Lords Sitting of 28 March 1974

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SMOKING AND HEALTH: TOBACCO BLEND
LORD SUDELEY: 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 interests of smokers' health, cigarette manufacturers will be required to introduce and gradually to increase the proportion of Turkish or Oriental leaf in their blends.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of nothing which would justify such a requirement. The tar and nicotine yields of a number of Turkish cigarettes have been analysed recently by the Government Chemist. Although testing was on a small scale, the results gave no reason to take the view that Turkish cigarettes are less hazardous to health than the brands of cigarettes mainly sold in this country. It appears that in general, although the nicotine-to-tar ratio of Turkish cigarettes may be on the low side, their nicotine yield is not low and their tar yield is high.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, may I welcome and congratulate the noble Lord on speaking for the first time from the Dispatch Box? While thanking him very much indeed for his most interesting Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that those who smoke Turkish cigarettes smoke fewer of them, so on the whole that would seem to be more beneficial to public health?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his generosity. I did not know that that was so. I am not myself a cigarette smoker and therefore I am not in a position
722
to know it. As I said a moment ago, some tests have been made on about eight brands of Turkish cigarettes; and the results compared with the tests done on some 105 brands sold in this country show that the tar yield is exceptionally high and that the nicotine yield is also high. If these cigarettes were put among the 105 brands in the five tables which we have denoting tar yield, each of the brands in question would in fact be in the high tar-yield bracket. So it is felt that no useful purpose would be served as regards meeting what is perhaps in the noble Lord's mind.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, are the Government able to confirm the fact that the incidence of lung cancer in Turks is higher than in British men?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, I am bound to say that we have no information on this matter. We do not know what the incidence of lung cancer is among Turkish people, and I think we might welcome some information on this.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: But, my Lords, is it not a well-known fact that Turkish cigarettes are usually made in Greece?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Sudeley in congratulating the noble Lord on his first speech from the Dispatch Box. I believe that the Government have some solicitude for sufferers from lung cancer, so may I ask if they would consider making a reduction in the price of pipe tobacco, since pipe smokers do not suffer from lung cancer to the same extent as cigarette smokers?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am tempted to say to the noble Lord that this could perhaps be regarded as another Question, but I shall be very happy to draw the attention of my right honourable friend to his remarks.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that no useful purpose would be served, is he not aware that perhaps one useful purpose really would be served; that is, to stimulate trade between this country and Turkey, Greece and other countries where Turkish tobacco is grown?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I think, my Lords, that would be only at the expense of the health of people in this country.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, will the noble Lord also accept my humble congratulations? Following that, may I ask him whether he is aware that my noble friend Lord Ferrier is a pipe smoker?

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: SELECTION OF MEMBERS
3.13 p.m.
LORD CROOK: 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 it is correct that four ex-Members of Parliament (viz: one who lost his seat at the recent Election and three others who did not seek reelection) remain eligible to continue as members of the European Parliament for a period of six months.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, as a consequence of the rules of procedure of the European Parliament (Rule 4(2)) and of a Standing Order made in another place on February 8, 1974, the answer is in the affirmative.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is true to say that the persons who have been selected to go to Brussels have been selected by the Whips of the respective Parties, and not by the Brussels Commission or Council of Ministers? If they have been selected in this country by the Whips, or by the respective Parties, have not the respective Parties a right to withdraw them?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the first instance, in regard to the four members concerned, since they were designated by another place this is a matter for that other place and I hesitate to comment on what solution it might find to this matter.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, what about those members who have been selected from your Lordships' House?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that matter does not arise on this particular Question.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that there is some case in a democratic Parliament for ensuring that its representatives to Brussels are democratically elected?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, I must reply that that is another question.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: BUDGETARY POWERS
LORD GLADWYN: 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 attitude the Foreign Secretary intends to adopt towards the proposals of the Commission and of the European Parliament, now under consideration by the Council of Ministers, for an increase in the budgetary powers of the Parliament.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will examine this and other matters in the context of their renegotiation policy as a whole.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. But are the Government aware that very large and increasing sums even now are being paid into the central Community funds, over which there is no Parliamentary control whatever? Therefore, when this proposal for the grant of very limited budgetary powers to the European Parliament is discussed, as it will be in the near future—and it has been before the Community Council for some time—will the Foreign Secretary at least consider abstaining, so as to allow the proposal to go through?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is unquestionably the fact that large sums of money are involved; however, we are convinced that as renegotiation proceeds—and that will start fairly soon—this and every other important aspect of membership will be properly considered.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether that

