Lords Sitting of 23 July 1970

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
VISCOUNT COBHAM: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament."

GLAMORGAN AND MONMOUTHSHIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
LORD OGMORE: 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 what proposals they intend to make for the reform of local government in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not intend to make proposals for local government reorganisation in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire until they have reviewed very carefully the proposals of the previous Administration.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will be very careful about following the proposals in the White Paper (Cmnd. 4310) issued by the previous Administration? May I also ask whether he is aware that the overwhelming opinion in Wales
1062
is against the proposals by the late Government in that White Paper?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords. We are well aware of the strong opposition to the previous proposals and we shall take great care to see that they are carefully reviewed.
LORD HEYCOCK: My Lords, I am rather disappointed with the Answer which has been given. Will the noble Lord tell me what effect the Constitutional Commission is going to have on the future reorganisation of local government in Wales?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are well aware of the interconnection between the Crowther Commission and local government reorganisation. However, I would point out to the noble Lord that the terms of reference of the Commission are directed primarily at the present functions of the central Legislature and the Government.
LORD HEYCOCK: My Lords, may I ask how long it is estimated it will take the Government to deliberate on the future reorganisation, because, from the point of view of Glamorgan, there is great anxiety in the minds of members?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Lord will realise that I understand the anxieties, and we shall come to a conclusion as quickly as we can. But the noble Lord will also be the first to recognise that there have been so many reconsiderations of this particular problem that it is important that we should now arrive at a final solution.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, when Her Majesty's Government have arrived at the final conclusion, will they apply it to the whole of England and Wales, if not to Scotland, instead of applying different systems to different parts of the country?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that goes rather wide of the original Question, but I am sure that the noble Lord's views will be taken into account.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord not to take them into account? When the late Government took them into account they got into such a mess in Cmnd. 4310.

VEHICLE REGISTRATION BOOKS AND LICENCES
2.36 p.m.
LORD GISBOROUGH: 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 will review the decision to discontinue the date-stamping of vehicle registration books on the issue or renewal of licences.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we are not aware of any circumstances which necessitate a review of the decision. The stamping of dates in registration books was discontinued because it served no particularly useful purpose and in certain circumstances was misleading. It therefore added unnecessarily to the work-load of already hard-pressed local taxation offices. The new centralised licensing system now being planned will make possible the issue of a reminder of the expiry of a licence shortly before the due date; this is impracticable now.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords. I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but will he not agree that an enormous amount of time is wasted in going round all the vehicles to see whether they are licensed, especially in the case of farm vehicles or a fleet of vehicles? Will he not also agree that it is quite possible even for individuals to let their licences run over, as was shown in the recent case of the magistrate who, having fined a miscreant£10 for having no licence, was promptly reported by that very miscreant for not having a licence on his own car?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the licence itself bears the expiry date in half-inch characters, and if that is displayed on the windscreen as is required by law it should act as its own reminder. When the centralised system comes into operation, then, as I have said, a reminder about the expiry will go from the central office. As to the owner of a fleet of cars, presumably such an owner can keep his own record in a simple diary for that purpose, which should suffice.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that, whatever the advantages that may accrue to the transport authorities, it is extremely inconvenient to individual people who own log books not to know whether or not their vehicles are taxed? Will the noble Lord be good enough to look at this matter again, because it is extremely inconvenient?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the answer I gave to the previous question is really sufficient. The owner of a car has the expiry date in half-inch characters on the licence, and if he is dealing with more cars a simple diary should meet the point.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will the noble Lord congratulate the previous Government on effecting this substantial saving in Civil Service manpower which he is now defending?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE ANDFERRARD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there has been any rise in the price of Guinness lately? Apparently, according to the Daily Telegraph a few days ago a motorist was convicted for displaying on his windscreen a Guinness stout label, which is the same shape and colour as the current licence. May I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that it would be disastrous if this custom became prevalent?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not think I need add anything more.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is inappropriate to have this advertisement for quasi-alcoholic beverages?
LORD GRAY: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether since the introduction of the current procedure there has been any significant increase in the number of persons re-registering their vehicles late?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if I heard the noble Lord's question aright, he asked whether there has been any substantial increase in

1065
the number of vehicles licensed. Since the Government introduced this scheme, about 3 million more licences have been issued each year.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, can my noble friend explain how, as the licensing authorities require: the log book to be sent to them when a vehicle is reregistered, it can be any saving for them not to have to stamp it?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, a registration book is sent for action on it only on a change of ownership. It is not the same when only an annual licence is required.

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOLS
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I, with permission, say a few words about the Question standing on the Order Paper in my name?—namely,
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the strong opinions held by those concerned with education on Government intentions regarding primary schools, they will reconsider their declared policy on comprehensive schools.
I had intended that this should be an Unstarred Question, and I had prepared a very powerful speech in support of it. It now appears on the Paper as a Starred Question, and therefore I should like to withdraw it and put it down again for October 29. That will give the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I think it is, ample time to consider his reply.

STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION: SOVIET/AMERICAN TALKS
2.42 p.m.
LORD KENNET: 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, to their knowledge, the Soviet/American talks in Vienna on Strategic Arms Limitation are covering the possible reduction of the hundreds of medium-range Soviet nuclear missiles which can reach Western Europe but not the United States.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in Vienna are a bilateral negotiation between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States Government are also consulting closely with their NATO allies about the progress of these talks. But the negotiations are being carried on in the strictest confidence, and I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that we should respect this. Indeed, I think that the privacy in which the talks have been conducted and the absence of propaganda are particularly encouraging features of these important negotiations.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, while I appreciate the force of what the noble Marquess has said, may I ask him whether he can tell the House what plans the Government have to seek an increase in our national security comparable to that which the Americans and the Russians are mutually seeking in theirs at Vienna?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, while appreciating the noble Lord's sincerity in this matter, in which we all share, I think, if I may say so with respect, that the defences of this country are a different matter from the Question which he has down on the Order Paper, which concerns the bilateral talks between the Russians and the Americans. If it is a question of the defences of this country, if the noble Lord cares to put down a Question he will receive a prompt Answer from my noble friend the Minister of Defence.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that there is no defence against the hundreds of Soviet nuclear missiles which are the subject of my Question?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that he has made a most extraordinary statement in suggesting that the negotiations going on between the Soviet Union and the United States concerning strategic arms limitation are not connected with the security

1067
of this country? They are closely con nected with it, and the fact that nuclear weapons from Russia—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!Speech!
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that these missiles which are targeted on Europe from Western Russia are very closely connected with the security and the survival of this country; and will he give me an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will make these considerations plain to both parties in these negotiations?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, of course I can give that assurance. I did not for one minute mean to suggest that I did not think that the SALT negotiations were of no interest to Her Majesty's Government, or indeed to any other European country.

