meet this proposal in the way in which it was put forward elsewhere; and I noticed very carefully what the noble Lord, in introducing the Bill, said on the composition of the Board. I doubt whether he will find himself able to go beyond what he has said on this point, but I would ask him to take note that there is sympathy in this House as well as in another place for the view that there should be at least one member of the Attendance Allowance Board who is himself, or herself, a disabled person.
I come last to the clause at the beginning of the Bill, which does not come from the proposals of the previous Government. This is the clause which deals with the position of those who were too old to become contributors under the 1948 National Insurance scheme. The supporters of the Government in another place repeatedly made it clear that this provision had its place in the Bill because it was in fulfilment of an election pledge contained in the Conservative Party Manifesto. In some ways it is a strange provision. It is, first of all, a once-for-all provision. As the noble Lord said, it is confined, for all practical purposes, to men over the age of 87 and to women over the age of 82, although there may be a small number of slightly younger women who, either as wives or widows of men having a claim under the Bill, would themselves qualify. But substantially the benefits are confined to those men over 87 and to women over 82.
As the noble Lord said, they are to receive a modified sum. It is not the National Insurance retirement pension at the full rate, but at a modified rate. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord conclude his presentation of the Bill by saying that it embodied the principle of seeking to concentrate resources where need was greatest, because it is a striking feature of this clause that it makes provision for giving the modified pension without any relationship to need or to circumstances. Indeed, I think it is clear that there will be people who will be entitled to claim this £3 pension
896
who are in prosperous circumstances and who will be liable to pay tax upon the pension if they claim it.
On the other hand, it appears, from what has been said in another place, that of the approximately 100,000 people who will benefit from this provision, some 50,000, I think I am right in saying, are at present substantially or entirely dependent upon payments from the Supplementary Benefits Board. These 50,000 people, amounting to one half of those who will benefit under Clause 1, will in fact not be one penny better off, because the £3 which they will be receiving under Clause 1 of the Bill will be offset entirely against the payments which they receive from the Supplementary Benefits Board. Indeed, I think the £14 million which it is estimated Clause 1 will cost is reduced to £7 million by the saving which will be effected in Supplementary Pension payments, although if this Bill comes into operation, as is proposed, on the same date as the improvements in the scales of Supplementary Benefits put into operation by the preceding Government they will be receiving the improvement on their income on that date not as a result of the present Bill but as a result of the improvements in the Supplementary Benefits scales specified by the preceding Government.
I think all those who have examined the circumstances of elderly people in difficult financial positions would agree that a sum of £15 million, or even of £7 million, could be better laid out and could produce a greater and more substantial social benefit if it were distributed in other ways. Therefore I am surprised that the noble Lord should have related the particular set of proposals before us, in which Clause 1 is so prominent, to the idea of concentrating resources where the need is greatest. But since this proposal is so substantially dependent upon an Election pledge I think it is proper to draw attention to the terms of that pledge. As embodied in the Conservative Party Manifesto the pledge reads as follows:
"The next Conservative Government will take urgent action to give some pension as of right to the over-80s who now get no retirement pension at all."
Now, my Lords, there is a substantial gap between that passage in the Conservative Party Manifesto and what is actually proposed in the present Bill.

897
Earlier this afternoon the noble Lord was kind enough to reply to a Question which I put down and which asked for the figures in this regard. The Answer he gave indicated that according to the estimates of the Government there are 130,000 people who are over the age of 80 and who do not receive retirement pensions under the National Insurance scheme. Of those 130,000 approximately 100,000 stand to benefit from the present proposals. Since election pledges have been quoted so frequently in this connection I am bound to ask the noble Lord what the intentions of the Government are about- the 30,000 over-80s who are not covered by Clause 1 of the present Bill. Was the wording of the Conservative Manifesto slipshod? Was it the intention when the Manifesto was drafted to carry out some measure which the Government have now abandoned? Whatever the explanation, there is a gap, and a substantial gap—30,000 out of 130,000—between the pledge and the performance; and I hope that when the noble Lord replies he will address himself to that and will explain why there is such a gap. It would have been perfectly simple, either in the Conservative Manifesto or elsewhere, but certainly in the Manifesto, to have made quite clear what the intentions were. The intention now before us is of a once-for-all operation covering not the over-80s but in the case of men the over-87s and in the case of women the over-82s.
I am sorry to give such a grudging welcome to this Bill, especially having regard to the somewhat extravagant pride which was expressed in it by supporters of the Government in another place. My comments do not arise from any desire to be grudging for its own sake: they arise from the facts, from the relationship of the present Bill to the needs. I am sure that I can speak for all my noble friends on this side of the House when I say that when the Government bring forward—if they do bring forward—measures which are bolder in scope and which more truly seem to be addressed to the extensive needs, then they will receive a warmer and more cordial welcome from this side of the House.
6.20 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like briefly to say a few words about the Bill the noble Lord has introduced. I think it is quite a good and useful little measure, but, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I do not think it really goes a very long way. But it certainly may make life more comfortable for the diminishing number of people over 87 and 82 who will be affected, and at the same time give them some comfort to feel that they are no longer cut off from the mainstream of pensions, as they have been before.
There are one or two questions I should like to raise. First, do the Government know what is the number of people not receiving pensions now—that is, those to whom the Bill refers who are over 87 or 82 at present drawing supplementary benefits? Further, to what extent is that supplementary benefit likely to be reduced by the pension they are going to gel now, which will mean that they will really be no better off, but merely getting their money from a different pocket?
There is another question, although it may not be one for the Government to answer; it may be for the local authorities. A certain number of these elderly people own their houses and therefore pay rates on them. Quite a number, I believe, have been given a rate rebate because they receive no pension. If they get their little pension, will the local authorities be encouraged not to cancel their rate rebates? If they take away the rebate many of the old ladies and gentlemen will not be any better off than before. These are, I think, rather carping criticisms to make, but I think they are quite fair questions to put on a Bill like this.
I should like to say a few words about the attendance allowance of £4 a week. That will be of considerable value in the care of some of the elderly people in the community who are disabled but who are not really bad enough to need communal or institutional living. Some relative or friend may be prepared to look after them for a comparatively small sum, so I think that again is quite a reasonable proposition to make. The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, asked about those getting supplementary benefits. I should like to repeat that question from these

899
Benches, because one can still see that what appears to be a generous and kind gesture may be whittled away by some administrative procedure. I trust that this allowance of £4 a week will enable certain numbers of people not to be pressed into residential accommodation, which is in extremely short supply, when they would rather be in their own homes.
I was not quite sure that I agreed with the noble Lord. Lord Delacourt-Smith, when he said that somebody on the Board should be a disabled person. I do not think that that is really necessary. For people to understand disability they do not actually need to be disabled themselves. Disability varies. People who are disabled in one way may not be so sympathetic to those disabled in another way, because they may have been led to think that their disablement was the main kind.
Attendance allowance is something I have been advocating for a very long time. I think I have mentioned it in your Lordships' House before. Once when I brought it up—I forget where and when—I was told that it was quite an impracticable thing to do because it would mean establishing a large inspectorate to go round to see that money was not being misspent. I am pleased to see that better feelings have prevailed and we are not now worried about that. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall do all we can to ensure that this Bill gets a speedy passage and becomes law before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
6.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the Government upon implementing their pledge so quickly. Speed was of course of the essence, because every day the number of people likely to benefit from Clause 1 is being reduced by what is sometimes called "wastage". I congratulate the Government most sincerely on acting so quickly. I listened with very great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, had to say. I think that he put the case very fairly indeed, but there is another aspect of the matter.
Perhaps I might remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Colville and I were associated in bringing forward, on May 13, 1965, a Bill which was
900
directed in very much the same direction as Clause 1 of the Bill now before your Lordships. It was different in one or two respects. For one thing, of course, we had to draft the Bill in a form which would make the payments from the National Insurance Fund; otherwise we could not have brought it in at all. We recognised the disadvantages of this, because, as was said at the time, with some justification, payments out of the National Insurance Fund should plainly be made only to those who have made contributions into it. However, we had no option.
In comparison with what we introduced, which was for a half-pension, this Bill is slightly more generous; the rate represents three-fifths or thereabouts. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, quite correctly said, it does not go quite so far; it does not cover such a large proportion of the over-80s. I venture to think that as time goes on we shall find ourselves obliged to cover the residue as well—and for this reason I believe that what people are rather apt to overlook is that the legislation of the years from 1946 to 1948 covered everybody who was in employment at the time and who was under 65, if a man, or under 60 if a woman. For those who were not covered there was the National Assistance Act 1968.
The effect of that, of course, has been that those who had recourse to the National Assistance Act, in whole or in part, for their income have had, in whole or in part, their income adjusted from time to time to changes in the cost of living; and, indeed, to take account also of rises in the standard of living; whereas those who fell above what is now the supplementary benefit levels, and still do, have not had any adjustment at all. They have been the victims all the time of inflation; they have seen their fixed incomes going down and down. During the 1950s a good many, no doubt, were able to get by because they owned their own houses, or because they were in rent-restricted houses or for some reason of the kind. But when the 1960s came this was plainly no longer possible, and I think that Mr. Airey Neave was right to make it quite clear that hardship is not just a matter of pounds, shillings and pence. Human hardship is a relative thing: it cannot be measured only in pounds, shillings and pence.

901
Many of these people have been suffering real hardship; over this long period of years their incomes and their standards of life have been progressively reduced. Of course rate-rebate schemes have been introduced. These have helped. But it seems that this is a belated act of justice, because it is true to say that the architects of the 1946 to 1948 legislation did not foresee this continuous increase in costs. Indeed, although it is almost incredible to look back at it, at the time the Minister specifically said, and no doubt wholly believed, that it was the intention of the Government to peg the cost of living at 31 per cent. over the 1939 level. Of course this has proved utterly impossible. But this was the basis on which these people were left out of the National Insurance Scheme, and as time has gone by this state of affairs has become progressively less justifiable. I am glad that at least those who survive will get some benefit.
As has been said, not all will get benefit; and it can well be argued, as I have no doubt that my noble friend will argue, that those who were a little under the age of 65, for men, or 60, for women, and therefore had to contribute to the National Insurance Scheme until they retired, were then given the option either to get back their contributions or to go on contributing for the rest of the ten-year period. Those who were due to reach retirement age in a year or so would in many cases find difficulty in making a contribution for nine, eight, or seven years—indeed, some could not afford to do so at all. So I think it was justifiable to regard this as a wholly reasonable miscalculation: they had been led to believe that the cost of living would be held, and their choice was made on that basis. While this is a very good start, I think that within a year or two we shall come to the point where we shall have to disregard the fact that they were given the option at that time and we shall have to recognise that they made a miscalculation which was wholly reasonable and that they should therefore not be excluded altogether.
If I may turn for a moment to Clause 2, which deals with widows, there is a small question that I should like to put. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm my understanding that it is intended to introduce this provision, which I entirely
902
welcome, on April 1 of next year. Obviously, some women below the age of 50 will be widowed in the next three months. For such widows there will be a gap between the ending of the widow's grant and the commencement of the widow's pension. I wonder whether it would be possible to make a small amendment to cover this transitional period for this comparatively small number of women, so that there will in fact be no gap at all in their case. In other words, all I am suggesting is that the Bill should actually come into operation from the date of enactment even though the payments do not, and cannot, start until April 1.
On Clause 3, I welcome the scrapping of the three-year marriage qualification. But I suspect that here again within the next two years one may have to look at the question of a discretionary right not to allow a pension in the case of flagrant abuse, where a man under 65 marries and dies shortly afterwards. I suspect that this may happen. I say no more than that. But if it is right to do it for the over-65s, I think it may also be found to be right for the under-65s, too, in the particular circumstances.
The attendance allowance clause was described by my right honourable friend in another place, Sir Keith Joseph, as the most important part of the Bill. He said that it is:
"the most important innovation of all";
and he went on to describe it as:
"the first step in a better treatment of the disabled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 10/7/70; col. 1012.]
I greatly welcome the first step, and I very much welcome it as a first step. I noted with pleasure what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was able to say in Committee (col. 1593), that this payment would be entirely exempt from tax. The word "entirely" is my own word; he said "exempt from tax". I have put in the word "entirely", and I should like my noble friend this evening to confirm that that is so. I take the point that has been made here about the reduction of supplementary benefit payment. My noble friend the Minister dealt with this point in his opening speech for he said:
"We shall treat this £4 as an additional requirement under the supplementary benefit scheme, and the necessary regulations will be laid. Therefore, in effect, the £4, or the equivalent figures for children, will be disregarded."