725
answer means he is in favour of what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, says, or not?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it means what I have just said; namely, as renegotiation proceeds, we shall be looking at this and other aspects of membership constructively and progressively.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how long he expects renegotiation to take?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we shall of course afford adequate time for these important discussions, but we hope they will not drag along indefinitely.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, may I ask how long the reconsideration will take?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is referring to the reappraisal by the Government before they move into renegotiation, reappraisal has been proceeding for some time. We are hoping to begin what might be called Stage 2—namely, renegotiation—as soon as possible, and we shall do it subject by subject, but in a coordinated and parallel manner.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the negotiations and the conclusion of renegotiation will have terminated before the next Election?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can only say that I hope so.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, what I was trying to get from the noble Lord was whether or not he and the Government were in favour of an increase in the budgetary powers of Parliament. Presumably when you go into a negotiation you know what you are seeking to do.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I understood very well what the noble Lord was trying to get out of me. My answer was that we shall be looking at this, as well as other matters relating to membership, progressively as renegotiation proceeds.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord at least take into consideration my proposal, that the Foreign
726
Secretary without any departure from his principles—whatever they are—might abstain on this particular issue so as to allow the powers to go through?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will consider every possible course of action.
LoRD O'HAGAN: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government accept the possibility that Labour members of the European Parliament might be able to assist the Government in their renegotiation by their use of the budgetary powers of that Parliament?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that suggestion will, I am sure, commend itself, with others, to my right honourable friends.

THE EASTER RECESS
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I inform your Lordships that, subject to the progress of Business, the House will rise for the Easter Recess on either Wednesday, April 10, or Thursday, April 11, and return on Tuesday, April 30. If the House has to meet on Thursday, April 11, I suggest that we should meet at 11 a.m.

CONSUMER CREDIT BILL [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to establish for the protection of consumers a new system, administered by the Director General of Fair Trading, of licensing and other control of traders concerned with the provision of credit, or the supply of goods on hire or hire-purchase, and their transactions, in place of the present enactments regulating moneylenders, pawnbrokers and hire-purchase traders and their transactions; and for related matters. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

JURIES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN JONES): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to juries, jurors and jury service with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection (Second Report) the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Lord Chancellor (L. Elwyn-Jones),

Lord Privy Seal (L. Shepherd),

D. Atholl,

M. Cholmondeley,

E. Alexander of Tunis,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Selkirk,

V. Hanworth,

V. Hood,

V. Massereene and Ferrard,

V. Simon,

L. Aberdare,

L. Amulree,

L. Auckland,

L. Beaumont of Whitley,

L. Beswick,

L. Bethell,

L. Byers,

L. Champion,

L. Clifford of Chudleigh,

L. Davies of Leek,

L. Diamond,

B. Emmet of Amberley,

L. Fiske,

B. Gaitskell,

L. Gardiner,

728

L. Garner,

L. Granville of Eye,

L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

L. Henderson,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Jacques,

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

B. Macleod of Borve,

L. Maybray-King,

L. Macpherson of Drumochter,

L. Mowbray and Stourton,

L. Nugent of Guildford,

L. O'Hagan,

L. Orr-Ewing,

L. Platt,

L. Popplewell,

Ly. Ruthven of Freeland,

L. Sainsbury,

B. Seear,

Ly. Sempill,

L. Shackleton,

L. Strang,

L. Teviot,

L. Trefgarne,

L. Tweedsmuir,

L. Wells-Pestell,

B. White,

L. Wilberforce,

L. Windlesham.

—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees a question in order to dispel my ignorance on the matter? Why is it necessary to have 52 Members of your Lordships' House on a Committee? Would he say who selects these Members of your Lordships' House? If it is the Committee of Selection, who selects the Committee of Selection?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I will reply to the noble Lord to the best of my ability. This Committee is chosen, so far as the names which are recommended to your Lordships are concerned, by the Committee of Selection. The Committee of Selection is chosen by your Lordships' House at the beginning of every Session, before any other Committees are appointed. The Offices Committee is a large Committee, but the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will remember that most of its work is done by a large number of extremely efficient but small subcommittees.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all such Special Orders as are referred to them pursuant to the Order of the 20 March and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