PRICES AND INCOMES BOARD
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely,
" To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement about the future of the National Board of Prices and Incomes?"
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Aberdare will answer this Question in the form of a Statement at some suitable moment after 3.30.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half-past-three my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement on the Ministerial meeting between the United Kingdom and the European Communities. This will be followed by a Statement by my noble friend the Leader of the House on the dock dispute. In the event of the House completing business early, it may be necessary to ask your Lordships to adjourn during pleasure in order that one or other of these Statements may be made.
PORT OF TYNE BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

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

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
2.46 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be now considered. I must first apologise to the House for the fact that the Notice for the consideration of this Report was not put down on the Order Paper for this afternoon, but as Recommendations 4 and 5 of the Report ought to be agreed to by your Lordships before the Recess if hardship to those concerned is not to be avoided, I venture to suggest that the Report be considered, notwithstanding the lack of notice.
There is nothing in the Report, I think, to which your Lordships' attention need be specially directed, apart from Recommendation 2, which proposes that the experimental period for a variation in the form of Prayers should be prolonged from the end of July until next Easter. Copies of the Report are, of course, available in the Printed Paper Office and on the Table in the usual way. I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
(a) Administration. The administration Committee was appointed as follows:

E. Listowel (Chairman)

M. Salisbury

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Amulree

L. Beswick

L. Champion

L. Denham

1069

L. Henley

L. Strang

B. Swanborough

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(b) Library. The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows:

L. Amulree

L. Carrington

L. Champion

L. Chorley

L. Reid

B. Wootton of Abinger

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint its own Chairman.
(c) Refreshment Department. The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows:

E. St. Aldwyn

V. Goschen

L. Amulree

L. Beswick

B. Brooke of Ystradfellte

L. Champion

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Nugent of Guildford

L. Sainsbury

L. Strang

B. Swanborough

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint its own Chairman.
(d)House of Lords Estimates. The Sub-Committee on the Estimates was appointed as follows:

E. Listowel (Chairman)

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Amulree

L. Beswick

with the Cleric of the Parliaments.
2. PRAYERS
The Committee further considered the proposal for a variation in the form of prayers which they authorised in March for an experimental period until the end of July.
They recommend that the experimental period be prolonged until next Easter.
3. HOUSE OF Lords' Fees on Peerage Claims
The Committee considered the fees payable on Peerage Claims and recommended that they should be revised as follows:

£.

s.

d.

Petition of Claimant

5

0

0

For each of the first 3 days on which the Committee for Prvileges meets

10

0

0

For each subsequent day

15

0

0

Order for Attendance of a Witness

5

0

0

Report from Committee

15

0

0

Resolution and Judgment

4. ATTENDANTS AND HOUSEMAIDS

(a) The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of a review of the grade of House of Lords' Attendants. The Committee authorised the rates of pay consequent upon the revised grading of the Attendants with effect from 1st April, 1970.

(b) The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishment Circulars:—

(a) D.E.O. (70) (PAY) No. 9—Messenger and Paperkeeper Classes

(b) D.E.O. (70) (PAY) No. 10—and Women Cleaners

to Attendants and Housemaids on the staff of the House of Lords.
5. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following awards under the Superannuation Act 1965:

(a)Revised Gratuities to Mrs. L. M. Wildego and Mrs. A. K. Vollar, retired Housemaids.

(b) Gratuity to Mrs. Ada Mary Smith, Housemaid, who retired on the 13th June, 1970.

THE EARL of LISTOWEL: My Lords. I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
THE EARL of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Merthyr, the Lord Ailwyn, the Lord Airedale, the Lord Douglas of Barloch, the Lord Strang, the Lord Grenfell, the Baroness Wootton of Abinger, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Champion, the Lord St. Helens, the Lord Royle, the Baroness Emmet of Amberley, the Lord Stonham, the Earl of Shannon, the Lord Henley, the Lord Ferrier and the Lord Grimston of Westbury be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINES MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bessborough, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law as to the management and control of mines by making provision with respect to the appointment of persons to assist the manager of a mine in the discharge of his statutory responsibilities, and with respect to under-managers, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
2.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in the present Session a Committee of twelve Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee to consider the following classes of Bills:—

1. All Consolidation Bills whether public or private;

2. Statute Law Revision Bills;

3. Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, together with any memoranda laid pursuant to that Act and any representations made with respect thereto;

4. Bills to consolidate any enactments with amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions, together with any report containing such recommendations;

5. Bills prepared by one or both of the Law Commissions to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal in accordance with the Law Commission recommendations, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and by making other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments together with any
1072
Law Commission report on any such Bill;

That the Lords following be named of the Committee:

V. Colville of Culross

V. Brentford

L. Rathcreedan

L. Diplock

L. Guest

L. Cawley

L. Meston

L. Ilford

L. Segal

L. Wells-Pestell

L. Lloyd of Hampstead

L. Janner

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, in rising and shortly saying "Content", I would point out to your Lordships' House that I think this is the first business of the day to which anybody has said either "Content" or "Not-Content". That has not been the custom in the past. It is not, I think, the business of the Opposition to say "Content" when Motions are brought forward. I have always thought, from the point of view of members of the public who may be present, that it is very extraordinary, when a Motion is put to the House, that nobody says "Content" and nobody says "Not-Content", and that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack then says, "The Contents have it". I should have thought, with the greatest respect, that the practice of the previous Government of somebody saying something should be followed.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I have said "Content" each time, and so has my noble friend beside me here.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I take it that what we have just done in relation to the First Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices was actually in order. Not only was there no Notice on the Order Paper, but I do not think that anybody on these Benches was even informed that it was coming up. It seemed to be a very odd thing. I cannot believe that most noble Lords, except