903
I hope that goes all the way to meet the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith; but, again, perhaps my noble friend will confirm this.
Lastly, we on this side, and I hope those on the other side as well, willingly accede to the Government's request for further time to consider what they are going to do in the long-term treatment of chronic disability or disablement. I regard the establishment of the Attendance Board as likely to provide the necessary experience and the basic machinery for dealing with the assessment of long-term disablement, which has always been regarded as a most difficult question of administration in this connection. I hope that before long a scheme will be worked out.
Some noble Lords may remember that, at the time when the 1966 Act in regard to wage-related unemployment and sickness benefit was introduced, I regretted that it did not include wage-related sickness benefit on a long-term as well as on a short-term basis. I think that that could quite easily have been done, and still could be done, and that it might well be the best and simplest way in which to do it. But, whatever scheme is worked out, I welcome this Bill as a first step towards the inauguration of
a long-term disablement scheme which the whole House wishes to see. I wish the Government God-speed in finding a solution to this most difficult but most important problem.
6.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, having put my name down to speak in this debate, I had considerable hesitation in deciding whether or not to cross it off. I nearly did; and I wish to say only a few words. The reason why I am speaking is in order to give a rather warmer and, I think, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, less "grudging" welcome from this side of the House to the Bill than has yet been given. I say that on two grounds: first, the intention of the Bill, which as I understand it is to look after, or rather help, a part of the population who are least able to look after themselves; and secondly on what I should call logical grounds, for, as I understand it, it is to give old age pensions to persons who
904
are debarred from receiving them by being too old. That is a very general summary of my views why this Bill should be supported.
I understand that it has been attacked on two grounds which I find difficult to reconcile. One is that it does not go far or fast enough, and the other is that it goes too fast and too far. When, six years ago, we were discussing this question in this House on two occasions—one has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, produced a Bill—the general consensus on what was then the Government side was that his proposals were intolerable because of the "contributory principle": that you must not give pensions to anyone who had not contributed. I understand that a considerable part of all pensions is in fact now paid out of grant; I believe something like £2 7s. 0d. a week for men and something like £5 out of a married couple's pension. I will not go into that now, but that was one point.
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is now being criticised for not offering to pay out larger pensions. I would only say that on the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread, if the figures that he has given are correct and that out of 130,000 people some 100,000 are going to benefit, then I should say that ten-thirteenths of a loaf is considerably better than none. And here I should like to emphasise a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn: that this is trying to do justice to a minority who are a diminishing minority. If there were, as it is said, 250,000 of these elderly people not in receipt of pensions alive six years ago and there are only 100,000 alive now, if we waited another six years for some scheme however admirably intentioned, these people, if my calculations are correct, would be not a minority but a minus minority; there would be none left at all, and therefore they would not benefit.
I have confined what I have said entirely to one section of the Bill. I will not say anything about the widows, the fatherless and the disabled persons, partly because I feel I have a slight interest here owing to being disabled to some extent by having to speak from a Bench which is not my Party Bench but which

905
has a microphone. I do not want to make a Party speech, but in view of what was said in another place about which of the two large Parties had "lifted" from the other Party—the word "lifted" was used and accusations of "pulling a fast one"—I would say that neither of those Parties has a better record than the Liberal Party, which prides itself on self-righteousness and, I think I can say, produced a Question on this subject in this House before any other Party. I think it is true to say that of the many great services which the last Government did to this country, genuine services, perhaps the least serviceable was postponing by tactics—frankly, Party tactics—a Bill of this nature from coming through for six years. I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in returning that particular service (1 do not know if my metaphor is correct, or whether there is any such crime as "pulling a fast one" in tennis) has "laid down a chase" which is difficult to beat. I hope nothing will be done to prevent him from getting this Bill through as quickly as possible, before it is too late; and I wish him every success in his attempts to do so.
6.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for more than a moment, but in view of my sponsorship of the Alfred Morris Bill in this House earlier in the summer I felt it would be discourteous if I did not say just one word of welcome—even if a slightly qualified welcome—for the present Bill. However, my courteous intention was nearly not fulfilled in the event because, owing to unforeseen circumstances, I did not arrive in time as the business came on rather early and I did not hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, nor the speech, except for the last few moments, of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith.
I am talking of the Bill from the disablement angle alone, and I was intending to offer a warm welcome for it, so far as it goes, but to express my regret that in certain respects it was defective. However, I gather that the kind of point that I had in mind to make was made, I am sure more effectively, by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith; and if anybody wishes to read these points fully developed with the authority of the master, they need only turn to a speech,
906
or speeches, made by Mr. Alfred Morris in the last week or two in another place. Therefore I do not intend to detain the House by labouring these criticisms. I will simply say now that any step to help the disabled must be welcomed by all who care for them. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to say, apparently quoting the Minister, that what is contained in this Bill is the first step taken towards helping the disabled. I could hardly believe my ears, but that is what I heard him say. He possibly omitted to notice that there was a Bill to help them of a much greater magnitude in the summer.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if the noble Earl would allow me to intervene, I was talking of financial steps rather than aid in kind, which the Bill of Mr. Alfred Morris provided.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am glad to have been able to elicit that interpretation from the noble Lord. I am sure that that is what he had in mind. Therefore, this step, a small step in itself, should be welcomed by all of us, and I join in saying that we are grateful to the Government. We hope that they will do much better than this in the future, but let us give them credit for what they are doing now.
6.47 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I rise to make one short point only, and if it was covered in the opening speeches I apologise for the same reason as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, apologised, in that unfortunately I arrived too late to hear the opening speeches. In welcoming the attendance allowance in Clause 4, I am going to put in a plea that the regulations should consider the circumstances not only of the severely disabled persons but also of the Christian and devoted people who are likely to be looking after them. We all know of cases where daughters and nieces, generally of elderly people, have given up their jobs because they feel it is their Christian duty to look after elderly relations whose lot would otherwise be miserable, and they may find at the end of the day that instead of being credited with contributions such as they would have paid if they had remained in their employment they are, in fact, the possessors of such a truncated insurance record that their

907
pension at the end of the day is negligible. I believe that there are circumstances where some such people can be credited with contributions, but there must be other persons who never had an insurance record and to whom, therefore, it is difficult to give the appropriate credits. They may not be numerous, but they are devoted people who are serving their fellow creatures and we should not overlook their particular needs.
6.49 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to all of your Lordships who have given a welcome to this Bill, albeit some, in their own words, a somewhat grudging one. I think it is hard to expect the Government to have moved very much quicker in dealing with the whole problem of poverty and deprivation, and though in many respects it may be true that this is a limited measure, I hope that all your Lordships will agree that it does its best, in the very short time that has been available to us, to meet certain real needs. A number of points have been raised and it has really been quite a baptism of fire for me. I shall do my best to answer some of them and I hope I shall be able to answer the others in writing.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, took us to task over the term "over-80s" in the Election Manifesto. Of course a good deal of water has flowed under the bridge since this issue was first raised in 1965, when the people concerned were aged 82 in the case of men and 77 in the case of women, and the term "over-80s" came to refer precisely to them. But, as the noble Lord well understands, the distinction is made at this point on the basis that if you are going to ignore the contributory principle, it is perhaps fairest that those should be considered who had no choice about contributing to the new scheme. They are the 100,000 whom we are hoping to help with this pension, but I agree that there are the 30,000 mentioned in my earlier reply to the noble Lord who are not covered by this scheme. I also take the point made by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, about those who perhaps decided not to come into the scheme as late entrants. It may very well be that, in looking at the whole of the field of
908
those in need as we are urgently doing, we shall need to make further provision for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, also asked me about supplementary benefit. This is a rather complicated matter and depends on exactly what amount of supplementary benefit the person concerned may be getting. It is true that people who live entirely on supplementary pensions will get no more, but those whose own resources are "topped-up" will gain the difference between the new pension and their supplementary pension. The noble Lord also asked me about attendance allowance and supplementary benefit. In the case of a disabled person or a claimant, one of whose dependants becomes entitled to attendance allowance, his level of requirement under the Ministry of Social Security Act will be increased to match the level of the allowance. This arrangement will cover the disabled child of a claimant as well as a disabled adult dependant, and will ensure that the basic level of supplementary benefit is not reduced by the amount of attendance allowance. Where the Supplementary Benefits Commission have allowed a discretionary addition to benefit to meet social need, this will be taken into account in awarding such addition for needs of the kind that the attendance allowance is meant to meet.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I trust that, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, he will look further into this because, if I understood him correctly, it means that some of the cases which are hardest of all, where the families are entirely dependent upon payments from the Supplementary Benefits Commission and have been receiving discretionary payments which have taken account of the attendance need, are likely to find that they do not gain the full benefit of the £4. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give an assurance that he will look sympathetically into this matter to make sure that the situation is as good as it can possibly be made, by appropriate examination of the regulations for supplementary benefit.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and I give him the assurance that I will certainly look into that matter. I think

909
the last point that he raised, which was also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was on the make-up of the Attendance Allowance Board As I said, it is certainly our intention to have nonmedical members as well as medical members of the Board. One field that springs to mind in this instance is nursing. We also want to ensure that between them both medical and non-medical members represent not only the eminent medical qualifications to which I referred, but also, almost by definition, appropriate experience of work among, and of the needs of, the chronically sick and disabled. This is clearly right if the Board is going to command the respect and gain the confidence of those for whom it is working. My right honourable friend will wish to be able to give very careful consideration to the membership of the Board after the necessary advice and consultation, and in the process of consultation he will wish to include organisations representative of disabled persons. I hope that that is reassuring to noble Lords opposite.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, speaking for myself—I cannot speak for the Front Bench—I know it is too late to pursue this point now, but I still cannot understand why the same kind of words that were used in the earlier Bill, the Alf Morris Bill, about the representation of the disabled, could not be used in this case. I am bound to say that what the noble Lord said helps a little, because it may be that the result has been achieved in an indirect way, when the obvious way has been rejected.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have gone as far as I possibly can to help the noble Earl. My right honourable friend must retain flexibility and discretion, and must not be committed to including a chronically sick or disabled person as a member of the Board if that should seem to him, in the light of all the circumstances, not to be the best choice. The test must always be appropriate qualifications and suitability.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who asked about the 50,000 potential beneficiaries who are on supplementary benefit at the moment, I have answered as best I can. How they come out under the Bill will depend on the amount of
910
supplementary benefit that they are receiving at the moment. On his other point, rent rebates will be affected where incomes are brought above the appropriate levels and, as he knows, this is in line with the normal retirement pension practice.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who gave the warmest welcome to the Bill. No one knows more about this subject than he does. He asked me a question about these widows whose allowance would end, and thought that there might be a gap before they had their new pension. There will be some widows whose short term widow's allowance will end during the next few months, before these provisions come into effect. But all widows, however long ago they were widowed, will be brought into benefit at the appropriate rate on April 1, 1971. They will have to wait a month or two, but they will come into benefit at the appropriate rate on April 1 next year. As regards the question of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I should like to answer him afterwards, if I may.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (HANDICAPPED CHILDREN) BILL
7.0 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The provisions of the Bill are almost identical to Clause 1 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which was introduced into this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, three months ago and was then lost in the House of Commons at the Dissolution of Parliament. The Education Act 1944 required local education authorities to make special provision for children suffering any form of handicap which might affect the child's ability to benefit from a normal school education, but under Section 57 of the 1944 Act, as amended by the Mental Health Act 1959, the LE.A. must exclude from the education system any child mentally handicapped

911
to a degree assessed as "unsuitable for education at school". As your Lordships well know, such a child becomes the responsibility of the local health authority, which has a duty to provide "care and training in lieu of education".
The marvellous work done under the auspices of the local health and hospital services, however, has shown that every child should have the opportunity to develop to capacity; and just because, for some, that capacity may be very limited is surely no excuse for not developing it as far as possible. I am very glad that, provided that this Bill passes into law, the scope of the educational services should be excluded from no one. So the Bill seeks to transfer responsibility for the education of mentally handicapped children from the health to the education service. Of course, this will not immediately change the situation in the institutions which will be transferred. On April 1, 1971, the appointed day, the same staff will be in post doing the same work in the same place with the same children, but responsibility will have passed to the local education authorities, and it is they who will rely on the continued support of the present staffs.
The safeguarding provisions of the Bill will apply to all the staffs involved, but may I for a moment speak mainly of the teachers? Our goal in this part of the service, as in others, should surely be a fully-trained and qualified profession. The first college of education three-year course with a special emphasis on mental handicap has already completed its first year, and more such courses are planned to follow. The Government hope that this vital work will attract enough people to enable us eventually to make all appointments from qualified teachers; but, meanwhile, it may be necessary to recruit less highly qualified people, though not necessarily on a permanent basis.
The highest qualification in this field is the Diploma in the Teaching of Mentally Handicapped Children established by the Training Council for Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped—and, of course, as your Lordships know, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, serves upon that body representing the parents' point of view. The courses leading to this diploma are specialised and rather shorter
912
than the normal teacher training courses, and they have, I think it is fair to say, a slightly lower entry qualification. It is suggested that teachers thus fully qualified to teach the mentally handicapped should be asked to undertake some post-diploma teaching before being recognised as fully qualified teachers in the technical sense in which this term is used in the education service.
There has been some controversy about the length of the service which should be required. The normal period of service required of holders of qualifications which do not automatically qualify for qualified teacher status in the technical sense is ten years. The previous Secretary of State proposed, in the special circumstances of the diploma holders, to fix five years, but my right honourable friend is inclined to think that a shorter period would be sufficient because the diploma holders have the best qualification available to them and one, moreover, which is specifically tailored to this special form of teaching. To judge from previous discussions in this House, many of your Lordships would be inclined to take the same view. The Department has therefore put in hand further consultation with the bodies concerned about the possibility of fixing a rather shorter period. I should add, my Lords, that arrangements have been made with the training organisations to provide for diploma holders with the necessary qualifications for entry to teacher training one-year courses either end-on or in-service, and these will lead straight away to qualified teacher status.
May I add just a few words about promotion prospects? I expect that the existing staffs, by reason of their training and experience, will be well placed in the promotion stakes, as against other teachers in the education service, for the higher posts in this particular field. But surely it would be neither sensible nor practicable to reserve for the existing staffs any special rights to promotion. I am sure we must give open competition for higher posts, and equally I am certain we can leave it to the good sense of those who will be making appointments to see that this matter is handled sensibly.
My Lords, there may be some problems about dovetailing the existing pay system into the new one, and this will have to