E. Cork and Orrery

E. Cowley

L. Archibald

B. Bacon

L. Beaumont of Whitley

L. Cawley

L. Clwyd

L. Fletcher

L. Reay

L. Stamp

L. Stow Hill

L. Teviot

L. Wise.

—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PERSONAL BILLS
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to which all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred: and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

V. Bledisloe

L. Cross of Chelsea

L. Henley

L. Mancroft

L. Stow Hill

L. Wilberforce

—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CALF SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1974
3.26 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL LORD WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1974, laid before the House on March 13, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, calf subsidies have been paid for over 25 years, and there can be no doubt as to their success in encouraging the rearing of suitable calves for beef production. Three years is the longest time allowed for a scheme under the Agricultural (Calf Subsidies Act) 1952. The purpose of the Scheme before this House is to provide for the continuation of calf subsidies for a further three-year period from this coming Monday, April 1, subject always to amendment within the three years if considered necessary by the Government and approved by Parliament.
As in the existing Scheme, Part I, which is known as "Stage A", provides for the certification of live calves and covers calves born on or after October 30, 1973, and up to and including October 29, 1976. Part II, which is known as "Stage B", provides for payment on eligible carcases certified during the period from April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1977, inclusive. The new Scheme contains two small changes concerning the administration of this Scheme which I will come to, with your Lordships' permission, in a moment.
Since the Draft Scheme was laid before your Lordships on March 13, the Government have reached agreement in the Council of Ministers on measures to be taken to support the United Kingdom beef industry. The combined effect of the measures should be to prevent increases in the price of beef in the shops. In accordance with Treaty procedures, the Government have informed the Commission of their intention, subject, of course, to Parliamentary approval, to safeguard the position of beef producers in Great Britain by an increase of £10 per calf in the calf subsidy. The details of the new arrangements are in course of preparation and a variation Scheme, providing for new increased rates in Great Britain, will be

731
laid before your Lordships in the usual way. In the meantime, in order to provide for continuity in the payment of the calf subsidies, it is essential for a new Scheme to receive the approval of Parliament in time for it to be brought into operation on April 1, next Monday. Special arrangements are also to be made for Northern Ireland so as to safeguard the interests of consumers there while preventing the distortion of trade with the Irish Republic.
I now turn, my Lords, to the two changes I mentioned which apply to the proposed Scheme which you have before you. These provide for the extension of the subsidy to live young bulls and for the removal of the dentition test for deadweight certification of bulls and young lightweight animals. So far as the first of these is concerned, the House may be aware that although subsidy has since 1969 been payable at Stage B on the carcases of young bulls meeting certain specified standards, young bulls have not been accepted for certification live at Stage A. I understand that, bull beef being a relatively new development, it was felt at the time that certifying officers would find it difficult to determine whether or not a young bull inspected on the hoof would develop a carcase of acceptable standard since some bull calves developed what is known as "bullish" characteristics—which I must confess, my Lords, did not surprise me when I read it, but I gather that it has some special significance to farmers. Often they produce dark meat not apparent until they are slaughtered. Since then, however, there has been increased experience with bull beef production and a greater understanding of conditions contributing to the unsatisfactory features to which I have just referred. It is felt that there is no longer any reason why young bulls should not be accepted for certification live and thus receive the same treatment as steers.
The Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture in England and Wales have gone into the position of bull beef production and have recently produced a comprehensive and valuable Report. Their view is that by making it impossible for the producer to obtain subsidy
732
on his young bulls when alive, we are putting him at a disadvantage compared with rearers of other calves which are certifiable alive. One of their recommendations is that this constraint should be removed. We agree with this, and the proposed Scheme provides for young bulls to be eligible under Stage A, instead of their eligibility being delayed in all cases until Stage B—which is the dead carcase. Some bull carcases will of course continue to qualify at that stage, provided they meet the required standards and have not been certified live. The proposed extension of the Scheme meets with the approval of the agriculture industry, which is in favour of treating young bulls and steers in the same way. I am informed that the meat trade have accepted it as well.
In their Report the Advisory Council rightly lay stress on the safety requirements for inspecting and certifying live bulls. With this in mind the Scheme is so drafted that any certifying officer who finds on arrival at the farm that the safety arrangements are not reasonably satisfactory from his point of view will be able to refuse to inspect the animals until better arrangements have been made. We shall make sure that both the farmers and the certifying officers concerned are all aware of this. Apart from this, I am confident that farmers presenting live bulls will be very ready to take all the precautions needed to ensure that certifying officers are not exposed to what might be described as obvious risks. The safety measures to be undertaken by bull beef producers who wish to take advantage of these arrangements will be publicised by the Agricultural Departments between now and the end of June, the earliest time under the new arrangements when the first young bulls can be presented for inspection.
The second change was also the subject of a recommendation by the Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture in their Report. It provides for the removal of the condition which requires young bulls to be slaughtered before the appearance of their incisor teeth. This dentition requirement was felt necessary in the early days of bull beef production in order to encourage producers to have bulls slaughtered at a relatively early age. This is no longer considered important