1073
possibly the members of the Offices Committee, had the slightest idea of what they were doing. I should like an assurance from the noble Earl the Leader of the House—and he may just conceivably wish to consider this a bit further. If my understanding is correct, Notice has to be given in some way. Perhaps notice, technically, has been given; but there was no note on the Order Paper. I appreciate that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, explained what was going on; but it was a rather startling thing. At that moment I was trying to get the Paper to look at it—by which time all the procedure had been gone through.
I hope that this is not going to become, normal practice. Quite frankly, if we are going to do something as irregular as this seems to be, I should have thought that it would have been as well if the House had been consulted about it. If the Motion to approve the Report had then been moved a little later, there would have been an opportunity for noble Lords to familiarise themselves with it. I do not wish to harass the Leader of the House—one gets caught in this sort of spot—but I should like to know that it is in order for the House to consider and approve of something without any Notice of it having appeared on the Order Paper.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we have done nothing out of order. What was done, although it was very much to the inconvenience of the House, was in accordance with Standing Orders. I had almost as little Notice as did the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on this; but it was in accordance with Standing Orders. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees did apologise for the inconvenience caused to all of us as a result of a mistake. But although that was in order, I think that we are now getting out of order in back-tracking on something we have already discussed, although to the inconvenience of the House. But I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he has sought.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask what other forms of business it is not out of order to move and pass in this House without any Notice appearing on the Order Paper? This particular item may be completely innocuous; but
1074
visions arise in one's mind of all sorts of other possibilities.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would again support the noble Lord. I would submit that we are now in the not unusual situation of discussing a business problem which has arisen and, although it has arisen in rather an embarrassing form, this is not a general debate. I am merely asking again to be assured that what was done was in order. All I can say is that I think it was a great surprise to most noble Lords. I think that the last thing one wants to do is to criticise the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in this matter; but it appears that there was no advance warning to the Leader of the House and to the other side and to noble Lords generally. I know that we cannot go back on it now; but I think that perhaps at a later stage in the day we could have some further explanation as to how it is in order and, particularly, an answer to the noble Lord's question.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees said that the reason for asking the House to approve the Report to-day was that it was for the convenience of certain noble Lords that two recommendations in the Report should come into operation before the House went into Recess. It would be helpful—for I was as surprised as other noble Lords by this move—if we could have some explanation as to why this departure from normal practice in the House had to take place.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think we are really getting out of order in pursuing a matter which has already gone through. But I should like to respond straight away to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and say that the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees would be glad to makes a further statement on this at a mutually convenient time later in the Business to-day. We could then deal with the points fairly raised by the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Alport.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with respect to the noble Earl, I would submit that we are not out of order. There is certainly no Question before the House on this matter. When procedure comes up for discussion—and this constantly happens—it is right for the

1075
House to look to the protection of their rights in the matter. This has happened time and time again, and the only way we can operate in this House when we get into difficulties is to discuss the sort of hole we find ourselves in. I would draw the attention of both noble Earls to Standing Order No. 31, and when they come to make their further statement perhaps they will explain to us why, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 31, no Private Notice was given. There is provision in this Order for Private Notice of business, but this was not given; although it surely would have been possible for it to be given. I will press the matter no further than to point out that I am sure that the House must be prepared to look at the situation which has arisen and that it is in order to do so.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I am afraid that I must revert to the fact that we are out of order in discussing this because the Report has been agreed to. But of course I shall be glad to look into this whole matter. The Chairman of Committees and I will be glad to respond to the invitation to go into it later.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if as the noble Earl the Leader of the House says we are out of order in discussing it at this moment, shall be not be equally out of order in discussing it in an hour's time?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may revert to the Question which I put, I should like to assure the noble and learned Lord who spoke from the Front Bench of the Opposition that, being very acute of hearing, I distinctly heard the loud shout of, "Content" which came from my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to desire them to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Consolidation Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is another Consolidation Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I understand that with agreement through the usual channels this Bill is to be dealt with formally. I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

FIJI INDEPENDENCE BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (OLD PERSONS' AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS AND ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE) BILL
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion in my name on the Order Paper; namely, that pursuant to Standing Order No. 42(2), the Order of Commitment be discharged, I should like to remind the House that this is the first occasion on which this procedure has been used. It has, of course, been designed to facilitate our proceedings when what is likely to be a formal Committee stage takes place. I shall now use the formula recommended by the Procedure Committee on these occasions.
My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down for this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects I beg to move that che Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as this is the first time that this kind of procedure has been adopted, and in view of the very courteous way in which my noble friend has moved the Motion, may I ask him this question? If somebody—which I do not—wanted to discuss anything in the Bill without having given previous notice, would the Government then not proceed with the Motion? For the benefit of the House as a whole I just want to know where we stand in the application of this new procedure.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. If any noble Lord indicates that he wishes to speak on the Committee stage I would proceed to move that the House do resolve itself into a Committee in the normal way.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I remark that, as I understand it, it is necessary for only one noble Lord to object and then automatically the noble Lord would move that the House resolve
1078
itself into a Committee. The new procedure was designed to stop the Lord Chancellor carrying out unnecessary journeys, but it is fully protected.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it is intended that this accelerated procedure shall be further accelerated so that this Bill receives the Royal Assent during the course of today's proceedings; or whether it is intended that the House will be required to sit tomorrow as well?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is intended to pass the Bill through all its stages to-day.
LORD SHACKLETON: And get the Royal Assent?
LORD ABERDARE: And get the Royal Assent.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

EDUCATION (HANDICAPPED CHILDREN) BILL
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 42(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged. I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill, and no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

HARBOURS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill to amend the Copyright Act 1956. Two years ago I introduced another Bill from another place to amend the Copyright Act 1956 and it later became the Design Copyright Act 1968. I told your Lordships then that the Bill would make a profound impact on the law of copyright and indeed that has proved to be the case. This Bill is an equally short Bill, but I cannot pretend that it is going to make a profound impact on the law of copyright. It is a useful but not a far-reaching Bill. It concerns the Performing Right Tribunal.
Many years ago composers and dramatists felt that it was very difficult to collect royalties on performances of their works, so they banded themselves together into what are referred to in the Copyright Act as licensing bodies. Of these bodies the chief ones are the Performing Right Society and Phonographic Performance Limited. They collect royalties on the part of the copyright owners. Their activities have proved very beneficial to the organisers of concerts and dramatic performances because normally these people now have to deal only with one licensing body and do not have to write to a dozen or so copyright owners in order to have the right to perform these works. Substantially all dramatists and composers belong to one of these bodies.
I should tell your Lordships that there was a striking exception to this. George Bernard Shaw did not belong to any body because he was under the delusion that in normal years, on a very high rate of income, the income tax and surtax paid was more than 20s. in the pound; so he was naturally not very anxious that the Performing Right Society should make him money which he imagined would detract from his total income. But he was an exception, and as I have said practically every dramatist and composer belongs to one of these licensing bodies.
1080
In 1956 Parliament realised that this was a form of monopoly, so it set up the Performing Right Tribunal which had two main functions. The first was that these licensing bodies could submit to the Performing Right Tribunal schemes for the collection of tax in respect of individual types of user. Such types of user would be, for example, cinemas, public houses, theatres and so on. Secondly, the Performing Right Tribunal could entertain applications by individual persons who had been refused licences or had been offered unreasonable terms. And, of course, if one is asked to give an example of an individual who does not fall within the scheme, I think a good one would be the Manx radio station. Apart from the British Broadcasting Corporation, that is the only one legal sound broadcasting station in this country. That would be an example of an independent person asking for a licence.
Since the circumstances in the copyright field are liable to alter radically, Parliament enacted in Section 26 of the 1956 Act that after 15 months or, in the case of a licence which had been granted for less than 15 months, after three months, there can be an application for variation in the terms of a scheme. But no provision at all was made for the variation of orders made on the applications of individual applicants. This seems to be somewhat illogical, in respect of both copyright owners and those who may have taken out licences. It is to achieve the end that all applications and references to the Performing Right Tribunal shall be subject to this provision as to variation that I have brought this Bill before the House to-day.
The Bill is fully supported by the Performing Right Society and by Phonographic Performance Ltd., on behalf of copyright owners, and is also supported by the Music Users' Council, a protection society who look after the interests of the users of copyrights. I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Cawley.)
3.12 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cawley has gone through the history behind this Bill and the Bill itself so admirably and clearly that there is no need for me to say very