913
be handled sympathetically by the Burn-ham Committee. The Bill contains a provision that all the existing staffs shall receive
"terms and conditions of employment not less favourable than before the date of transfer".
At first sight, the words "not less favourable" may sound ungrateful to people who merit the admiration of society. But, my Lords, the likelihood is that many of the staffs, and especially the diploma holders when they become qualified teachers, will find that -their financial position is substantially improved. The trouble is that, so complicated has our legislation become, there are about 80 sets of compensation regulations in force, and I am sorry to say that these words "not less favourable" have come to be used as a common form. In this case these words are simply a rather, perhaps, ungracious long-slop provision to what I hope your Lordships will agree are the good intentions of the Bill.
Clause 1 contains the aims of the Bill. Subsection (1) (a) provides that children shall not be classified as "unsuitable for education at school"; and, as I confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Segal, last week, the appointed day proposed is April 1, 1971. Under paragraph (b), a local health authority shall no longer make arrangements under Section 12 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 for training children of compulsory school age, and those children now subject to an order declaring them to be "unsuitable for education at school "shall from the appointed day be regarded as in need of special education. Then subsections (2) to (5) deal with the previous Government's undertakings to staff, to which I have tried to refer.
I hope that those of your Lordships who have wide knowledge of this work may take the view that, with the agreement of Parliament, this Bill can lead to great advantages. Henceforth no children will be regarded as unsuitable for education at school. For those who have been asked to decide on these matters this may well be a relief, and for the parents a wonderful encouragement. Those who teach these children will be members of the teaching profession, and will, I trust, benefit in many ways from educational resources. In turn, the education service, inheriting work of the highest quality
914
from the health authorities, may find that these children attain more in life than could ever have been thought possible; and, like the growth of a child, this development, imperceptible but progressive, may enable us one day to look back and marvel at the changes which have occurred. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Belstead.)
7.10 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, from the Back Benches on this side of the House I should like to give a very warm welcome to this Bill and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on introducing it. From to-day, or rather from the date when this Bill comes into operation, we declare that there are no children unsuitable for education, merely that we have forms of education unsuitable for children. This has always been the position. It is only due to the work of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children that the authorities (and this applies to the previous Government as well as to the present one) have come to accept this fact and begun to do something to put it right. For over a hundred years now, there has been a statutory obligation on all parents to send their children to school; but the parents of one child in every hundred could not comply with that obligation because there were no schools suitable for their children. That is why I think this little Bill, brought in so gratifyingly quickly, could turn out to be one of the major achievements of this Government, whatever else they do.
My Lords, I am a little perplexed about one or two things in the Bill and also about one or two things that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said in explaining it. In the Explanatory Memorandum we are told:
"The Bill will not cause any increase in the staff of the public service."
At another stage we are told:
"…in practice there will be no significant additional charge upon the Exchequer."
If this change in our educational system is going to be a success there will have to be very significant increases in the charge upon the national Exchequer. This is an enabling Bill. It enables responsibility for the education of children previously termed "ineducable" to be

915
transferred from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Education—which is something to be devoutly thankful for. But the Bill itself—the Act when it is passed—does not really matter: it simply enables us to do something. The real change can come about only by the enthusiasm and determination of those who administer it.
The previous Minister, my right honourable friend Mr. Ted Short, was, I know, determined—and said so in public—that this disgraceful blot on our education, this depriving of children who have so little even of the little chance that they have, should be removed; and the Government are taking this first step to enable them to remove it. Whether the new set-up becomes a success or is just a façade depends upon the enthusiasm which they apply to the implementation of the Bill.
It may not have had any significance, but the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said that the Bill will not immediately change things in the institutions which are to be transferred; that the same teachers, the same staffs, will carry on. That may well be so. But, my Lords, the institutions to which he refers are junior training establishments; and, incidentally, although the responsibility was placed on local authorities to start such establishments, there are many who have not done so; and it will be only in those places where such establishments exist that the children will be able to be trained and educated in them. I should therefore like from the noble Lord an assurance that when this Bill becomes an Act there will be a mandatory obligation on all local education authorities to provide premises which are suitable and staffs who are suitably trained to provide these children with the education that they are capable of achieving.
Another form of institution is the hospital. Some of our hospitals have so-called schools in them. With all respect for the excellent work that is done, these are not schools which are capable of making the most of the children to be educated there. Are these hospitals to be counted as schools under the transfer which is now taking place? If they are, I am afraid that the hopes that I entertained for the Bill will not be fulfilled.
916
I have long been concerned with this problem, and therefore I make no apology for expressing anxieties. We are going to have the formal Bill, which will become an Act; there will be the power there to do what we want, to do what is needed. But it will be translated into an effective system under which all our children can benefit, one in which not even the one in a hundred will be left out, only if the Government are determined on that. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to satisfy us on these questions because, if he can, I believe that this Bill will prove to be one of the most effective acts of the present Government.
7.17 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, it appears to be becoming something of a habit to take Education Bills twice. We had that unfortunate little Bill of Mr. Short's in another place which was usually referred to as "the Bill to make comprehensive schools compulsory" (although of course it was nothing of the sort); and now we have this Bill. I can see that there is a lot to be said for this practice. It gives one the chance to think up a number of questions the second time round which one did not think of on the first round. I am afraid that I am going to take advantage of this, and propose to ask the noble Lord, while in general welcoming this Bill, a number of questions which I think arise immediately out of it and out of the whole problem with which it deals.
In a way, as he says, the transfer of responsibility for these children is a nominal transfer. In the past, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health have worked closely together in dealing with the problem; in the future they will do exactly the same. I am quite certain that the efforts of neither will be relaxed simply because of a change of responsibility a little way across the line. But in another way the change is not so nominal, and I feel a little disquiet now that what many of us had hoped to be the real basis of this Bill is perhaps to be whittled away.
This Bill has been welcomed in many places as signalling the end of the idea that there are children who are

917
ineducable—and this point was particularly mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Stonham. But in the debate on the Committee stage of the Bill on Thursday, July 16, in another place, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, Mr. van Straubenzee, said:
"However hard we try to make educational provision available, which is the intention, there may be a certain very small number for whom on educational grounds— and it will be an educational system—meaningful educational provision cannot effectively be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 15/7/70; col. 1679.]
If this means that certain children will still be judged to be ineducable, I think it a great pity. First, methods of diagnosis, treatment and education are moving so fast that such a stance is totally unwarrantable. It may be that there arc ineducable children, but we do not know which ones they are and it is impossible for us to find out. Secondly, I do not believe that this is the kind of attitude we should take about anyone we are prepared to regard as a human being. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to reassure us on this aspect.
I hope that he will also not think it wildly out of order—because it is his Department that is concerned—if he says a word about the rest of the last Education Bill we had, the Education (Miscellaneous Provision) Bill. In that Bill there were a couple of other clauses to deal with students' grants of one kind or another, and they appeared to raise a very great deal of psychologically most interesting rage and passion in various parts of the country—and even, indeed, of this House. But in fact they did raise very serious problems and very serious anomalies, and I think that we might ask the Department, when considering dealing with these anomalies, whether it can give us any indication of what is to happen. I should like to make a brief plea in support of a suggestion that was made in (he debate in the House by a number of speakers: that the Department might consider the separation of all subsistence grants for education from tuition grants for education and transfer the subsistence grants to the Ministry of Social Security. I realise that that is not likely to be a very popular move with the Department of Education and Science; therefore I would ask that it might be considered at
918
an inter-departmental level, where it would be less likely to be shot down.
There is the question of the teachers, and I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about what I think are definite improvements in the scheme about qualifications of teachers. I understand that consultations are still going on about this matter, and I wish them well. I only say, in parenthesis, that it is a great pity the Secretary of State has dispensed the whole of the initial good will she might have got from the teachers' unions by her actions in the first few weeks in office. She will find i: a lot less easy, because of the dispersal of that immediate good will, to stand up to pressures from the unions when they need to be resisted.
I should also like to raise the question of categorisation. I realise that this may be somewhat early for the noble Lord to be able to say what the Department of Education and Science thinks about this; indeed, it is a matter for a later Bill. But it has a close bearing on the fate of many of these children we are considering. As your Lordships will all know, categorisation is the method, under the 1944 Act, whereby certain forms of disability can be identified, and certain definite ways of dealing with them must be implemented by the local authority. The advantage of this categorisation is that it prods backward and lazy local education authorities—and there are some—into definite action. The disadvantages are that categorisation can be too narrow in its diagnoses in the increasing awareness of the complexity of handicap.
There is I think a way through beyond this. It is outlined in the Report, Living with Handicap (which some noble Lords will have already read), produced by the Working Party on the Handicapped Child which, for part of the time, was under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. In this admirable Report the Working Party suggested that what is needed is not only categorisation but also a new list of categories which would take account of the complexity of both health and educational diagnoses and would be far more useful. I hope that the Government will look at this suggestion and, having looked at it, will be able to bring into it such groups of children as are now tending to

919
be neglected because they do not fall into categories. Your Lordships will be aware that among these is one of the sections in which I, like many other of your Lordships, am most interested; namely autistic children.
Finally, my Lords, let me turn to the various ends of the age spectrum, because these handicapped children are not just people at a certain age to be dealt with in a little box. They are people before they reach what we normally regard as ordinary school age; and they are people after they leave it. And what happens to them in an educational way, and in every other way, concerns us all the way through. In the Second Reading debate (I think it was) on the earlier Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said he was very concerned with what was going to happen to these children after the age of 16. We have been reassured about that by Ministers in another place; and we have been told that there are satisfactory compulsory powers available to deal with people up to the age of 19. But even 19 is not quite enough, my Lords. I realise that at that age responsibility must to a large degree go over to the Department of Employment and Productivity; but there are bound to be genuine educational needs with which that Department, despite all its virtues, all its care and training, and its sheltered workshops, cannot itself cope. I should be interested to hear whether the Department of Education and Science has any particular thoughts about the educational needs of these people over the age of 19.
Equally, at the lower end of the scale I believe that some of the very best work can be done before the statutory school joining age is reached. At that time, in those earliest years of children's lives, a foundation can be built on which the educational possibilities of school years can eventually be erected. Indeed, it may be that really intensive health care and education at that stage (here it is very difficult to differentiate between health and education) may prevent a large number of children from ever coming into this very highly mentally handicapped category. Therefore I very much hope that the Department will be able to say something about its plans for these children.
920
My Lords, this is, of course, a question for money. The statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that no extra money will be needed applies merely, I suppose, to immediate costs at the actual time of changeover. But we all know, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, that if we are going to help these children properly to a proper education, if we are going to try to make the most of their potentialities—and they all have potentialities—a great deal more money will be needed. The same Report that I quoted earlier said:
"We have a long way to go before there is an adequate spread of special educational opportunities to cater for the variety of handicaps."
There is indeed a long way to go, my Lords; and it is going to cost a lot of money. My Party has always been proud that it has not taken advantage of the fact of being a minority Party to be irresponsible about priorities in education. We realise that you cannot have money for everything all the time. We welcome the fact that the Government regard primary education as their first priority. I think we should also welcome it if the Government were to say that these children, suffering under these terrific handicaps, are an absolutely super priority, because it is the test of our society that we look after the most unfortunate people in it. I think it is the test of our education and care of these unfortunate children that we should not be content with the provision for their care and education until we are as content as we should be if they were our own.
7.30 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I welcomed the last Bill with reservations, and after due consideration I find this one wholly satisfactory. But there are a few points I should like to raise which are important in implementing the policy of the transfer. First of all, may I pay a tribute to the work of the health and local authorities for what they have done in the past. Their efforts have made the task of so many families far more tolerable, and I feel sure that parents will join with me in thanking them.
In reading the speech of my honourable friend the Minister of State on the Second Reading in another place, I note with gratitude that he warned parents not to