733
and the other tests of eligibility should ensure that the standards remain satisfactory. The draft Scheme accordingly removes this requirement for young bulls, and, to be consistent, for other lightweight animals also. Producers will then be able to send their animals for slaughter at whatever age they consider most suitable to meet market requirements without forfeiting the subsidy if permanant teeth are present, provided of course that the other qualifying standards are met.
The House may wish to be informed of the annual expenditure on calf subsidies. In the 1972–73 financial year the total sum spent was £31·9 million. Of this, expenditure in England amounted to £17·9 million; in Wales, £3·3 million; in Scotland, £6·4 million; and in Northern Ireland. £4·3 million. United Kingdom expenditure in 1973–74 is estimated at about £31·8 million. Expenditure in 1974–75 will be affected by the higher rates recently announced which will more than offset the decrease in the rates of subsidy which followed the 1973 Annual Review. The number of calves on which subsidy has been paid at Stage A has been running at nearly 3 million a year, and at Stage B at about 150,000 per year. This is an excellent and successful Scheme which continues to have as its object encouraging the retention of calves for beef. I commend this Order to your Lordships and hope that your Lordships will give it your approval.
Moved, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1974, laid before the House on March 13, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
3.35 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on his appointment as a Lord-in-Waiting and indeed on his first speech at the Dispatch Box. I am glad that it was on agriculture. I hope that he enjoys his time in dealing with agriculture, although I rather gather, particularly from the Answers to Questions this afternoon, that he will not be wholly restricted to agriculture. We are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the purposes of this Order. I do not propose to go into the details of what happens if one has a bull or an animal with "bullish" characteristics, but those of us who do wish to know what happens will
734
be able to find out the information from what the noble Lord has said.
We welcome this Order because it continues what the Conservative Government did when they were in power. It is quite surprising when one recalls that only 12 months ago it was considered that the beef industry was in a fairly reasonable state, so much so that the calf subsidy could in fact be decreased; and over the last 12 months we have seen a considerable change in this situation, where the price of feedingstuffs has gone up at the same time as the price of livestock has gone down. We welcome the continuation of this subsidy which has done so much to encourage the production of beef and the maintenance of beef herds, and which has given so much confidence to producers of calves for beef.
However, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clear one slight confusion from my mind. When the last calf subsidy Order was introduced it referred to calves born on or after April 16 of last year, and one might have thought that would continue for 12 months; but I see that this Order refers to calves born after October 16 last year. How is it that it was necessary to produce an extra Order now, when one would have thought that the previous Order, which did virtually the same thing, would have continued? It may be that the answer is that this Order is slightly different. But at a time when we are hearing a great deal about the cost of food, the shortage of food, and indeed food subsidies, may I tell the noble Lord that we on this side of the House infinitely prefer this type of subsidy, which actually encourages the production of food, and of a particular food which is wanted, rather than the massive expenditure of public funds on food subsidies which are wholly indiscriminatory in their effect and yet whose effect for each particular item is very small indeed. So the noble Lord will have our support, and willingly, for this type of subsidy which should help in the production of food.
I hope that the noble Lord will encourage his right honourable friend to use his influence in Brussels (he has used it in Brussels this last week) to get the Community to adopt this kind of support and incentive for beef production, rather than to rely solely on the "upping" of