1081
much more. I should just like to explain the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the Bill, which is the rather strange one that occurs so often at this Box—one of benevolent neutrality, no doubt because Her Majesty's Government are always benevolent, but neutral on this occasion because, although we have no great exception to this Bill, we do not really feel that its provisions are necessary.
Although there is no right of coming back to the Tribunal in the cases mentioned by my noble friend, the Tribunal is able to lay down any conditions it thinks proper to ensure that future changes in the cost of living are reflected in the payments the licensee makes. It is also able, if it thinks fit, to make it a specific condition of a licence that either party may ask for a review after a given period. I should at once make it clear that when the Tribunal makes the pronouncement that either party can come back to it, if it does not make the proviso at the time the licence is granted there is no machinery for the Tribunal to allow them to do so. As I say, we do not think that this power will ever be used. On the other hand, it may well set the minds of the various parties at rest and make them feel that the procedure is fairer to both parties. If my noble friend has convinced your Lordships that there is a case for the Bill, Her Majesty's Government will not seek to dissuade your Lordships from giving it a Second Reading.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Denham for his qualified support and to commend the Bill again to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, as the Statements are not ready yet, because they have not yet been started in another place, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 3.35 p.m.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn until 3.35 p.m.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

THE LATE MR IAIN MACLEOD: ABBEY SERVICE
3.35 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am afraid it is not yet possible to make these Statements. Perhaps I might take this opportunity of informing your Lordships that a Service of Thanksgiving for the life and work of the Right Honourable Iain Macleod will be held in Westminster Abbey on Thursday next, July 30, at 12.15 p.m. No tickets are being issued, but seats will be reserved in the South Transept entrance, by Poets' Corner, for Members of the House of Lords and their Ladies wishing to attend.
I am afraid we are faced with the problem of adjourning during pleasure once again until we can get the Statements.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder if I may suggest to the noble Earl that we might make a more realistic assessment of the situation. I suggest that we should adjourn until four o'clock rather than come back again in a few minutes and find that the Statements are still not ready.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I shall be happy to fall in with the noble Lord's suggestion. I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until four o'clock.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

PRICES AND INCOMES BOARD
4.0 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in reply to the Private Notice Question of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I should like, with the leave of the House, to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity.
"The future of the Board is being reviewed in the context of a wider examination covering the work of the Monopolies Commission and other relevant bodies. In the meantime, the Board has been asked to continue its work on the references which have already been made to it. We do not

1083
propose to retain the existing detailed "early warning" system for pay and price increases. It is, however, important that the Government should keep themselves informed about prospective movements in the price of major products and about important pay settlements and we shall be discussing with industry what voluntary arrangements should be made for this purpose. The Government do not intend to make use of the powers (which expire at the end of this year) to impose a three-month standstill on pay and price increases pending inquiry by the National Board for Prices and Incomes."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. We shall want to consider it with some care. May I ask first whether the practice has been discontinued of allowing prior sight of these Statements by the Opposition Benches? It is customary to see Statements before they are made. Not seeing this Statement puts us at some disadvantage.
Having made that point, may I put this question to the noble Lord? Does he not think that here is another area of our economic affairs where Her Majesty's Government are creating unnecessary uncertainty? Is he aware that we on this side are pleased that they have made no hasty decision here? We feel that there is a part to be played by the Prices and Incomes Board, possibly in a new setting, as we had intended in our plans. Would not the noble Lord agree with me that he is creating uncertainty for the staff concerned? Has there been any discussion at all with the people employed there, who have rendered very good service, who have not known what their future is to be? And can the noble Lord give us an assurance that the staff are satisfied with the present decision? Further may I ask whether the noble Lord can now give an assurance that the Statement made during the General Election no longer holds good; namely, that only references referring to public undertakings would be considered, and that increases in prices by private bodies will also be carefully studied and if necessary referred to the Prices and Incomes Board?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we, too, not having had a sight of the Statement, will want to give it very detailed consideration. On the face of it, am I right in assuming that it is the intention to destroy the machinery of the Prices and Incomes Board? And will the noble Lord say what sort of alternative the Government have in mind to prevent all-round price increases? Is not the Statement to-day an invitation to people to put up prices as quickly as possible?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I apologise straightaway to both noble Lords for the fact that they did not have copies of the Statement. I very much regret it. It was no deliberate action on my part. I am afraid that something must have slipped up in the machinery. In answer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, this Statement has been in order to prevent as much uncertainty as possible. We want to make the right decisions, and I think the noble Lord will appreciate that we do not wish to rush into hasty decisions. We must be given time to review the whole of this policy, and this is what the Statement is about.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked me about prices. Where there is competition, we believe that this is the most effective means of safeguarding the consumer. Where competition is lacking, we shall certainly need machinery to make it effective and, where it cannot be made effective, to safeguard the consumer. This is being looked at in the review that is taking place. So far as Lord Byers's question is concerned, may I say that I hope he will welcome this. It is not intended to interfere with industry's decision-making processes on either pay or prices, but we think it important for the Government to know what is going on in important instances, and this is the object of having information about major price and pay increases.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord said about the breakdown in machinery. These things occur and it has not been unknown for them to occur in the past, but it does put us in difficulty. The noble Lord has not answered my question about the staff. What sort of discussions have there been with the staff? Are they satisfied with the present degree of uncertainty? In par-