921
expect a sudden miracle in the education of their children. I fully endorse this, as this measure will need very careful long-term thought, patience and understanding of the difficult but fascinating problem of the education of the mentally handicapped before the full results which we all hope for will be forthcoming. While I am on the subject, may I, with all the sincerity at my command, appeal to the public of our country not to frustrate our efforts by petitioning against schools and hostels near their homes. All handicapped people in our community need our urgent help and I trust that we shall not fail them.
May I turn now to the teachers. I was delighted to read the words of the Minister of State in another place, confirmed by my noble friend, that consideration was being given to the shortening of the period which had to be served after a training council course before qualified status was granted. I know that this decision will not only encourage teachers to take up posts in our schools but will also ensure that the quality of the teachers will be enhanced, which is so vitally important to the future lives of mentally handicapped children and their chance to live useful lives within our community.
Together with teachers awaiting the prescribed period, I understand that those who have done short courses, but who will not qualify for full teacher status, will be designated as qualified teachers of the mentally handicapped and that their pay will be considered by the Burnham Committee. These dedicated people have served the mentally handicapped with deep devotion for many years and need our careful consideration. We simply cannot accept, in this day and age when the cost of living is so high, that the chosen work of such people should be so poorly paid, because the profession is generally designated as a vocation. I sincerely hope that the Burnham Committee will be generous. There is not a very great number, but their expert services are so badly needed until the full implementation of this Bill brings a full complement of qualified teachers.
Before closing my remarks, may I say a word about hospital schools. As I see it, we have a definite problem here. Attendance at school is governed by the advice of psychologists as to whether a child can benefit by education in the
922
hospital school. At Queen Mary's Hospital for Children we have 340 severely mentally handicapped children, of whom 120 attend the hospital school. Naturally, the remainder in the wards are trained so far as possible in the normal functions of life, but if the education authorities decide that many of these should attend school, we should have to have new schools or a larger complement of teachers teaching in the wards. This situation needs careful thought.
In conclusion, may I say again how greatly I welcome this Bill. I am grateful to the late Government for bringing it before Parliament. I can assure your Lordships that, together with all who work for the mentally handicapped, I shall do my best to see that the future education of these children is the best that we can give them.
7.36 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I too should like to add, if only briefly, my unqualified words of welcome for this Bill. It goes a very long way to allay some of the anxieties naturally felt by the parents of many thousands of mentally handicapped children who looked to it last May for the fulfilment at last of the hopes of so many years. When we heard that this Bill was to be one of the casualties of the General Election, we wondered how far the new Government were going to fulfil the hopes that centred on its predecessor. I think I am betraying no confidences when I recall how the Executive of the National Society of Mentally Handicapped Children met on the day after the Election results were announced in an atmosphere of anxiety, almost of alarm, tinged even with a good deal of despondency, at the advent of a new Government. May I say now, quite regardless of any Party considerations, how this new Bill has more than fulfilled our warmest hopes.
Not only have the Government seen fit to put the Bill rapidly forward, but they have also adhered to the original appointed day for the transfer. Furthermore, I am glad to note that they are undertaking a reconsideration of the five-year post-diploma period. I can only hope that, as a result of their reconsideration, any element of injustice that might arise in individual cases will be speedily removed. So I feel that we can give to this Bill as it stands our wholehearted blessing.

923
There is one comment that I should like to made. I ask merely for information, and do not make these remarks by way of criticism. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states:
"the Bill ends, as from a day to be appointed, the provisions under which certain children suffering from a disability of mind are classified …"
May I say that I consider the Title of this Bill to be a great improvement on its predecessor, the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, but I am still wondering why it has been entitled Education (Handicapped Children) Bill. Why not come out boldly into the open and call it the Education (Mentally Handicapped Children) Bill? Surely we have reached a stage now when no stigma whatsoever attaches to the term "mentally handicapped". Quite the contrary, I think that it is universally recognised now that these children have an elemental right to education just in the same way as normal children, and I certainly would have very much preferred to see the Title amended on the lines I have suggested.
May I also say how wholeheartedly I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, about the special consideration that ought to be given to cases of autistic children? But let us retain a due sense of proportion. These undoubtedly difficult cases are regarded, I believe, as numbering not more than 1,000 in all. It is difficult to to assess the figure, because the term "autistic" is variously applied in different cases. But surely this is only a tiny drop in the vast ocean of mentally handicaped children now requiring our help. Figures again are variously given of 200,000, and according to some, 250,000 children, who are categorised as mentally handicapped.
I would say to the Government that it is one thing to have such a Bill on the Statute Book, but, as my noble friend Lord Stonham has emphasised, quite another thing to see it implemented by the education authorities. I would also endorse the plea that has been made that all children should not be assessed according to their chronological age. I think it is important that the Government should realise that both before the primary
924
school age and well after the school leaving age, the basis of the requirement of education for these children should be assessed at the mental age rather than at the chronological age.
I earnestly hope that the new Department which takes over this heavy responsibility for education and training of mentally handicapped children will see that its intentions are carried speedily into effect. It would be unfair at this stage, perhaps, to emphasise all the hopes that are centred on this Bill, but I should like very much to stress how important it will be, once the Bill comes into effect, to maintain the full recruitment of teachers of mentally handicapped children. At present there is a woeful shortage of teachers specially trained in the care of mentally handicapped children. These teachers, who I hope will be recruited in much larger numbers in the future, will have to combine the devotion and dedication of skilled nurses in a particularly difficult branch of nursing with the patience, sympathy and knowledge of trained teachers. So I feel that the conditions of work, the terms of pay and the prospects for promotion should be made far more attractive for teachers of mentally handicapped children than they are for teachers of normal children. That is a point that I particularly wish to bring home to the Government.
Those of us who are passionately devoted to the welfare of handicapped children—and we are numerous in both Houses of Parliament, as well as very numerous in the country outside—would urge the Government to take every possible step to ensure that the finest elements of our teaching staffs are attracted to this side of the profession. With those words, I should like once again to extend an unqualified welcome to the Bill.
7.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will forgive me if I intervene for a few moments before he speaks. I can very readily join in the support that this Bill has received from all quarters of the House, but I should like to draw attention to what I believe may be a minor flaw or difficulty in it. Several noble Lords, including the

925
noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Segal, have particularly emphasised the implementation of the idea which lies behind the Bill. I should not be surprised if that implementation is, at any rate in part, going to lie in the hands of the voluntary organisations who will supplement the admirable work so far done by the local health authorities but which will soon come into the sphere of the local educational authorities—the same councils in each case, but with a different pattern.
There is a strange and curious provision in rating law which enters into this matter. I suspect that the voluntary organisations who fulfil this role at the moment are fairly interested in their finances and do not easily let go a lawful amount of money which is due to them in the way of exemptions. Under the General Rate Act 1967, a voluntary organisation which carries out the work of a junior training centre under arrangements made at present under Section 12 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. get what is in effect an almost total exemption from rates. What happens is that all buildings are disregarded, and all that is valued is the ground on which those buildings stand. Exactly how that is done has not yet been altogether resolved, but that is the idea. I think they then get the mandatory 50 per cent. relief on top of that.
There are other organisations of a voluntary nature which do not have formal arrangements under which they look after children but who do similar work, and they in certain circumstances are equally entitled to this exemption. It all depends upon the fact that arrangements can be made under Section 12 of that Act of 1968. There is no such exemption for a voluntary organisation that provides education for handicapped children or mentally handicapped children, or for any organisation which does a similar job to a school for children of that kind. The moment that the local authorities lose their power, as they are going to do under this Bill, to make these arrangements under that Act of 1968, so the rating exemption will, I suggest, automatically cease to apply to all those voluntary organisations who have hitherto been doing this work. They will, it is true, still have the 50 per cent. man-
926
datory relief for charities, if they are charities, and I expert that they mostly are. There is a further power for the rating authority to reduce or remit their rates, but this is a matter of policy for the boroughs, urban districts, county districts and county boroughs. I do not suppose that they will all act uniformly in this matter, and there may be discrepancies.
I am afraid that I have no idea how many of these organisations are going to be affected, and I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Belstead has, or whether he has had any consultations with them about this consequential change in the law. I should be extremely sorry if one of the results of this admirable measure, which has been welcomed from all sides of your Lordships' House, in another place and, I believe, widely in the country, were to be any crippling in the financial status of the voluntary organisations which supplement this work. It must be purely coincidental that this is a result of the Bill, but I believe that it is a result. I hope it is one that will be considered by my noble friend and by the Department, to make certain that they are not doing any harm, by mistake, in bringing in this legislation. I do not wish to put forward a point of view one way or the other. I do not know whether these organisations should have special relief or not. But there it is. I believe that they will lose it, and I ask the Government to look into the matter to see whether that is right.
7.50 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, at the commencement of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave us an explanation of this Bill for which I am sure the whole House is grateful. He frankly recognised that its provisions are limited to what was provided in Clause 1 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which, as has already been said, was a casualty of the recent Dissolution. We on these Benches offer it no less warm a welcome on that score. Indeed, we are grateful, even though there has been a change of Government, that this highly desirable reform is to proceed. We are glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, a repetition of what the Secretary of State indicated was likely, that it is intended to come in force, as was originally intended by the

927
previous Administration, on April 1 next year. The Government are to be congratulated in bringing forward a Bill the shape of which was determined by the previous Administration. I should like to see them delving into the cupboard a little more deeply, because there are many other measures that they could usefully bring forward with advantage.
The earlier Bill, the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, was somewhat wider in scope than this one. Since this one avoids the controversies of the clauses which stirred your Lordships earlier this year, its passage will doubtless be swift and easy. So much has already been said in this House, and in another place, on an earlier occasion when we discussed this issue, and also last week and the week before, as well as this evening, about the merits that this reform will secure, that there is little new that I can add. Nevertheless, it is proper that to-night it should be recognised that this Bill, which transfers the service from local health authorities and regional hospial boards to local education authorities, is a tribute to those who have pioneered and persevered over long years to end the seclusion of children regarded as being so severely mentally handicapped as to be unsuitable for education at school. I thought my noble friend Lord Stonham put the matter very well in what he said about the service of education having been at fault rather than children being unfitted or unsuited for education. If this Bill is a recognition of that pioneering and perseverance, it is also a recognition of the devotion and dogged, unrelenting determination of parents who refuse to take "No" for an answer.
Many of us will have had friends, or known of parents, who found themselves with a child not gifted by nature to take its place with normal children at school and at play. If we needed any reminder, there was a programme on B.B.C.2 television last evening entitled, "The Broken Bridge". That brought home into our very living spaces not merely the tragedy of the autistic child, but the possibility of doing something for that child. I hope that the Government will not be persuaded that the problem of the autistic child is too small to warrant treatment. I felt that the programme last evening
928
was an encouragement to all of us interested in the service of education to ensure that these children—perhaps the most difficult in their particular way—could benefit if the problem was approached in a sympathetic, constructive and positive manner.
I can recall from many years ago the efforts of some of those parents, to whom I have referred, to try to provide opportunities for learning and training for the child that they loved all the more because of the infinitely greater dependence that child had on them as the result of a grievous, heavy handicap. Those parents were not content to accept that nothing could be done; they pleaded, they sought to persuade and organise, and by their determined example and pressures they educated the rest of us into an appreciation of what was possible and even desirable. The Bill now before the House is the measure of how right they were, and our society shows itself as the more humane, and our society will be the richer for that recognition. It is fitting, too, that appreciation should be expressed to the local health authorities who have established a base on which a purpose-built educational structure can be erected.
There are one or two questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I hope that he may be able to give us some information. My first question has been raised a number of times, and was raised again by my noble friend Lord Stonham. Despite the fact that it has been raised a number of times, I am unable to find that a full or satisfying answer has as yet been given. The question is on the issue of finance. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill is not too helpful. Can the Minister to-night be a little more forthcoming than was the Under-Secretary of State in another place when the Second Reading was taken? Is he satisfied that in practice additional expenditure will be largely offset by savings from administrative economies, as is suggested? I wonder what administrative economies will produce significant savings? If it is said that the Memorandum refers only to the situation at the passing of the Bill, that leaves us with no assessment at all as to what will follow in its train. I am sure that none of us will want to be niggardly in our approach to this matter. It seems to me