735
the end price of the product, and intervention into cold store, as the method of agricultural protection for beef within the Community. This would enable farmers within the Community to have a return for keeping beef other than by charging the housewife increased prices. This was the point which the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture was so concerned about last week. I hope that he will try to persuade the Commission to use this type of support, which is a British type of support, in the Common Market. I believe that he will not find the Commission wholly unreceptive to this idea. They may take some persuading that it would be right, but I hope he will urge upon his right honourable friend to persuade the Community to adopt this kind of support; and there may be others as well.
The noble Lord referred to the Minister's recent announcement of the increase of £10 per calf in the calf subsidy which he negotiated in Brussels at the recent meeting of the Council of Ministers. If I may I should like to ask him one or two questions about that. Will this increased subsidy be payable at the same time as the present subsidy to which this Order refers'? I did not quite catch what the noble Lord said—I thought he said it was payable from April 1. In that case this would not run exactly the same as the current Order which we are considering, which in fact runs from October of last year. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clarify this. I think he said that an additional Order would be produced. Will that Order, in fact, just be for the increase of £10 or will it be a new Order which will cover the £10 plus the existing subsidy which this Order incorporates? Is the increase in price of £10 per calf the subsidy for only one year or, like this Order, will it go on for three years?
I think the noble Lord's right honourable friend negotiated in Brussels that this sum of £10 per calf should be given to British farmers. This was a sum totalling £38 million. But for some reason it was considered that the right way to support beef production in Northern Ireland was not to give them a subsidy of £10 per calf but to give them a subsidy of £2 per cwt. on a finished bullock. Of course, if a 10 cwt. bullock gets £2 per cwt. Then
736
in fact in Northern Ireland he will get a subsidy of £20 whereas the British bullock will have received a calf subsidy of only £10. Why is that so? If it was thought appropriate to support beef production in Northern Ireland by giving a subsidy on the fat bullock price why was that not used in England, Wales and Scotland as well? One would think that to be a more appropriate method of supporting the beef industry.
Is it not also a fact that, when the noble Lord's right honourable friend negotiated this in Brussels, Eire said that if Great Britain was going to be permitted to give a subsidy of £2 per cwt. on fat cattle in Northern Ireland they must be allowed to give a similar subsidy in Southern Ireland, because otherwise there would be a confusion of animals going from the South to the North of the Border and across the Border? Is it not a fact that the Eire Minister of Agriculture got an agreement from the Council of Ministers that Eire should give a subsidy of £2 per cwt. on a live bullock? This is the real point: my understanding is that Eire got this agreement to give a subsidy of £2 per cwt. but got the Commission to agree to pay this out of Community funds, whereas the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries was satisfied with the agreement to give this subsidy, totalling £38 million, not out of Commission funds but out of the British taxpayers' pockets. So on the face of it, it must seem that what was hailed by the Minister of Agriculture as something which has been done for the British housewife and for the British farmer has in fact been a rather expensive piece of negotiation whereby the British taxpayer has had to find a subsidy, which in Eire was found out of the Commission's funds.
I do not wish the noble Lord to reply to that specific question if he feels he would rather not, but this is the first time that we have had occasion to consider what his right honourable friend said in the Statement on Monday. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, quite rightly said, the subsidy of £10 per calf which he is going to introduce later is very much tied up with this subsidy and I thought it was only prudent to draw your Lordships' attention to it at this particular time because I believe the effect of it is really quite significant.