1085
ticular, will the noble Lord say what is the position of the chairman of the Board? Is the Board to continue without a chairman or is the present chairman to continue in office?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in order to put the position correctly so far as the staff are concerned, we shall be making a final statement as soon as we have made up our minds on what is the outcome of the review. I cannot go further at the moment. So far as the chairman is concerned, as the noble Lord knows, the terms of office of all the members of the Board expire on October 31 next, and where necessary they will be renewed, or fresh appointments made as necessary, so that the Board can continue its work until the permanent long-term arrangements are worked out.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can explain a little more fully his remark that the Government will keep themselves informed about price increases? Will the Government be able to keep themselves informed about the rumoured rise in the postal rates to 6d. and 7d?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords, we shall keep ourselves informed on all major intended price rises, and this is the intention of the discussions with industry.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is intended to-day to repeat the Statement about the increase in postal charges made in another place about a quarter of an hour ago?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it was not intended to repeat it here. Through the usual channels, it was decided that we should be having enough Statements here without having that one.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, how is this House to be kept informed if the other place gets a Statement not repeated here?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, there is no reason why it should not be. It can perfectly well be repeated here if the noble Lord would like it, but he will have to give me a few minutes to enable the text to be available.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, who makes these decisions?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, they are made through the usual channels.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is perfectly true that the Opposition were consulted on this matter, and we suggested that so far as we were concerned, in view of the number of Questions, we would not ask for this Statement to be made. But I did say clearly at that time—I do not know whether the message got through the usual channels; things are always done in rather a rush on a Thursday; we know the difficulties—that my view is that it is for the Government in their responsibility to decide whether they ought to make a Statement irrespective of whether it is asked for, because we can only express our opinion from the official Opposition.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has expressed a desire to have this Statement made in this House and before we rise I will arrange for that to be done.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether I can return to the Statement we are discussing? The noble Lord says that the terms of office of the present members of the Board expire on October 31. This is true. There is not a lot of time in this sort of matter for the members of the Board to decide about their own future. When is a statement to be made to them in regard to the continuance, or otherwise, of their appointments and that of the Board?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will make a statement to them just as soon as he can. May I remind the noble Lord that there are still 18 references to the Board, and that these will continue to be considered by them?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it a fact that this Board cannot proceed unless there is a chairman? Therefore, it seems to me that if the references are to continue a chairman would need to be appointed.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I would wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, if these references are to continue, what sanction is there to be on the findings of the Prices and Incomes Board?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that is a matter for my right honourable friend to consider when the reports are made.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, from the Statement it would appear that there is going to be a free-for-all in both prices and incomes, with no kind of protective control machinery at all.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, as I said, it is not intended to interfere with industry's decision-making processes on either pay or prices except where there is no competition; and then, as I said, the review is taking this into account in making plans for the future.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the forces of supply and demand will be the sole controlling factor. This will mean that we shall again get back completely to the jungle.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, to listen to noble Lords opposite, anybody would think that they had produced a highly successful prices and incomes policy.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if in fact industry is to carry on effectively, the service industries must get a fair share of the national product. If there is no prices and incomes policy, how can one guarantee that the service industries will in fact get a fair "crack of the whip"?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this will all be taken into account in the review that my right honourable friend is making.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, how can you review anything if there is no control?

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
4.14 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we are still awaiting news from another place as to whether the further Statements which are due to be repeated in your Lordships' House—now three in number—have been made in another place. If it would be to the convenience of the House we might now fill in time (and, hopefully, the Statements may be ready for us in a minute or two) in dealing with the slight procedural tangle which we got into
1088
earlier in the business to-day. I then undertook, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to make a further statement on the position in which, rather unexpectedly, we found ourselves, arising from the slightly unheralded appearance before us of the First Report from the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.
In that procedural tangle I think that three points arose, apart from the substantive point (on which the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, will be quite happy to expand if any Member of your Lordships' House so desires) as to why, in substance, it was thought desirable to seek approval of this Report this afternoon. My own feeling on that, however, is that he has explained this, and that perhaps we might let the matter of substance lie. But I will say a word on the three procedural points in which we got somewhat ensnared.
The first was whether it was in order for the Lord Chairman, without notice to move, That the Report from the Offices Committee be considered. I think there is a balance here. On the one hand, there is of course Standing Order No. 31, which says quite explicitly,
"Where it is intended to raise a discussion on a question, notice of the question should be given in the Order Paper.
Undoubtedly, in the spirit of that Standing Order, notice should have been given of the consideration of the Report. I think this is perfectly clear. As I understood it, however (I do not know this explicitly, but it was certainly my understanding), the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees thought it essential that certain items in the Report should be dealt with before the Recess, and he was therefore asking the House, exceptionally, to consider the Report notwithstanding that no notice had been given. That was my understanding of the position, and it was also my understanding that he explained this in rising to move the Report.
I should like, however, to make clear my personal expression of regret on this matter. It was a matter of particular regret to me that neither I nor the Chief Whip had prior knowledge—or, at any rate, had only a minute or two of prior knowledge—that this was coming. It is also a matter of concern to me that neither the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton,

1089
nor the noble Lord, Lord Byers, had any prior notice. Thus we were faced with this rather exceptional position.
My Lords, the second point, I think, that I was asked about was whether other matters might be raised without notice. My noble friend Lord Inglewood (who has apologised that he has not been able to remain, because he is otherwise engaged, attending a wedding in the neighbourhood) and my noble friend Lord Alport asked about this. There are, of course, a number of matters which can be raised without notice, although most of them are perfectly harmless and in the custom of the House. But they include, of course (though I do not claim that this is an exhaustive list), Messages from the Crown, questions of privilege, occasionally Messages from another place, the presentation of new Bills, Ministerial Statements and personal statements. Obituary tributes and similar matters are also taken without notice, as may be statements and questions on business.
That brings me to the third point which arose in our discussion; namely, whether it was in order to broach this subject during the consideration of the Motion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the appointment of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I have now looked into this position more carefully, and I have been advised (and if I got it wrong earlier I apologise to the House) that it is of course true that in both Houses points of Order may be raised in interruption of business. Had the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition prefaced his objection with the words, "On a point of Order", or something like that, I should have thought this would have made the matter clear beyond any doubt: but I did not hear him do so. I am not making anything of that particular point, although I think it would clearly be for the general convenience of your Lordships' House if noble Lords wishing to raise points of Order did so on the business to which they related. But this item of business, the Report of the Offices Committee went through very fast and, as I say, I am not leaning on that particular argument at all. I think that this is rather a fine point, and if I erred I ask your Lordships' indulgence. My Lords, that is the position as I understand it.
4.20 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl stands most elegantly in his sackcloth and ashes and, quite frankly, I am prepared entirely to exonerate him in this matter. I do not want to prolong this discussion, but perhaps it may occupy time until we receive the other Statements. I think that there is an important point here. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for whom we all have such high respect, undoubtedly asked the House whether it was prepared to consider this Report, and the Question was put. But due to circumstances which were beyond our control—certainly the noble Earl's control and mine—no warning of this Motion was given. While I was listening to the noble Earl it began to dawn on me what we were doing. I grabbed for the bit of paper (which the Clerks were kind enough to pass to me) but by the time I was ready to ask "What are we doing?" it had all been done.
The purpose of Standing Order No. 31, of course, is precisely to prevent this sort of thing happening. Technically, this had appeared; an Order had been made, I understand, two days ago. But Standing Order No. 31 does say:
"If a statement be made or a question asked which does not appear on the Order Paper"—
I do not want to get too deep, but I would submit that "the Order Paper" must mean the Order Paper in front of the House at the time—
"but of which private notice has been given, such statement or question should not be made the occasion for immediate debate unless the House so order."
There are a number of very pregnant phrases there which could be interpreted in different ways. It is always difficult for us to attempt in this House to interpret precisely what the Order means. My first suggestion is that this is a matter which the Procedure Committee might well look at. There is no doubt whatsoever that there was no intention to "pull a fast one". The noble Earl did tell us that there were in the Offices Committee's Report certain matters relating to pay and superannuation, but I do not know whether the House also appreciated (because it was not on the Order Paper), that there was a decision to prolong the experiment on new forms of Prayers. There was also an item proposing a quite sizeable increase in Peerage claim fees—which of course does not worry any of