929
that we could be given some indication of the type of development that the present Government intend as regards this particular service, and also the likely cost. How will that cost be apportioned as between central Government and the local authority?
May I ask what guidance is to be given on the age limits which may apply to this specialised type of education? I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, touched on this matter. I noted that the Under-Secretary in another place indicated the possibility of an age range of 2 to 19—at least it was stated that that is the present scope within the service for compulsory schooling. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, raised a very interesting point, but may I ask for an assurance that the Government will put pressure on all local education authorities, if it is needed, to ensure that they provide a service adequate to the needs of their locality, and also that the service they provide is a free one? I am in no way underestimating the value of the voluntary organisations, but we need an assurance that representations will go out from the centre to ensure that L.E.A.s provide a service that will meet the local need.
There are one or two questions on which we might have some more information about the general position so far as accommodation is concerned. Is it intended that the younger people will be housed and taught separately from the older ones? Appreciating what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, that we are not going to get a revolution overnight, have the Government done any thinking about this question? Can they give any indication of what their long-term programme is in this direction? We are going to need a good deal of new building. How will this be controlled and within what type of programme? Is it to be a part of the general education programme, or will there be a separate programme for this new sector of the service of education?
When the earlier Bill was before the House in Committee I tabled an Amendment to the effect that there should be no liability on the local education authority to provide residential homes for children for whose education they may become responsible under Clause 1
930
of that Bill. I was then satisfied by the reply I received from my noble friend Lady Phillips, and I am wondering whether perhaps the same reassurance can be given this evening. Because I would point out there is at least one large local education authority which is neither a housing authority nor a health authority.
I join with those who extend their wish that the staffs who have done such commendable work under the Health Service should receive the most sympathetic consideration possible. Obviously, if this specialised sector of the service of education is to command what I am sure we hope it will eventually command, parity of esteem within the teaching profession and within the community generally, then it is desirable that those who teach in it should be recognised as qualified teachers. Being qualified, they could then consider transfer into other branches of the service, and it would be very beneficial if in time we could achieve something of a two-way traffic between this specialised sector and the general branch of education.
This question of securing qualified status as teachers raises problems, to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred when he opened the debate. I hope that in solving them the Government and the professional bodies will achieve agreement which is fair to the point of generosity; for many of those concerned, as has been recognised by almost everybody who has spoken this evening, have given nobly in service to children who have benefited tremendously. The debt is great. We ought to be as generous as possible—though I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, in regard to possession of the diploma.
I ask, as did the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, when we might expect legislation dealing with the other matters contained in the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Although those proposals may involve some degree of controversy, I hope that the Government appreciate that these also are areas for serious consideration, and will not run away from them merely because they may arouse controversy. Meanwhile, my Lords, from these Benches we give this Bill a very warm welcome and wish it an unopposed Second Reading.
8.3 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, as well as bowling me some fairly fast balls in his last speech, spoke for the first time from the Opposition Front Bench, and I should like to give him a very warm welcome in that capacity. I have had the good fortune to listen to the noble Lord in the past and to notice, as have many other noble Lords, that he has a very close knowledge of education. For this, I know that he is very well qualified. This evening he has shown also that he has a close sympathy with all who are in any way connected with handicapped children—the subject of this Bill and of our debate this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was the first speaker and, although the noble Lord has had to leave (and he explained that he would have to go), I should like to reply briefly to some points he made. May I draw a distinction between the direct consequentials of this transfer in the Bill and the long-term consequences? The direct consequences will of course consist of compensation and improved salaries for certain teachers. This must be quite openly said, and this is what the Financial Memorandum refers to. But there is no doubt that the service will develop (and this is what many noble Lords have been referring to) as part of the educational service; and I must say again quite frankly that the Financial Memorandum sets no limitation on that. But it would be right in a few words to set the record right.
I referred just now to expenses of compensation. This point was raised in another place, and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, replying without notice, made a reference to "the district valuer". I am afraid that we have found that this reference was incorrect. The intention is that the order to be made under Clause 2 of the Bill should include a provision applying the substance of Section 151 of the Local Government Act 1933. This provides for the financial adjustments consequential on the alteration of the areas of local authorities. The section enables authorities affected to enter into agreements between them for the payment in respect of property, debts, functions and liabilities which are being transferred. If there is not agreement, then it allows for a
932
reference to be made to arbitration. So my honourable friend in another place should have referred, I think, to arbitration and not to the district valuer.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, also mentioned a mandatory obligation to provide schools. The local education authorities will have the same mandatory obligations towards these children as they have towards any other children, both to assess their needs and to provide for them. Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, asked: are hospitals to be counted as schools? Of course, education in the schools will be the responsibility of the local education authorities; the care side of the hospitals will still be the responsibility of the National Health Service.
We all listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. The noble Lord asked four sets of questions, of which he gave me notice. First of all, he asked about ineducable children, and he mentioned my honourable friend's remarks in another place. It is the clear intention of the Government that if this Bill is passed no child shall be excluded from the benefits of the education services: and this of course the Bill says quite clearly. Local education authorities will be responsible for examining the educational needs of every child and for providing the appropriate education. But it is unavoidable that some small number of children may prove to be incapable of benefiting from any educational provision.
Before the noble Lord takes me up on this point, may I quickly say that surely this may not be a permanent condition, and any such child would be kept under review so that education may be provided at a stage when it is likely to be of benefit. And may I repeat the Government's words which were spoken by my honourable friend in another place: that there is no intention by the Government to draw any form of I.Q. line. However, it would not be honest or kind to pretend that there will be no such children who, just at times, may be found to be in this situation.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. His assurance that every step will be taken to ensure that

933
these children are kept permanently under review—because one knows the difficulty that arises from having said at any stage that a child is not educable—meets the point which was being made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, as well as by me.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I think I am right in saying that Section 57 provides for 12-month reviews, in response to a parent's request, and at any time at the wish of the authority. So I realise I am not really saying anything new.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: But, my Lords, Section 57 no longer applies. Surely something is being put in the new Bill to take its place. Perhaps we ought to look at this point at the Committee stage.
LORD BELSTEAD: First of all, my Lords, I was sorry that I had said that; but when the noble Lord had said a little more I was not sorry, because it is as well we should get this point right. Secondly, the noble Lord asked about the previous Bill—the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill—and so did the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. Certainly the Government appreciate that there is still a problem here, and having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who spoke, I thought, seriously and at some length, I consider it would be extremely discourteous not to say that. But, with respect, what the noble Lord was saying does not form a part of this Bill. The previous Bill was a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. This is only a Bill in connection with the education of mentally handicapped children, and I hope the noble Lord will not think me discourteous if I say that I cannot give a timetable on this point this evening.
Thirdly, the noble Lord talked about categorisation. Perhaps in the interests of brevity I may say that for a variety of reasons the Government feel that the labelling of handicaps is not an end in itself, any more than the introduction of extra regulations should be. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked us to look into this matter. We feel that what is now needed is not more labels but improved knowledge and experience of the best methods of educating these
934
children. Research is being undertaken and my right honourable friend has it in mind to issue to local education authorities a circular of guidance on this subject.
Lastly, the noble Lord spoke about the extremes of the education system. That point was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. May I draw a distinction between the specific duty of local education authorities to provide education for children of school age and the general duty of local education authorities to provide further education under Section 41 of the 1944 Act. Certainly local education authorities have the power to continue to provide education for handicapped people over the age of 19, and presumably such a decision would depend, partly anyway, on the resources which the local education authority had available. At the other end of the spectrum, here again the power lies with the local education authority. Under Section 34 of the Education Act 1944, the local education authority has a duty to ascertain if a child needs special education, but it lies within the discretion of the statutory authority to determine whether such a special education should begin before school age. The Department of Education and Science has drawn attention to the importance of early ascertainment and provision, and we fully accept that medical and educational interests should be aware of these problems at an early age.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, was kind enough to welcome some of the things which had been said about the future of those devoted people, the teachers of the mentally handicapped. The noble Lord drew attention to a particular hospital school and made the point that of the 340 severely mentally handicapped children there about a third attended the school in the hospital. If, as we all hope under this Bill, local education authorities decide that more need teaching, then indeed I admit that new plans will have to be made, and these will fall into the lap of both the hospital and the local education authority. Such plans will need watching sympathetically and carefully, by Her Majesty's Government as well as by the authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Segal, said some warm words to the Government

935
for bringing in the Bill, and it would be quite wrong if I did not acknowledge the original Bill and the relevant clauses which were brought in by the previous Government. The noble Lord made a point in regard to the Explanatory Memorandum and asked why it was not referred to as the "Mentally Handicapped" Bill. Perhaps I may make the point in the form of a question: should we not be disregarding the fact that children who are mentally handicapped often tragically suffer from physical handicaps as well?
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, if I may be forgiven for interrupting the noble Lord, may I say that I was referring to the Explanatory Memorandum and to the fact that these children are mentally handicapped had been omitted from the Title. Should that not have been included in the Title of the Bill?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I rather hope that we shall not have an Amendment on that point, but I take to heart what the noble Lord has said. At the end of his speech the noble Lord spoke movingly about the recruitment of teachers for the mentally handicapped, and about their rewards. As a junior Minister it would be quite wrong for me to say anything either way, except that I trust very much that the words of the noble Lord will be widely read.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, brought to our attention a problem which will befall the voluntary institutions. The noble Viscount has been kind enough to communicate with me on this subject. I accept, of course, that the Bill may result in such a school losing the exemption which it at present enjoys under Section 45(d) of the General Rate Act 1967, although it would still, as a charity, be entitled to remission of 50 per cent. of the rates otherwise charge-able, and eligible for remission of the balance. But the question raised by my noble friend affects the general law relating to rating. It would not be appropriate for me to deal with it in this measure, but I will certainly undertake to bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
To-night I should like to make one short point about it. It is inherent in the
936
concept of this Bill that in the future handicapped children, no matter how severe their handicap, should, while they are of compulsory school age, be given education under the education service in place of training under the health service. It is surely a necessary corollary of this that any voluntary organisation which wishes to provide particularly for them must establish itself as a school operating wholly within the education service; and that any exemptions or privileges which it may now enjoy by virtue of the fact that under the present law the training of these children is a matter for the health service, will cease to apply. There are two points I wish to make in this connection. First, we do not know how many organisations this will affect; secondly, is it not right that we should face the question whether we believe that these institutions of which my noble friend has spoken should have arrangements totally different from other schools in this one respect? For after the appointed day in all other respects such schools will have to be the same. I must say that we have come down reluctantly against this idea. We will watch this point closely and attempt to meet it in other legislation if we find that bad hardship occurs. At the moment I do not think I can go further than that.
Lastly, my Lords, I come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. I hope the noble Lord may think that I have been a little more forthcoming on finance than he suggested I would be. He referred to the ends of the spectrum, and I have tried to meet that point in dealing with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Lord Garnsworthy also asked for an assurance. Like everyone else, Her Majesty's Government will be keen to see that local education authorities do provide the services which, as a result of the Bill, it will be mandatory upon them to provide. I hope that that assurance, which is in the terms of the Bill, is held to be a reasonable one by your Lordships. I also hope that you take that general view of the Bill and will decide now to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HARBOURS (AMENDMENT) BILL
8.20 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. On the last occasion when we discussed ports legislation in this Chamber, our proceedings were brought to a sudden end by the announcement of the Dissolution of Parliament. I am glad to be able to reassure the House that no such dramatic intervention is likely to come our way to-day. But it is perhaps worth pointing out that the reasons for our being here now, discussing this particular Bill, arise—in more than one sense—from that intervention. For the last Administration's Ports Bill (whose sudden death was, of course, not regretted by those now on this side of the House) would have involved the disappearance of the limit on loans and grants to harbours under Section 13 of the Harbours Act 1964 which we are considering in this Bill. I think, however, that the purpose of the present Bill is of a kind to commend itself to all sides of the House. That purpose—a strictly limited one—is to ensure (hat the Government will be able to go on making financial assistance available for harbour developments under Sections 11 and 12 of the Harbours Act 1964.
The urgency arises because my right honourable friend needs to honour commitments to provide grants and loans for schemes already approved by his predecessor, payment of which would take us over the £100 million limit fixed under Section 13 of the 1964 Act. I think that I should therefore make it clear, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport did in another place, that we do not feel able to discuss the broader problems of the ports until we have been able to review the situation comprehensively. But on one crucial point we are quite clear: that the solution to the problems does not lie in nationalisation. The industry can rest assured that the uncertainty of the past five or six years has now gone. It may well be that changes will be needed to deal with changed circumstances: ports, like other forms of transport services and facilities, must be adapted to the changing needs of those who use them. Sometimes these changes can be handled within the
938
industry, and the oftener the better. Sometimes it is helpful to the industry to have the backing of legislation. But there will be no major unheaval. The 1964 Act is still a firm framework for the industry. The National Ports Council is doing a very good job. And in matters of industrial relations—leaving aside the unhappy, and I hope very temporary, situation with which we are to-day faced, and on which it would not be appropriate for me to enter into discussion—I think there is agreement on all sides that we should try to advance by way of the principles of the Devlin Report.
I feel that it may be helpful to the House if I now explain briefly the provisions of the Bill. Although it refers directly to Section 13 of the Harbours Act 1964, it is also closely bound up with two other sections—11 and 12. Section 11, which was later amended by Section 40 of the Docks and Harbours Act 1966, allows the Minister, after consulting the National Ports Council and with Treasury approval, to make loans to statutory harbour authorities for certain expenses of a capital nature. Section 12 allows him to make grants to statutory harbour authorities, and to other persons engaged in harbour operations. These grants are paid at the standard rate of 20 per cent. on harbour works which make a substantial and desirable contribution to international trade, and for specialised mechanical equipment used in cargo handling.
Under Section 13 of the Act, a limit is placed on the total amount of loans and grants which may be paid. This limit, set for the first stage at £50 million, was increased to £100 million—the maximum permitted under the Act—by Affirmative Resolution in another place in June, 1968. Up to the end of June, 1970, a total of about £81 million of loans and grants had been issued. We still have outstanding however, other loans approved but not yet issued. And grant payments will be falling due either on schemes already approved or on schemes which are eligible for grant but which are too small to require specific authorisation by the Minister. Taking account of these, the limit of £100 million will be reached within the next few months. And we are already committed beyond that. For against the background of changes which he had expected to