737
In the main we approve this Order, We congratulate the Government on continuing it and continuing what we did in Government, and we hope that they will continue the policies which we operated, I like to think, so successfully. Also we congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on taking it through your Lordships' House and explaining so carefully and so clearly what it is about. It is a change for him because normally he is more used to being heard speaking on such subjects as penal reform and local government officers. I hope he will find the change agreeable.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I add my humble congratulations to the noble Lord on his appointment. Many of us know of his fine record of public service outside this House. His name is even held in high esteem in Wales, and perhaps some Welshmen may say that is inevitable having regard to the large of number of double "ll's" that he has in his distinguished title. However, may I be allowed to enter a small note of discord because I wish to express my considerable disappointment that the Government have lost an opportunity of giving much greater assistance and encouragement at this time to members of the livestock rearing industry in Great Britain. I fully realise that the Government have only been in Office a matter of three weeks, but if they are serious about encouraging the maximum economic production of food in this country—and reference was made to that in the gracious Speech—then it would appear to us on these Benches that there is a great deal still to be done in this area.
My information is that if the Government are not very careful there will be a wholesale scramble to get out of livestock production in many areas, particularly unless confidence can be restored in that industry. May I therefore express the hope that the noble Lord will consider again shortly the financial proposals in the Order which he has brought before this House to-day and which he proposes to supplement a little later in this Session. I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. Will he also give serious consideration to extending the scope of the Livestock Rearing Act of 1951 so that it will apply to the whole of the country
738
and therefore permit many more beef herds to qualify for the hill cow subsidy?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to emphasise what the last speaker has said. I believe it is a fact now that the average beef animal produced in this country is being produced at a loss of something like £13. The £10 extra will, of course, cover about three-quarters of this loss but it seems to me that if we want to continue to keep up our beef production it is essential that either the price must be allowed to rise or the £10 extra subsidy should be increased. Otherwise many people who are rearing beef animals at the moment will go out of beef and into barley or wheat and this would be bad for farming in general and bad for our Sunday luncheon in particular.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his kind observations, but I should like the House to know that I am more indebted to him because he gave me some indication as to some of the things he might be asking. That has enabled me to provide (I hope) satisfactory answers. I thought it was a very generous gesture and I appreciate it very much indeed. With regard to the noble Earl's comments about the calf subsidy scheme which he himself was responsible for introducing on April 5 last year, my recollection is that it was in fact a variation Order in which there were changes in the subsidy. I may be wrong about this, but I think I am right. Therefore, they accounted for the new rate taking effect from April 16, where we have gone back to the original date of the subsidies payable from October 30. I think I am right about that, but if not, I hope the noble Earl will say so.
My Lords, we ought not to confuse the immediate need for food subsidies in certain directions; I think this is a matter of opinion. One has to bear in mind, if I may say so with very great respect, that the purpose of this subsidy is surely to stimulate and sustain a high level of production in beef for the future. Therefore one has to do something now that is going to have a long-term effect. Food subsidies, generally speaking, are things that have to be applied immediately in order to deal with the cost of living, and to avoid rises in the cost of living, so I

739
do not think one mutually excludes the other; sometimes one has to have both going at the same time. I take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with regard to getting my right honourable friend to do something at the E.E.C. perhaps to broaden subsidies along the line the noble Earl suggested. I understand that so far as the past is concerned, the Community has considered measures of this kind, but found very serious problems in the matter of cost and administration. But I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the remarks of the noble Earl who is very informed on these matters, as all of us on this side of the House recognise. I am sure my right honourable friend will give those remarks very careful consideration.
My Lords, at one point I thought that the noble Earl. Lord Ferrers, was of the opinion that the calf subsidy was only in respect of £10. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, pointed out, it is an addition, so the subsidy now for heifers will be £16·50 and for steers, £18·50. There is another reason (which perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to deal with in a moment) why this is very fair, because the actual subsidy that will be given in Northern Ireland is about £1·70 and not £2·00. When one multiplies £1·70 by 10, the subsidy is much the same as it is now—in fact, between £16·00 and £18·00. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that so far as those subsidies are concerned, we are talking about calf subsidies where, so far as concerns Northern Ireland (if I understood the position correctly), this refers to the price for the finished animal. I should think there is some difference there that has to be taken into account.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that I need not deal at this stage with the attitude of Eire to this matter and whether the payment of subsidies for Eire will come out of the E.E.C. As I understand the situation, Eire is receiving the normal E.E.C. prices, as within that price system. I have no information at all which leads me to think they will be put at an advantage by this, but the noble Earl did say that I need not answer in detail this afternoon. Frankly, I should like to look at it for myself. Once again, I am grate-
740
ful to the noble Earl for the way in which he has dealt with this matter.
My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and to the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, that perhaps they will allow me to read what they have said this afternoon and to pass on this information to my right honourable friend for his consideration. I do not think it will be disputed in any part of this House that the present Minister is deeply and sincerely committed to agriculture. If anything can be done, I feel sure that my right honourable friend will do it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EGGS AUTHORITY LEVY SCHEME (APPROVAL) ORDER 1974
3.55 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Eggs Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1974, a copy of which was laid before the House on March 14, be approved. The purpose of this Order is to provide for the Eggs Authority to be financed in the future by means of a levy on chicks used for egg production. While this represents a change in the mechanisms by which the Authority is financed, I should emphasise that it does not represent any real change in principle. The money to be raised by the levy has up to now come from the industry but by means of a deduction from the egg deficiency payments which are to end on March 30.
The Eggs Authority was set up in March, 1971, with the demise of the British Egg Marketing Board and given the general duty of improving the marketing of eggs. Particular functions undertaken by the Authority include advertising, collection and provision of market intelligence and research and development. The Authority currently has 12 members, 3 of whom are independent, one being the Chairman, one the Deputy Chairman and one specially conversant with consumer interest. Five are appointed after consultation with producer interests, and 4 after consultation with trade interests. Perhaps I might say at this stage that the Eggs Authority has been welcomed by both the National Farmers' Union and by farming interests generally. The need for the Authority