1091
us, and certainly does not worry Life Peers; and it may be that there will be disputed Peerages in the future which could be rather expensive. This is not, I would submit, a matter which should just "whistle through" without the House even knowing that it is in front of it.
However, my Lords, these things do happen, and I sympathise with both noble Earls in this matter because the usual channels are usually very efficient. Despite the slight slipping up over the Statements, which has happened before now in our time, this is the first occasion I have known when neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the Leader of the House was aware of what was about to happen.
Perhaps I may make one small point on this question as to whether it was in order for me to raise it at that particular moment. It was a moment of some confusion in the House: it will be recalled that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner was speaking (I do not know whether he is here now, but I am not absolutely sure I agree with him about the collecting of voices), and I did not quite know when to get it in. But I am bound to say that in your Lord-ships' House we do not use the expression "point of Order", and I think I used the formula (I am getting fairly confused) that I would ask the guidance of the Leader of the House, which is the usual formula in your Lordships' House. I think, therefore, that I behaved quite correctly in this matter.
My Lords, there is here a point of real importance. Noble Lords might have wanted to raise a point, for instance, on the increased fees for Peerage claims, and they would have had no notice and no opportunity to do so. It would have been possible merely to move only those parts of the Report dealing with such items as the appointment of subcommittees, which would not in any way have been contentious. Or noble Lords might have wished to discuss the new Prayers, and it might have been useful to have had the opinion of your Lordships. I would suggest, unless other noble Lords wish to discuss the matter again—in which case an opportunity could be provided—that this is a matter which, in accordance with our way of doing things, the Procedure Committee
1092
might consider at leisure so that we do not get into difficulties in the future.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I just endorse what the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition has said about the question of "point of Order". I would plead that we should not introduce the "point of Order" system as it will change adversely the character of the debates in this House.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I was strongly pressed by various Members of your Lordships' House to raise the question, at the last meeting of the Offices Committee, whether this House should join B.U.P.A. as a group. I went there and made that proposal which, I was assured, would be received with enthusiastic acclaim. On the contrary, I was brushed off completely, and I retired, having apologised, with my tail between my legs. I should rather like to know whether the Lord Chairman reported that to your Lordships' House, and whether it has been given any consideration at all?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I will, of course do my best to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bootnby. He has asked a question about a matter of fact, whether or not the Procedure Committee decided to report on the matter of B.U.P.A. As I understood it, the Procedure Committee did not decide to report on the matter of B.U.P.A. and therefore there was no reference to this matter in the Report of the Procedure Committee.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Offices Committee.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I apologise; I should, of course, have said the "Offices Committee".
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, on a gallant attempt to keep us going. However, I think we are all running out of steam. I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said, and say that I entirely agree. It seems to me that this is a point which might very well be looked at by the Procedure Committee when we come back. On reflection, I should also like to say that I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said. So long as we make

1093
it clear that we are raising a business point, and can avoid the horrid expression "on a point of Order", I think that we should be well advised to do so.

ROYAL ASSENT
4.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Appropriation (No. 2) Act,

International Monetary Fund Act,

Fiji Independence Act,

National Insurance (Old persons' and widows' pensions and attendance allowance) Act,

Education (Handicapped Children) Act,

Harbours (Amendment) Act,

Aberdeen Extension Order Confirmation Act,

Forth Ports Authority Order Confirmation Act,

Mallaig Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

Bank of Scotland Order Confirmation Act,

Fife County Council Order Confirmation Act,

Midlothian County Council Order Confirmation Act,

West Lothian County Council Order Confirmation Act,

Lake of Menteith Fisheries Order Confirmation Act,

Barclays Bank Trust Company Act,

Brighton Corporation Act,

North Riding County Council Act,

Blackburn Corporation Act,

Kent County Council Act,

Williams & Glyn's Bank Act,

Cumberland County Council Act,

Gloucestershire County Council Act,

Salop County Council Act,

West Sussex County Council Act,

Staffordshire County Council Act,

Northumberland County Council Act,

Manchester Corporation Act,

1094

Whitehaven Harbour Act,

Tor Bay Harbour Act,

West Hertfordshire Main Drainage Act,

Greater London Council (Money) Act.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know if I may have the indulgence of the House, but may I say that I am likely to be sitting judicially in the Appellate Committee next week; therefore, should I not appear on the Woolsack during pan: of the day, I hope your Lordships will not take offence.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, do I understand from the noble and learned Lord that he is giving us notice that the House will be silting next week? I hope that we shall see the noble and learned Lord, as we like his merry face, and we hope that he will not spend all his time in the Appellate Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was told that I did wrong when I did not apologise for disappearing once before, so now I am wearing my elegant garment of sackcloth and ashes, which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition complimented my noble friend on wearing. I hope that I am not wearing it amiss.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I regret to say that we are still not in a position to make the other Statements. As regards the Post Office Statement, the noble Lord who will be making the Statement must, I am afraid, be given a chance to find out a little bit about it, so I suggest that we adjourn now until 5 o'clock.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

POSTAL CHARGES: PROPOSED INCREASES
5.0 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, a Question was put down for Written Answer in another place, and my right honourable friend gave an oral Answer to this Question. The Question was:
"To ask the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make