939
result from the Ports Bill, the former Minister of Transport continued to enter into commitments for development schemes which he thought justified and which would have been held up if approval in principle could not be given at the time. It is, as I mentioned earlier, to meet these commitments that the present Bill is needed urgently, though of course arrangements for increasing the limit would have been necessary very soon in any case.
As noble Lords will have seen, the Bill is short and uncomplicated. Clause 1 repeals Section 13(1) of the 1964 Act and fixes a new limit of £75 million (or, if so provided by a Resolution of another place, £125 million) on loans. This limit would apply to all loans made by the Minister under Section 11 of the Act after the passing of the Bill: in other words, payments in respect of schemes approved earlier but not yet paid would come within the new limit; the old one would be entirely superseded. Clause 2 is formal. Noble Lords will have noticed, however, that there is now no reference in the limit to grants. Unlike loans under Section 11, which are made out of the National Loans Fund, grants under Section 12 of the 1964 Act are made from a Ministry of Transport Vote, and therefore come under Parliamentary scrutiny through the Estimates. We do not consider it necessary to include them in the limit.
The House may like now to have some fuller explanation of the figures contained in the Bill. I should perhaps make it clear at this point that Section 11 loans are made only to statutory harbour authorities and are for specific types of capital expenditure, not for the general capital expenditure of an authority. They are available only for the non-nationalised parts of the port industry, since loans for the ports of the British Transport Docks Board, British Railways or the British Waterways Board are made under the 1962 Transport Act. So it would be quite wrong to suppose that the figures give an indication of what overall capital expenditure is likely to be put into the ports in the coming years.
The amounts allowed for in the Bill provide first for sums which still have to be issued in respect of loans approved
940
by the former Minister of Transport. These come to some £19 million. A further £12 million of loan applications are at present outstanding, already approved in principle under the previous Administration. My right honourable friend explained in another place that he cannot proceed with the port authorities concerned on the subject of loans and grant for these two schemes without the powers the Bill contains. These committed or outstanding schemes come to some £31 million. But from knowledge in my right honourable friend's Department of the broad development plans of the ports industry, which include major continuations of works in hand as well as new works, we consider that a total of £75 million is necessary to allow for schemes on the general scale that are likely to come forward in the fairly near future. This figure does not, however, cover possible requirements that might arise in, say, the next two years or more for harbour developments that have not yet been foreseen at all. As in the 1964 Act, therefore, we are asking for flexibility by means of a two-tier limit: a further £50 million could be sought by means of Affirmative Resolution of another place.
There is one further point that I would make. The House will have realised that the whole question of Government assistance to industry is under review. In the course of that review, the problems of the ports will clearly come under examination, since help given to them is one form of assistance to industry. I cannot of course say at present whether there will be any changes in the arrangements for ports, but I think it fair that I should say that the proposals in this Bill are not intended to prejudge the issue one way or the other. My honourable friend made it very clear, however, on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, that he had no intention of delaying valuable developments, or Government assistance for them, while the wider problems were under review. I am sure that your Lordships will be in sympathy with the broad aims of the Bill as I have described them, and will realise that it is in fact an essential measure if important developments of our harbours are to go ahead as we all wish. I hope, therefore, that I can rely on support from all parts of the House in moving its

941
Second Reading. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
8.30 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is new to the Front Bench opposite, and if I may give him one word of advice I suggest that if his wish is for a smooth passage of an urgent Bill, he should not use provocative phrases in his introductory speech. I certainly came here this evening to give this Bill a nod, and to say that we would support it. I was ever intending to go so far as to suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that we on this side of the House would give him full opportunity to speak on what is a most important subject.
I must say that I regard this Bill as an interim Bill. It may well be that a Labour Government might have had to introduce such a Bill, even though, had we been re-elected in June, we intended to proceed with the Ports Bill. That is a Bill which we might not have been able to get, and an interim measure would have been necessary in order that these large sums of money should be made available to this important industry.
I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, will be one of the first to agree that it is on record that during the period of the last Administration very large sums of money were put into the ports—much larger sums than any previous Administration thought necessary. However, one has only to look at the Report of the National Ports Council—I do not know whether the noble Lord has done so—to see that they themselves have indicated serious restructuring being necessary within the ports. There is the question of labour, which is much in our minds to-day with the national docks strike. There are far too many employers of labour. This the Ports Bill would have dealt with. However, as the noble Lord has said, the Ports Bill is not to be proceeded with. He reassures the industry that they need not worry. I think the noble Lord will be the first to agree that until they know the Government's policy they are bound, to a degree, to live in vacuum.
I have read most carefully what the noble Lord's right honourable friend said
942
when introducing this Bill into another place—that there is to be a wide-ranging review. I am bound to say that I am surprised that we could not get any greater indication of what the Government have in mind. I gather that this is a matter that they have been considering for some time, particularly during the period of the passage of the Ports Bill in another place. They damned our Bill, but of course they produce no counter proposals. It seems that there are still no counter proposals available.
I would not expect the noble Lord, in his position, to come forward to-night and to be able to answer the questions regarding the ports that I raised on the humble Address in reply to the gracious Speech. I say to the noble Lord that we shall be expecting a reply in November, because this is one of the most vital industries in this country. Unless the ports are efficient, unless there are proper labour relations (which in my view can only come about, as the National Ports Council have themselves said, when there is one employer within the docks) this particular industry will always be prone to dispute and difficulties. Certainly until there is a co-ordinated and cohesive investment policy, which can only be arrived at by one national authority, we are not going to have the proper ports and harbours that this nation and the industry require.
This evening I am going to forgive the noble Lord. I do not expect a reply tonight. Certainly his right honourable friend could not give a reply in another place. I do not imagine that the noble Lord will be in any different position to-night. But I must make it quite clear that we shall need to know when we resume. We shall ask many penetrating questions. I do not think we shall be the only ones asking those questions—the unions and the industry throughout the country will be seeking answers. For too long we have delayed action after the Rochdale Report of 1962. I am not accusing the noble Lord opposite of complacency. There were one or two moments when it appeared that he thought that all things were all right Later on, he will find out that things are not all right. Thugs have got to be put right. Those things are very difficult. I should not in any way wish to minimise the difficulties, but sound,

943
strong and sensible action within the docks has to be taken.
I am prepared to accept this Bill as an interim measure, but only as an interim measure. We shall come back on this grave problem when we return after the Summer Recess.
8.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in rising to support and wish well this manifestly interim Bill, may I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, on his new eminence? I thought that the mantle of his new dignity sat easily and well upon his shoulders. He has had quite a testing innings to-day, and has shown himself adept and gracious throughout. My reason for wishing to say a word now is that the ports policy is under review (we have all listened to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and we are very well aware of the points that he has in mind) and there are two major aspects to which I would, with the greatest respect, invite the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, to draw the attention of his right honourable friends.
First of all, when we are talking about provision for the changing needs of changing users of the ports we must, I submit, give our minds to this whole question of properly providing for what are called maritime industrial development areas. We are aware that at the changeover of Government it was proposed that a careful cost/benefit study of this idea should be undertaken by Professor Peston of Queen Mary College, Time has gone by without that work being set in hand. The proposal that the study should be undertaken has come after years of delay, for which I believe there should be a proper explanation. What is now of vital importance is that this study should be hastened.
I would ask my noble friend whether he will be good enough to pass on to the Government the suggestion that Professor Peston's study, originally intended to take two and a half years, should be telescoped into a year, or less, by three means: first of all, by allocating to it greater resources, presumably of manpower but to some extent also of money; and secondly, by drawing on the experience in this field of others who have done similar work in the Netherlands—
944
and here, I refer to the work of Professor Klaassen, of the Netherlands Economic Institute—much of which would be helpful to the Peston Study, not least in suggesting a suitable methodology and therefore, in that regard, saving time. Finally, the Peston Study could give its mind to a maritime industrial development area which already exists in this country, on the reclaimed Seal Sands of Tees-side, where port exports have risen from 11 million to 21 million tons in three years coincidentally with this development. Here is an example of what can be done, and by applying the findings of the Peston Study to this actual situation near at hand, much time could be saved.
Then, further to the same general aspect of our policy with regard to these maritime industrial development areas, I would urge the noble Lord to press on the Government the wisdom of making available to the public at large—which really means in this case to the investing public—the essential data assembled by the Halcrow Consultants about the various deep water sites and other data that has been collected more recently by the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
Another aspect of our port policy must surely be the future shape of the National Ports Council, now that the creation of a National Ports Authority has been dropped with the dropping of the Nationalisation Bill. It has been said over and over again from our Benches that the National Ports Council could and should be strengthened. In thinking out the new policy, may I urge the Government to consider two particular ways in which the National Ports Council could be strengthened? It could first of all be allocated an annual budget which it, in turn, would split up among the ports according to the merit of the investment proposals that they themselves brought forward. This could act as an incentive to modernisation; and to give the National Ports Council such powers to provide an incentive would, I believe, be a critical factor in developing their power. Secondly, the National Ports Council could have power to act in a kind of umpire capacity in port labour disputes.
Those are the only two points I wish to make at this stage, but I urge the noble Lord most seriously to bring these points

945
to the attention of those who are going to frame our ports policy in the future. Having said that, and having said also that I would not dream of expecting a reply of any substance tonight, may I wish the noble Lord all success in his new office, and a fair wind to this Bill.
8.43 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, it was not my intention to take part in to-night's debate, but this seems rather a continuation of the one chat we had last week. I want to say to the noble Earl who has just spoken that if in fact the National Ports Council are going to have the right to take action, then they must have the powers to do so. I think he would agree with me that at the present moment they have not these powers—indeed, that was my whole complaint last week. If we are not going to have a National Ports Authority, then the Government have to provide an alternative to it. If it be the National Ports Council, then it is not an alternative unless we have a National Ports Council with powers to act. There is no use 10 be served in simply conferring some name on them, unless we are giving them a job to do.
One of the problems which face this country to-day is that of the ports, as everyone knows. We have some difficulty in the ports at the present time. When I was speaking last week I might have added that the extraordinary thing was that not only had I twice made my maiden speech from this Bench, but that on the first occasion when I had the opportunity of addressing another place, when it was meeting here, the subject was in fact dealing with dock labour—and that is 25 years ago. I made the suggestion then that if the ports of this country were to be organised properly, those who were engaged in them, the workers, ought to have a more constructive part to play inside dock management itself. So if we are going to deal with ports in this way, we must face up to some substantial changes if we are going to get them to work.
We have paid tribute in this country to docks and harbours that have been organised overseas. We talk of Euro-port and others, but in this country we have tremendous deep water facilities that are not available to any other country in Europe. In Scotland we have tremendous deep water facilities that we
946
have not yet exploited for the benefit of the economic situation of our country. Therefore, if I intervene in this debate for a few minutes it is to say to the noble Lord who is to reply that if we are to have ports which are going to compete with our competitors on the Continent of Europe, then we must have greater—not Government interference, but at least Government direction and credit, because there is no use in thinking that we can have a ports policy unless we have a centralised authority which is directing it.
The one point that disturbs me a little is the Government's proposal which says that every port will have the right to do as it likes. Now everybody cannot do as he likes. What we must do is to plan the ports of our country for the benefit of our country, and, as I said last week, that will not always bring a great deal of pleasure to people in certain areas. Your Lordships know that if we are to make any impression on ports in this country, and if they are to make an economic contribution to the country itself, then we must have a centralised organisation. We must have a perfectly planned direction as to what ports are to do, and we simply cannot allow everyone to be competing and doing as they like in this respect.
While this Bill may be a small one, I would point out to the noble Lord who is to reply that I support my noble friend who said at the beginning that while we may allow this particular measure to go forward to-night, when we come back we shall certainly expect an alternative policy from the Government, who have turned down a National Ports Authority. We shall expect them to give to this House their proposals as an alternative to the proposals we made. I am not arguing for a moment that everything we suggested was right, but, whatever might have been wrong about it, at the very least we are entitled to have from the Government of the day an alternative to the proposals that we made.
8.47 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate on this matter, albeit short. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his welcome to the Bill and apologise to him if he thought my remarks were provocative. They were

947
not intended to be particularly provocative; they were merely, perhaps, the background feeling of some of our Party.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if they were not provocative they were certainly trailing the noble Lord's coat, and that is very unwise if he wishes the speedy passage of a Bill.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, perhaps on this occasion I was trading on the noble Lord's well-known kindness. The smooth continuation of what the ports and harbours have been doing is basically the purpose of this Bill. We want to continue that; we do not want to see any disruption. I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would agree that we are not trying to throw anything into the deep end; we merely want to continue. I also pay full tribute to what has been done in the last four or five years. It was a very good effort indeed, and I hope he will agree that we are continuing that effort and that what we are proposing will be at least as useful in this respect. When this programme of thought (calculating, cool, collected, as we know it is going to be) is over I am hoping that we shall be able to answer, clearly, concisely and to everybody's satisfaction, all the many penetrating questions which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is going to put to us.
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, both referred to the deep ocean shipping ports and MIDAS.Professor Peston has not yet started his studies on the MIDAS conception, including the cost/benefit analysis, because negotiations have been going on with Queen Mary College. But I am happy to tell your Lordships that those negotiations are now well advanced. However, when a man of such eminence is appointed it would be unwise to dictate how he should do his work. He will know full well of the great experience of Professor Klaassen, and if he wants to use that experience I am sure he will do so. The development at Tees-side and Seal Sands will obviously be another plan of which Professor Peston must take note, and I am sure he will also take note of any relevant experience which may have a bearing on his eventual decision about the MIDAS development.
948
The noble Earl also asked about the publication of the report by Sir William Halcrow and Partners. I do not think either the last Government had, or this Government have, any intention of publishing that report in detail. It would seem premature to publish details about particular sites, the names of which are of course known to all of us, as they have been published, until the viability of the MIDAS concept has been established.
I come to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, raised about more powers for the National Ports Council. Obviously, these ideas are possibilities, and they are very interesting, but I think my right honourable friend the Minister said in another place that he would not wish to anticipate the outcome of the wider review which is being made of the needs of the ports industry. Therefore any major changes in the functions of existing Boards will not be looked at until after the Government have examined all the problems comprehensively. I think I have said enough, and I again commend this Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
8.53 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House Her Majesty's Declaration that a state of Emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act 1920. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to move the first Motion in my name I should perhaps remind your Lordships that last Thursday, with your Lordships' permission, I repeated two Statements which had been made in another place. The first announced the setting up of a Court of Inquiry into the national docks strike and the second related to the gracious Message proclaiming an emergency and the making of Emergency Regulations. There are, as your Lordships know, two Motions in my name before the House this evening and I think it would be in accordance with your normal practice