741
was reviewed last summer and, after consultations with interested organisations, the then Government decided that the Authority should continue in being after March, 1974, provided suitable financial arrangements could be worked out.
As I have indicated, most of the Authority's finance has up to now come from a levy on producers which has taken the form of a deduction from the egg deficiency payments. In addition Ministers make, and will continue to make in the coming year, a 50 per cent. contribution towards certain of the Authority's expenses, particularly in relation to the Authority's market intelligence and research and development activities. However, because of the ending of egg deficiency payments on March 30, it has been necessary to devise a way of raising the levy other than by deduction from these payments. In January of this year the Authority submitted a scheme for raising the necessary finance by means of a levy on chicks intended for use in egg production. The interests primarily concerned have generally agreed that this Scheme provides the most convenient and equitable method of financing the Authority that is available, given the provisions of the 1970 Act. It requires hatchers and importers to pay a levy to the Authority on day-old chicks placed by them for egg laying. Hatchers and importers are in turn empowered to recover the levy from egg producers, to whom they sell the chicks.
Your Lordships will see that the Scheme applies to hatchers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to importers bringing chicks into Great Britain and Northern Ireland to be placed for egg laying. Hatchers and importers who during any period of 12 months do not place more than 300 chicks for egg laying purposes are, however, exempt from the Scheme. The Scheme also exempts from levy chicks provided as a tolerance or replacements to compensate for mortality. In addition, it allows hatchers and importers a reasonable period of time to pay the levy due to the Authority and, as well as empowering them to recover the levy from those to whom they sell chicks, provides that they should be reimbursed for costs incurred in the collection of the levy from producers.
742
The Scheme embodied in the Order laid before your Lordships also incorporates certain minor modifications made by Ministers to the Authority's Draft Scheme. The modifications which are specified in the Order seek to improve the clarity of some of the definitions in the Scheme. Also, they cover the possibility that this Order might not be approved in time before the commencement on March 31 of the Authority's 1974–75 accounting period. Thus the Scheme, as amended, exempts hatchers and importers from paying levy in retrospect on chicks placed before the necessary further Order specifying the rate of levy for 1974–75 comes into operation. However, I hope that your Lordships will to-day approve the Order before you. If you do, the further Order required to specify the rates of levy will be laid before Parliament as a matter of urgency, and if possible before the end of the week, to take effect from the beginning of the 1974–75 accounting period.
The rate of levy to be specified in this Order is expected to be £2·84 per 100 chicks. The Government believe that the Eggs Authority is performing a very worthwhile service to industry and should be enabled to continue its work. I therefore beg to move that your Lordships approve the Eggs Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1974 which is before the House.
Moved, That the Eggs Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1974, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining this Order. We realise that in fact, as he said, this is not a question of difference of principle, but merely a different method of financing, and the people who are going to pay are in fact those who purchase the chicks. No doubt they will find that undesirable, but I believe most thinking people will accept that this is a perfectly reasonable way of financing the Eggs Authority, which does a very good job of work. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE PAYMENTS (EXTENSION) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1974
4.04 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Agriculture Payments (Extension) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974 be approved. The purpose of this Order is to renew the special assistance grant to Northern Ireland agriculture for a further three years at the current rate of £1·9 million per annum. The Order was made by the previous Administration on February 7 and laid before Parliament on March 12. Under the provisions of Section 32 of the Agriculture Act 1957 the Order will not be effective unless approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament. It was approved, I think I am right in saying, two days ago in another place.
The grant was introduced in 1954, following the changeover from fixed prices paid by the Ministry of Food to a system of deficiency payments based on the average market for the whole of the United Kingdom. It was recognised at the time that this would create special problems for Northern Ireland producers because of the disadvantages from which they suffer by comparison with producers in other remote areas in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland market prices tend to be lower than in Great Britain for a number of the main agricultural commodities, so that even including deficiency payments the total returns for Northern Ireland farmers tend to fall short of guaranteed prices. In order to compensate Northern Irish farmers for this disadvantage, the Government decided in 1954 to make a grant each year for the purpose of assisting agriculture in the Province. The statutory authority for the grant is Section 32 of the Agriculture Act 1957. This provides for the grant to be extended, and for the amount of the grant to be varied at the time of its extension—subject to Parliamentary approval. The current rate of grant, under an Order which expires on March 31 this year is £1·9 million per annum. Under the Order before the House it is proposed to extend
744
this grant at the current rate for a further three years.
Finally, I should just say a word about the way in which the grant is used. The Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland devises schemes that will help farmers there to overcome the disadvantages which they suffer as a result of their remoteness. These schemes are financed out of the grant. Those in operation at the moment are aimed mainly at encouraging better marketing and better quality production, particularly of livestock and particularly, in fact, of beef. Under the provisions of the Act, a statement has to be laid before Parliament before the end of each financial year, describing the substance of the schemes funded out of the Special Assistance Grant. The statement for the current financial year was laid before Parliament on February 4.
The schemes which are financed out of the grant are the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland, subject to general approval by the Agriculture Ministers for the United Kingdom and the Treasury. This general approval is needed because the grant is part of the total assistance given under the annual review system, and it has therefore to be used in ways consistent with the Government's agricultural policy. Subject to this proviso, the administration of these schemes is a matter for the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Agriculture Payments (Extension) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for explaining this Order. As he reminded the House, the origin of the grant under this Order lies in the financial difficulties imposed on agriculture in Northern Ireland by the distance of farms from markets in Great Britain. The Statement which accompanied the Order, describing the schemes for encouraging greater efficiency of production and better marketing, makes it clear. I think, that the sum of £1·9 million is not by any means just a sum for supplementing the incomes of farmers. But, obviously, cost increases