1095
a Statement before the Summer Recess about his consideration of the postal charges."
My right honourable friend said this, and I will quote his own words:
"Yes. After consulting me the Post Office are referring proposals to the Post Office Users' National Council for increased letter, parcel and other miscellaneous postal tariffs. Their main proposal is that the present 4d. rate for second-class mail should become 6d. next January and the 5d. rate for first-class mail 7d.; and that these new rates should become 2½p. and 3p. respectively on Decimal Day, in accordance with the officially recommended conversion table.
"These services have, for more than two years, been incurring mounting losses and the Post Office have accordingly taken the view since the beginning of this year that increased charges of this order were necessary. Indeed they decided in May to embark upon the printing of decimal stamps at the new rates in order to ensure supplies in time for Decimal Day. I am assured, however, that this does not preclude consideration of alternatives in the light of suggestions from the Users' Council, and until their comments are available the Government remain uncommitted to the Post Office's proposals."
My Lords, that is my right honourable friend's Statement.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that Statement. Arising out of it, I wonder whether he can say whether to his knowledge these rather startling increases are to be the forerunners of other increases in charges for Post Office uses. Secondly, what surplus, if any, is expected to result from them?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Answer to us. These are savage increases. Is the noble Lord not aware that they make nonsense of the Manifesto and claim on which the Conservatives fought the Election, that they were going to keep prices in the public sector down? May I also ask him whether these are operating losses or whether the losses are
1096
due to increased capital investment? Can he also say something about the nature of the loss, as there is no indication as to how big it is?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me two questions. He asked, first, whether these increases would be the forerunners of other increases. No, my Lords, it is calculated that if these increases are approved by my right honourable friend—and I stress the word "if"—they should last until the end of the five-year period envisaged. He asked what surplus, if any, would there be after these increases. My Lords, I am afraid that I have not that figure to hand at the moment, but I will try to get it for the noble Lord as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, said that these proposed increases by the Post Office made nonsense of the Prime Minister's statement that he was going to keep prices in the public sector down. My Lords, again I would stress the fact that these are increases proposed by the Post Office; and again I would stress the fact that Her Majesty's Government are still reserving their position. But this is very much a legacy from the previous Administration—I do not mean that in a critical sense. When the Post Office Corporation was set up by the Post Office Act, the Post Office itself took over a very big burden of losses. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Byers, slightly more details of the losses that were incurred. For the last three years, including the year we are now in, the cumulative losses have been these: for the year 1968–69,£6 million; for 1969–70 (these figures are not published yet)£34 million; and the estimated loss to the end 1970–71 is£90 million. Those are cumulative figures.
I can now give an answer to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. Although these increases, if they are accepted, will be sufficient to cover financial obligations, there is not expected to be a surplus over and above at the end of the five-year period.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, whether these losses are on operating account or is there a capital account element in them? If there is a capital account element is there not some other way of raising the finance?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I came into this matter at rather short notice, but I do not think that there is a capital element in these figures. A large part has been wage increases, and the full effect of the recent wage claims has not yet been felt. But with no further wage increases, I think the effect on the deficit over the five-year period of past wage increases is calculated to be something like£200 million.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask whether this relates exclusively to letters, or is it over the whole of the activities of the Post Office?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I understand that this is for letters and other postal charges.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, these are losses over the whole range, and not necessarily over letters. May we have an indication of what the losses are in respect of letters alone?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the posts alone lost£1 million in 1968–69, and a loss of over£15 million is expected to be shown in the accounts for 1969–70 when they are available.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask whether the Statement, taking it as a whole, means, in effect, that Her Majesty's Government will make their own investigation, in conjunction with the Post Office, into whether there are alternative and as satisfactory methods of saving the money, rather than putting up the postal rates?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend will keep a very close eye on the methods. The Post Office Corporation is an independent body, so he cannot instruct the Post Office what to do, but he will obviously bear in mind to what extent he thinks these charges are justified. He will also look very closely into the advice given by the Post Office Users' National Council. He will also take into account everything that is said in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, though it does not quite answer the question I asked. I apologise if I did not make myself clear. I do not want to press the noble Lord too much on this
1098
matter, because he has not had long notice. But to his knowledge, are there going to be increases in other fields, like telephones, cables and telegrams
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I can answer that simply. To my knowledge, No. But my knowledge is not very wide.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, bearing in mind what my noble friend has emphasised, that the Government are uncommitted, it seems to me that over the last few years, as postal charges have been increased several times so have the losses gone up. Does that not seem to indicate that the more the charges are put up, the fewer letters people write? Is not the same thing going to happen again. As the Government are uncommitted, would they please look at that angle?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, my noble friend's suggestion will certainly be one of the many looked into and considered. I am sorry to give this rather delayed action answer, but I can now say that it is not intended to increase telephone charges.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has done very well, if I may say so, and we take our responsibility with the Government Front Bench for not asking for this Statement earlier. I should like to ask him one question. There is a pretty high discount rate, which the Government and the Treasury are responsible for fixing. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would give consideration to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. All the nationalised industries are making heavy payments quite properly—I think the rate is 8 per cent. So therefore there is a certain amount of capital account involved.
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said, and I shall certainly ask my right honourable friend to consider it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would invite his right honourable friend to draw the attention of the Post Office Users' National Council and of the Post Office itself to the likely serious effect, if these proposed charges go through, on

1099
the incomes of a substantial number of charities who depend in large measure on their sales of Christmas cards? If it is decided that the rates have to go up, will he also consider giving a special low rate for Christmas cards posted, say, between December 14 and 21, provided the envelopes are not stuck down but have the flaps tucked in, as they used to be? I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that in 1967, when there was a 3d. rate, according to the figures supplied by the Post Office itself, the number of letters posted during the Christmas period was 1,047 million. In 1968, when the postal rates had gone up to 4d. and 5d., the number fell to 944 million. By 1969 there had been no substantial recovery in postings. It looks as though a penny increase results in something like a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of letters posted. I would ask the noble Lord to request his right honourable friend to give very serious consideration to that aspect.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I do not think it would be proper for my right honourable friend to make any suggestion to the Post Office Users' National Council, but I can assure the noble Lord that I will draw what he has said to the attention of my right honourable friend, and I am certain that the Post Office Corporation will study his remarks very carefully indeed.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that these colossal losses are not the result of three weeks of Tory misrule?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, that is my feeling.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether this is an example of the new style government we were promised, and would he convey to his right honourable friend that we find it most unimpressive?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, this is an example of the sort of problem that the new style Government have found they have to cope with.