949
and, indeed, your wishes, as a matter of convenience for us all, to discuss them together. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that the second Motion regarding the Regulations should be taken formally later this evening.
I think it may be helpful if I say briefly what ground I propose to cover in these remarks. I should like, first, to say something about the State of Emergency and the Regulations which have been made. Then I should like to say something about the Court of Inquiry, its terms of reference and the probable timing of its report—the matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me when we were discussing this grave matter last week. Finally, I wish to say something about the measures which the Government are taking to deal with the present situation. I deliberately do not propose to say anything at all about the merits or the rights or the wrongs of the dispute itself, and I suspect that your Lordships will probably agree with me that it would be inappropriate, and indeed positively unhelpful, for us to discuss those very issues which the Court of Inquiry has been set up to consider.
As I reminded your Lordships, the Proclamation was made on Thursday, July 16, and on the same day the Emergency Regulations 1970 were made, which came into operation on July 18. If I may, I should like to repeat what Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act provides. I quote the words:
"If at any time it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial part of it, of the essentials of life Her Majesty may by Proclamation declare a State of Emergency exists."
I am confident that most of your Lordships would agree that, in the circumstances which prevailed last week, the Government really had no alternative but to advise Her Majesty that the time had come for a Proclamation to be made. But I should like to emphasise that the action which the Government took then, and are continuing to take, is essentially precautionary in its nature. The Government have no intention of using the various powers which they have taken unless the pressing needs of the situation
950
compel them to do so. Even then, such use will be made only of those powers which are directly relevant to that situation, and those powers themselves will be used to the minimum necessary to ensure the essentials of life for the community.
Under Section 1 of the 1920 Act the Proclamation of Emergency continues for a period of one month; that is to say, unless the duration of the Emergency is extended by a further Proclamation it will end on August 16. Similarly, if your Lordships approve these Regulations tonight they will remain in operation for the same period; as long, indeed, as the Proclamation of Emergency continues. It is of course our earnest hope—and I am sure it is one which is shared by every Member of your Lordships' House—that the State of Emergency should be ended as soon as possible. If your Lordships wish this assurance I gladly give it: that should the circumstances which gave rise to the Proclamation no longer exist, the Government would advise Her Majesty to revoke the Proclamation of Emergency, and when that is done the Emergency Regulations would automatically lapse.
The only power which at present has been exercised is that in Regulation 1(4), to appoint port emergency committees to exercise day-to-day control of operations at the major ports. These committees are continuing to assess the daily situation in their ports and to keep the appropriate Minister informed. The main concern of the Government at this stage has been to ensure the supply of essential foodstuffs, including particularly perishable items. I am sure your Lordships will wish to join with me in welcoming the degree of co-operation given by officials and members of the unions—which has been very real—towards helping with the maintenance of essential supplies to our offshore islands, and handling perishable cargoes in ships and dockside warehouses in this country.
It is the Government's declared policy—and I again emphasise this—to seek the co-operation of the unions in moving perishable goods and in maintaining those essential supplies to the offshore islands—excluding the Isle of Wight, which, fortunately (I say this having been an inhabitant of the particular island) has yet to detach itself from the mainland. My Lords, that is the Government's

951
declared policy: to seek the co-operation of the unions. Should this not prove possible, and only should it not prove possible, then the Government will have to consider taking further action.
My Lords, although I shall of course be happy to deal with any specific points which your Lordships may wish to raise on the Regulations, I do not think your Lordships will wish me to trouble you with going through them one by one, and it may be sufficient for me to say that they are substantially the same as those introduced by the previous Administration during the seamen's strike four years ago. They have, however, been modified in some respects, and I think it might be useful if I just explained where the modifications have been made.
The first three Regulations are perhaps the most relevant to the present situation. Regulation I contains a new provision under which ships can be directed to leave port to avoid congestion. The movement of tugs, other harbour craft and floating apparatus can also be directed—and this, I must say, strikes me as sensible. Regulation 2 is also new, and enables any ship or equipment in a port to be moved if the persons directed to take such action under Regulation I fail to do so. It also enables the cost of the operation to be recovered from those who fail to comply with the original direction.
The next nine Regulations relate to the relaxation of certain restrictions on road transport Of those, Regulation 12 is new, and enables Regulations concerning the conveyance by road of petroleum spirit and other dangerous substances to be relaxed. Of Regulations 13 to 26, which cover public services and similar facilities, Regulation 19 has been extended to cover normal feeding stuffs; Regulation 22 is new, and enables directions to be given to public service vehicle operators analogous to those given under Regulation 21; and Regulation 24 has been extended to cover passengers as well as cargo, and to include all United Kingdom registered ships. The remaining Regulations repeat the 1966 provisions for the maintenance of law and order and for the enforcement of the Regulations themselves. In this connection, perhaps I should make it clear
952
to your Lordships that, as provided in Section 2 of the Act of 1920 and in the proviso—an important proviso—to Regulation 34, it is not (I repeat, not) an offence for persons to take part in a strike or peacefully to persuade any other person to take part in it.
It may now be helpful to your Lordships if I read the terms of reference of the Court of Inquiry. They are:
"To inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute between the parties represented on the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry arising from the claim of the workpeoples' side for an increase in the national basic minimum time rate, and their rejection of the employers' offer, having regard to all the relevant factors, including the present pay structure, and negotiations for its reform, and to report".
The members of the Court of Inquiry, as your Lordships are doubtless aware, are Lord Pearson, who was chairman of the Court of Inquiry which investigated the seamen's dispute; Mr. Grint, who was until 1969 the independent chairman of the National Dock Labour Board; Mr. Will Paynter, a member of the Commission on Industrial Relations and previously General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers; and Mr. Fielding, past President of the Engineering Employers' Federation.
As to the timing of the Report, the Court of Inquiry met yesterday for the first time and started formal hearings this morning. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, is of course fully seized of the importance, as indeed we all are, and the urgency which surrounds this Inquiry. Your Lordships will probably not expect me to-day to make any firm forecast—indeed, it would be impossible for me to do so—as to when the Court of Inquiry's Report will be published, but on past precedent it would not, I think, be unreasonable to expect a Report some time early next week. If that should prove possible-—and I think it is likely to prove possible—then I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by an Interim Report.
My Lords, I do not wish to be drawn into hypothetical questions as to the Government's attitude to the Report when it reaches them. We shall of course hope that the Court's recommendations will prove acceptable to both sides in the dispute, and that it can perhaps form

953
the basis of an early resumption of normal working. In any event, the Government will continue, as they have throughout this dispute, to use their best endeavours to obtain a satisfactory settlement which will enable this emergency, which is costing this country so dear and which will cost it dearer still, to be brought to a speedy end—and by that, of course, I mean that as and when the Report is received the good offices of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will naturally be available if, in the circumstances of the time, a useful purpose will thereby be served.
Finally your Lordships may wish me to say something about the question of rising prices, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also asked me last week. Regulation 19, as your Lordships will see, gives the Minister the necessary powers to make an order fixing maximum prices for foodstuffs and also for animal feeding stuffs. At this stage the Government trust that it will not be necessary to utilise these powers in order to prevent excessive rises in the prices of imported foods, but we are watching the situation closely and should it later prove necessary the Government would not hesitate to take that action. We do not pretend (and it would be idle of me so to pretend) that the enforcement of any such orders would be an easy matter in present day conditions, but I hope that your Lordships will agree that it would probably be contrary to the public interest—I feel it to be contrary to the public interest—to announce at this stage precisely how our enforcement measures would operate. But I would again emphasise that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is keeping very closely in touch indeed, personally closely in touch, with the supply and prices situation. I should like to emphasise that at this moment there are no grounds for alarm. We look with confidence to the good sense of the housewives and to the good sense and sense of fair play of the wholesale and retail traders to ensure that no unavoidable hardship is felt by the consumer. I beg to move.
Moved That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House Her
954
Majesty's Declaration that a state of Emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act 1920.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
9.8 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the manner in which he has spoken to the first Motion. I agree that we should take these two Motions together. I would also agree with the noble Earl that we should not say anything tonight about the basic cause of the dispute between the two sides in the docks industry. On Thursday I gave a welcome to the announcement by the noble Earl of the appointment of the Court of Inquiry. We on this side of the House congratulate the Government on the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, as Chairman and of his colleagues on the Court of Inquiry. I am quite certain that the noble and learned Lord meets the requirement I made on Thursday, that the Chairman should clearly have the confidence of both sides of the industry, and I am very glad to see that the parties to this dispute have welcomed not only the appointment of a Court of Inquiry but have welcomed, in particular, the Chairman and the Commission. On Thursday I indicated our support of the Government decision of a State of Emergency. I think that it would have been premature if it were not for the fact that Parliament was going into Recess this coming Thursday. But since Parliament is going into Recess, clearly the Government must have the necessary powers to deal with a difficult and potentially dangerous position.
I have only a few words to say on the Regulations themselves, but before doing so, may I say something about the handling of the Report when it is received, as I hope it will be received, early next week. Until now the Minister, Mr. Carr, has adopted a posture of impartiality, has been willing to talk and use his good offices to the two sides; he has not wished to become deeply involved in the negotiations. As a consequence of the State of Emergency and the setting up of the Court of Inquiry, the Government are now at the centre of the dispute. The Report of course will come out; and it will be a Report to Her Majesty's Government. We have on the one side the workers with their determination—and we know the dockers' determination—to remain on strike until a settlement

955
has been achieved. On the other side, we have the employers who have said that they are not prepared to negotiate until the men go back to work. Therefore, when the Report is issued clearly an initiative will have to be taken by someone to bring the two sides to the table. There is no doubt at all—and one sees this in many disputes—that sooner or later someone has to bring the parties to the table and to take up a less independent position than has previously been the case in this particular dispute. Therefore, I would ask the noble Earl whether he could give some indication of what the Minister has in mind on how this Report should be received and what steps the Minister has in mind to take in bringing the two sides together. I hope that the employers and the workpeople will adopt a flexible position when this Report becomes available and that both sides, whatever their feelings, will be willing to come to the table; and I hope that the coming to the table will be made easier for them by the initiative of the Minister.
My Lords, so far as the Regulations are concerned, one aspect to be considered is the use of troops. I recognise that in certain circumstances the Government would be fully justified in the use of troops in the docks. I would hope, since this strike so far has been conducted without rancour or bitterness, that troops will not be used unless that course of action is absolutely forced upon the Government. I welcome the statement of the noble Earl and the credit he has given to the trade union officials and workpeople for the views they have adopted and the work they have done in dealing with certain cargoes for the outlying islands. I hope that there will be no question of troops being brought into the docks until all possible avenues have been explored with the unions, and particularly with the local officials at the docks concerned.
I now come to an issue which I think important, not only in terms of the nation and the shopper in particular but also in terms of the use of troops. Last Thursday, in a matter of two days since the commencement of the strike, I drew the attention of the House to already steeply rising food prices, particularly in the wholesale markets. The noble Earl
956
may have read the article in to-day's Financial Times reporting particularly more steeply rising prices in Birmingham and other provincial markets as opposed to London. All the information—and the Government have confirmed it—is that there are ample supplies of food in this country for at least two months. All those who know are aware that there is no justification whatsoever for these steeply rising prices in the wholesale markets. What we must remember to-day is that these prices have not yet been felt in the retail shops. They have yet to be felt, and if these prices are rising now and there is no control, what could be the situation later this week and early next week?
My Lords, it is no good the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food advising housewives to shop around a bit. True, they may have more retailers to go to, but those retailers are dependent on a narrow band of wholesalers. Those of us who watched the television last night may have seen the debate about oranges between a wholesaler, I think in Manchester, and a supplier in London, and will recall that, according to the Manchester wholesaler, large quantities of oranges which were supposed to have been disposed of had apparently disappeared. Presumably, someone is waiting to make a "killing". All this is boun to have a serious effect on the retailer who will have to bear the burden of the complaints of housewives. But the point is that in the end the housewives have not a great deal of opportunity to shop around to-day because the retailers are dependent on this narrow band of wholesalers.
I am not suggesting that at the moment the movement of prices would justify price control, but I hope that what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said is not going to represent a complacent view of the situation. We heard from the noble Lords opposite during the Election of the consequencies of market forces. My Lords, I have been a businessman, and I know one of the consequencies of market forces: if you can create a shortage you make a "killing"; and it seems to me, from one or two things that I have read and heard, that there are people who are deliberately creating a shortage in order to make a "killing". I am not suggesting to the

957
noble Earl at this moment that price controls should be brought into being; but I will say to the Government that they will be answerable to Parliament, when we resume, if, through failure to impose some control, they allow prices to go sky high, and large profits to be made by a few middlemen.
My Lords, I come back to the question of troops. If troops are brought into the docks to move perishable goods—and many of the things I have been talking about are perishable goods—and if "killings" can be made by wholesalers and retailers, then I can only say to noble Lords opposite that there will be great difficulties within the docks. The dockers will not be quiescent at the use of troops; nor will other trade union members in the country. We shall watch with the greatest possible care and interest the way in which the Government handle what is admittedly a very difficult situation.
I hope that it will not be necessary for Parliament to be recalled to keep these Orders in being. I hope that a settlement will be reached next week, when the Report of the Inquiry is available. I am convinced that the Report will be helpful, but in the end, of course, success will depend on the Government's bringing the two sides together and, in the meantime, maintaining an atmosphere between them which makes negotiations possible.
9.21 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I find this an extraordinary occasion. We are discussing a Message to Her Majesty to thank her for communicating to this House the declaration of a State of Emergency I look round the House in this state of emergency and see that there are fewer than twenty Members present. I find this very significant. I find it an indication that the declaration of a State of Emergency does not reflect either the situation or the psychology of the public. I recognise at once that if this dock strike continues a serious situation will arise, but I am going to argue to the House that the declaration of a State of Emergency last week helped to create the crisis, rather than reflected it.
958
There are two immediate points which should be in our minds. The first is the control of prices, which has been emphasised by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. A control of prices could have been imposed by regulations, distinct from this vast area of a State of Emergency which Her Majesty's Government have proclaimed. The second thing is the proposal for a Court of Inquiry, of which I am entirely in favour. There was no necessity for a declaration of emergency in order that this Inquiry might be held. Noble Lords on both sides of the House have urged this evening that we should refrain from discussing the issues under dispute, but those who take the view of the minority in another place, who last night voted against the declaration of a State of Emergency, cannot, if we are going to argue that Her Majesty's Government should take another course, refrain from looking at the causes of the present situation.
Whenever a strike occurs, largely because of reports which have appeared in the Press and on television there is a wide view that the workers are responsible for the situation. I am arguing to-night that Her Majesty's Government, instead of declaring a State of Emergency, should have looked at certain causes of this dispute and used their influence to prevent those causes from arising. When I look at those causes I come to this view: that if we are to take an objective and long view of this dispute, the main responsibility rests with the employers who are involved.
First, there is the fact that these negotiations have been proceeding for eighteen months. I do not think anybody can look at the discussions which have been taking place during the last eighteen months without coming to the conclusion that the employers have stalled these negotiations; and a suspicion must inevitably arise that that policy has been deliberately pursued, because the employers knew that legislation was before Parliament which would transfer the ownership of the docks from the private employers to a public corporation, and they hoped in that situation, by stalling the negotiations, to place the responsibility of meeting the costs on a public corporation rather than on private employers.

959
I am not thinking of that long-term process which has led to this dispute. I am thinking of two immediate issues. Can any Member of this House remember the occasion of a strike of an official character of this extent when the employers have refused to consider the main complaint which the trade union movement was putting forward? Their demand has been for a basic wage. The employers have refused entirely even to discuss that proposal which has been made by the trade unions. Secondly, there is this extraordinary situation. We have an official strike, which may, I admit, have grave consequences on our economy, and yet the employers say that unless this official strike, with all its effects on exports and imports, on the cost of living and everything else, is called off they will not even discuss the issues with the trade unions.
In view of those three facts, I am submitting to the Government that before declaring a State of Emergency they should have brought pressure and influence to bear upon the employers' organisations to change their attitude, both about the refusal of a discussion of the basic wage and, secondly, the almost unprecedented refusal even to enter into negotiations during the period of an official strike. Because I take that view very strongly indeed, I dissent from the Government's action in declaring a State of Emergency in a situation where an emergency need not have arisen if Her Majesty's Government had sought to influence the employers to change the two extraordinary decisions which they took in this case.
I should like to sound a most serious warning against any action of Government which would use the troops in this situation. I want to recognise at once that the noble Marquess in his speech indicated that—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I might correct the noble Lord. He is promoting me.
LORD BROCKWAY: Well, my Lords, I apologise. I would not regard it as a promotion. The noble Lord—is that correct?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: The noble Earl.
LORD BROCKWAY: I recognise that the noble Earl said in his speech that before the Government would use troops they would enter into discussions with the trade unions. I want to express very grave warning that if Her Majesty's Government turns to the employment of troops, the effect will be to extend on an immense scale the present dispute in the docks. One has not only the warnings which have been given by trade union leaders—and anyone who is in touch with the organised workers knows how deeply they feel on this issue. The Minister for Agriculture is very worried about it. He goes to Smithfield Market and he goes to Covent Garden, and hears the expressions of opinion of ordinary workers if troops are used.
I want to say this to Her Majesty's Government—and on this I think there will be a response. In the first place, they should have the frankest, fullest and most friendly discussions with the trade unions involved in this dispute, for they will find them moderate. If Her Majesty's Government had brought the kind of influence which I have suggested, this dispute would never have occurred. There was that small vote with, I believe, a majority of three. A dispute would never have happened if the Government had exerted their influence upon the employers in the two respects which I have mentioned. The leadership would be prepared to respond; I know that the leadership do not want to cause hunger in this country. I am begging Her Majesty's Government, before they resort to any kind of extreme measures, to have this consultation with the leaders of the trade unions in order that perishable goods which are necessary for our people to be fed will be moved without the use of Her Majesty's Forces.
9.34 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, however late the hour, I do not feel anxious to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, into the fascinating labyrinth of the polemics and hypothetical theories that lie behind the strike. I should like to welcome most warmly what my noble friend the Leader of the House has said in regard to his reassurances in relationship to food. In the interests of price stability of foodstuffs, I should like to ask one question only: Will Her Majesty's Government give some

961
assurance that daily publication will be made of current prices, provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, using the usual channels of publication of the B.B.C.?
9.35 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not apologise for intervening once more because for 25 years, as I have already said, I represented the docks. If I claim one other thing it is that for very nearly six years I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I was interested to hear the noble Earl who introduced this Motion speaking about enforcement of price stability and control of prices. I think I quote him correctly when I say that the noble Earl said, "enforcement is not easy." I think those were his exact words—"enforcement is not easy." I found a great distinction between that and what the noble Earl and his friends were saying right up until polling day. They thought that price control could be enforced with comparative ease; but apparently that is not their opinion to-day.
I agree with the noble Earl that one of the things that any Government in this country must do to-day is to ensure that food is distributed equitably and fairly, and at reasonable prices. It is all very well for the noble Earl to pay tribute to certain dockers for supplying what I think he called off-shore areas—indeed, he cited one in which he lived himself. As a Scot, I think of the islands in the North. It is terribly important that, whatever happens in an industrial dispute, supplies to these people should be met. On this I agree with him entirely. However, if their needs are to be met, a natural corollary is that not only the people in the islands and the off-shore areas which he described but people on the mainland must have prices they can afford to pay. If it is necessary to control the workers in the dock areas, surely it is equally important to control those who are exploiting the situation for private profit.
As one who was associated with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over that long period, I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the efficiency., the skill and the devotion of every single person in that Department. But surely, on the other hand, they are expected to carry out the Government's
962
policy; and if the Government are in earnest about this particular problem they must show firmness in dealing with those who exploit shortages—a firmness at least equal to that which they are prepared to show in dealing with the workers.
It is not altogether good enough for the Minister of Agriculture, for whom I have a great friendship—I have been associated with him for a long number of years in another place—to tell the housewives of this country that if prices have gone up they must "shop around"; nor to suggest that they may buy peaches instead of oranges and apples. After all, while peaches may be very pleasant to eat—and I would agree with him in that respect—what we are thinking about in this connection is the price of meat. All that the Minister of Agriculture could find out, if he found out anything at all—and this is undeniable—was that the price of meat had gone up, and gone up fairly substantially. The workers in Smithfield were able to tell him that it was going up from 6d. to 1s. per lb. I hesitate to think what noble Lords opposite would have said if it had been the former Government that had put prices up by that extent.
The noble Earl must accept responsibility for this problem, and whereas enforcement may not be easy, if in fact he is going to prove that he is being fair, or that the Government are being fair, as between the workers and the consumers and those who have food to sell then he must show the country that he is being equitable in using the same force with regard to each section affected by this dispute. The noble Earl has said that the Government of the day have power under (I think he said) Regulation 19. If the noble Earl has power under that Regulation I think we are entitled tonight to ask him whether the Government will in fact use powers to control these prices. Indeed, they ought to be looking at the matter very carefully now, if they are going to act fairly to the consumers of this country.
It is easy to blame either side in this dispute. For myself, I should hesitate to go into what has caused the dispute. We all have our opinions on this, but undoubtedly it is with us to-day and we cannot ignore it. In the circumstances, what we all have to do is to act as fairly as we possibly can, and if we are going

963
to do this then the greatest responsibility rests upon the Government, and for this reason. The noble Earl has said that it will be early next week, at the very earliest, before the Report of this Inquiry is available. But early next week the Houses of Parliament will not be sitting. The Government will not be responsible either to another place or to your Lordships' House, and it is for this reason that this important matter rests clearly on their shoulders.
Perhaps I may respectfully suggest to the noble Earl that if in fact he and the Government want to act fairly, and even to appear to act fairly, then there is responsibility on their shoulders to prove to the housewives of this country that just as they might take action to ensure supplies reaching these shores they will be no less efficient in taking action to see that those who have supplies in their hands do not exploit the position for private profit at the expense of the housewives of this country.
9.44 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his remarks and I should like to take this, the first opportunity I have had, of saying with what pleasure I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. To-day has been the first occasion on which I have been able to listen to him. I should also like to add, with reference to Lord Brockway's words, that although I cannot say that I went along with him in most of what he said, and although he must get rather bored of hearing this, I respect the sincerity lying behind what he said. For the reason that I gave in my opening remarks, I am not tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brock-way, down the path that he might like to lead me, although I suspect that he does not expect me to go down it. I do not believe that at this stage it would be helpful if I were to be drawn into a discussion on the merits of this dispute. I felt that last week, and I feel it even more so now, given the fact that a Court of Inquiry has been appointed and this matter is, as it were, sub judice. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, spoke about the causes of this dispute—and I am certain that here I shall carry him with me—and I think we all know that when there is trouble in the docks the basic
964
cause goes very deep indeed. In these circumstances I believe that it would be wrong for me to be tempted at this moment into any substantive comments on the rights and wrongs of this sad dispute.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and indeed other noble Lords for the welcome they have given to the establishment of the Court of Inquiry. I believe, with the noble Lords, that the Court is composed of people of very high standing indeed; of proved impartiality, and also of exceptional qualifications for this peculiarly difficult task with which they have been entrusted. As to the handling of its Report, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd asked me, all I can say is that I cannot possibly at this stage, nor could any of us, foresee the circumstances, a week or so from now, when that Report may be available. Therefore I am not in a position to forecast the action which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity or other Ministers will feel they are emboldened to take when the Report is received. I would echo what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said: that it is incumbent upon both sides to show a suitable flexibility and accommodation when that Report is available.
I would only here again repeat the tenor of what I said in my opening remarks, that the Government in general, and the Minister in particular, will most certainly use their best endeavours as and when the Report is received with a view to finding, or helping to find, a satisfactory settlement So far as other powers and the use of powers are concerned, I feel that it would be right again for me to be very guarded in following the remarks which have been made about the use of troops. But once again I would—and this is becoming perhaps rather a refrain—re-emphasise what I said in my opening remarks, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to seek the co-operation of the trade unions and trade union officials in securing the essential supplies to the outlying islands of the United Kingdom and the movement of perishable goods. It is only if that co-operation is not forthcoming—and we all hope and pray that

965
it will be—only in those circumstances will the Government contemplate taking further action. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, although I do not follow him in a lot of what he said, that further action could entail very grave repercussions. I think we are all at one in that.
As regards prices, I will not be tempted into fighting the last General Election over again with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, on price rises. He is asking me, more or less rhetorically, whether the Government are in earnest on this front, and I will say categorically that we are. It is essential to have the powers, and I can confirm that the powers would be conferred by Regulation 19. I can again confirm that the Government will not hesitate to use those powers to deal with any situation where there was a real threat of exploitation such as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was talking about, and indeed to protect the majority of public-spirited traders from perhaps a less scrupulous minority.
I think we should all recognise that orders made under Regulation 19 could not in the very nature of things be as comprehensive and as universally enforced as, for example, would have been the case for a food control scheme designed for permanent use in war time—the sort of control to which we became accustomed in war time, and indeed in the post-war years. But the Government are confident that they would be widely effective in holding down prices, and what is most important from the point of view of example, that the more flagrant cases could be dealt with. All I can say is that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture—I was glad to hear the tribute paid to him by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy—is in earnest here, and is watching the situation closely. We as a Government recognise our responsibilities, and we will not shirk those responsibilities should the occasion arise. I hope that the situation will not arise. Indeed, I hope that other situations will not arise. But if the price situation does arise, then all I can do is to repeat what I have just said, that the responsibilities which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, rightly said, fall upon the Government in this field in this sort of situation, will not be shirked.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
9.50 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move the last Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Emergency Regulations 1970, laid before the House on Thursday last, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of section 2(4) of the Emergency Powers Act 1920.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

READING CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners
GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SALOP COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
TOR BAY HARBOUR BILL
WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
First Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.