THE COMMON MARKET: NEGOTIATIONS ON BRITISH ENTRY
5.17 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster started to make in another place—and I hope that I may be able to finish it safely. The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like as promised to make a brief report on the meeting at Ministerial level between the United Kingdom and the European Communities which was held in Brussels on the 21st of July.
"At the invitation of the Communities, I went through the list of questions which we wished to see covered in the negotiations, but my immediate objective at this meeting was to have put in hand by the Conference certain fact-finding work which, I believed, in the interests of both the Communities and ourselves, should form the basis for much of the negotiations for our entry into the Communities.
"I therefore put forward specific proposals for fact-finding work in the following fields:

(1) agriculture and agricultural finance;

(2) dairy products including New Zealand's vital interests in this sector;

(3) Commonwealth sugar;

(4) the Common External Tariff;

(5) the complex task of agreeing authoritative translations of Community legislation, and certain related matters;

(6) the European Coal and Steel Community; and

(7) Euratom.

"By the end of the meeting it was agreed that work should be put in hand on all these subjects with the single exception of Euratom. On most of these subjects we shall be in close and continuing touch with the Commission, which has been entrusted with

1101
the task, on the Community side, of conducting with us many of these factfinding exercises. I hope that we shall then be able to establish certain objectively agreed factual data on which the negotiation of solutions can be based.
"Bearing in mind the proposals which I had put forward and the decisions which were taken, the outcome of the meeting was very satisfactory, and I should like to pay tribute to the helpful and constructive way in which the Conference was guided by Herr Scheel, the Federal German Foreign Minister, who, as President of the Council of Ministers of the Six, acted as their spokesman."
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating that Statement. Perhaps I may say that in this particular case the usual channels worked in their usual well-oiled way and we were granted the usual courtesy of an advance sight of this Statement. I should like to ask one or two questions, if I may. The first is one purely for clarification. The Statement mentions that the action of the Chancellor of the Duchy was "at the invitation of the Communities", which is a slightly confusing phrase to me. The Communities, of course, are the European Economic Community, Euratom and the Iron and Steel Community. I presume that what is meant is the Council of Ministers of the Six. I should like to get that point clear. This is not a polemical point, but a point of clarification. In the same paragraph it says:
"My immediate objective at this meeting was to have put in hand by the Conference…"
Here is another new phrase. We have the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the Community. What is "the Conference"? This is a new phrase, and I wonder what it means.
So far as the rest of the Statement is concerned, I must confess that, although I welcome the Statement generally, I am surprised that there is so much factfinding to be done, because there is nothing new in any of the points set out in this Statement. They were set out by my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in June, 1967. Since then, certainly the British Government and the Foreign
1102
Office have been engaged in practically continuous fact-finding operations. I hope, therefore, that I may be assured that this new fact-finding exercise will not take too long.
My first specific question refers to Euratom. I notice that in the Statement it is agreed that work should be put in hand on all these subjects with the single exception of Euratom. Can the noble Marquess say why Euratom is excluded? It is one of the three Communities. If we sign the Treaty of Rome, Euratom will join. ft has most important implications, especially in the field of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the safeguard that will be placed on the Non-proliferation Treaty. I wonder whether I may be told why Euratom was excluded and at what stage it is likely to be considered?
Finally, we have the statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the outcome of the meeting was very satisfactory. I think we shall just have to wait and see about that, because we shall want to look closely at what comes out of these fact-finding operations. I should like to remind the noble Marquess that when we applied to join the Common Market in 1967—and I understand that these negotiations arc a result of that application—we made it clear that we should want to negotiate certain matters affecting the common agricultural policy—dairy products from New Zealand, sugar products from the Commonwealth countries and so on. I hope that I can be assured that the points we made in 1967 still form part of the negotiating position of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches also naturally welcome the Statement that has just been made, and we are delighted that the negotiations have, as it seems, got off to a satisfactory start. For this very reason, we rather hope that the present negotiator will be permitted, if possible, to go on negotiating. However, there have recently been reports in the Press that the French Government are reluctant to make any progress, however slight, in the direction of greater political unity, seeming to prefer the old Gaullist nationalist policy of what has been described as "free hands". Would the noble Lord be prepared to comment on these rather

1103
depressing reports? In any case, can he repudiate the suggestion, occasionally made in France, that Her Majesty's Government in some degree are themselves attracted by such a policy?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for what they have said and for their general welcome of the Statement. Regarding Lord Chalfont's questions, I think I am right in saying that of the two phrases that he used, "Conference" and "Community", he is right in thinking that "Community" refers to the Council of Ministers. However, I should like to be allowed to confirm whether I am right in using the word "Conference".
I quite agree with what the noble Lord says about the fact-finding. There has been a great deal of fact-finding done, as the noble Lord well knows, over the past few years. It was felt that this should now be co-ordinated with the Council of Ministers, and therefore this new work on fact-finding will be put in hand at once. It should not take too long. As the noble Lord says, most of the facts are known; but I think he will agree that there is always something else to find out. Regarding Euratom, my understanding of the situation is that Euratom itself wanted rather more time before taking part in the fact-finding exercises. I think that answers the noble Lord's questions.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said about reports in the French Press, I do not think he will expect me to comment, but I can assure him that my advice is that at Brussels this week the feeling of co-operation and good will from all the delegations, including the French, was most marked. I hope that he will agree with me that this is very heartening, and that the negotiations have got off to a good start.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I agree that it is heartening but it is quite another point from that which I raised.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Marcmess one question His right honourable friend
1104
is reported as saying on his return to this country that Her Majesty's Government accept the Common Agricultural Policy. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether that is a correct report. Is it not a little unusual to say that the policy is accepted even before the proposals for fact-finding have started?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, this is perfectly true. My right honourable friend on his return said that he accepted the Common Agricultural Policy. I think that was the position adopted by the previous Government in 1967, particularly by the Prime Minister in a speech in Paris on May 5 of this year, when he stated that we did accept the principle of the Common Agricultural Policy. Therefore I do not think there is anything very new in what my right honourable friend said.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I must press the noble Marquess on this point, because it is one of great importance. The previous Government said that they accepted the principle of the Common Agricultural Policy. The Common Agricultural Policy, as the noble Marquess knows, contains a number of complex concepts, including the financing of agriculture. If his right honourable friend has said that he accepts the Common Agricultural Policy, is he saying that he accepts the financial structure of that Agricultural Policy? If so, it seems that there is little left to negotiate.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think my right honourable friend meant to go quite so far as that—if that is the impression that was given.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, we had hoped to have a further Statement on the docks, but, as your Lordships know, the Sitting in another place has been rather unexpectedly adjourned, and we do not know when they will sit again. I think it might be for the convenience of the House if we do not have the other Statement. In view of that, with some relief, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.