745
must affect requirements for this grant, and I would ask whether the Government believe that the £1·9 million will in fact be adequate for the forthcoming year. I should have thought that the last year in farming has shown that it is going to be virtually impossible to predict with accuracy the movement of animal food prices in the forthcoming year; and of course this is especially true of Northern Ireland farmers, who it is considered face something like £4 million extra in the costs of their feedstuffs compared with equivalent prices for Great Britain.
I may not have read the Order correctly, but I cannot see in the accompanying Statement a mention of any schemes to support pig production. The noble Lord will know better than I do that pig farmers in Northern Ireland have been experiencing particular difficulties. I listened while my noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to the more advantageous arrangements which have been made for beef production in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain, and I think I am right in saying that under the negotiations concluded in Brussels recently by the right honourable gentleman the Minister for Agriculture the arrangements for pig producers in Northern Ireland are the same arrangements as for pig producers this side of the water, in Great Britain. I believe that the Department of Agriculture in Belfast supports a pig improvement breeding scheme, with considerable effect, and I know that there are other grants for Northern Ireland agriculture. May I ask whether pig producers have any specific share of this grant, and may I express the hope that, if the answer is "Yes", their share is more substantial than I have noticed.
One further reason, I think, for questioning the adequacy of this year's grant is that the Order, as the noble Lord reminded us, was made on February 7 and indeed it bears the name of my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This means that the effect of the Chancellor's Budget of two days ago was obviously not considered in the drafting of the Order, and for agriculture, of course, the effects of the Budget are going to be quite formidable.
My Lords, after it was decided and announced in another place in December of last year that the intention of the
746
previous Government was that this Order should be continued for another three-year period there was a sharp increase in animal food prices. As a result, stock farmers have been working on desperately slim profit margins, or perhaps no profit margins at all; and they are now going to be required to absorb increased costs, including an immediate increase of 25 per cent. in the price of steel, a 30 per cent. increase in the price of electricity and, of course, the higher employer's share of the national insurance stamp. I say those things only because the noble Lord will know that, before he went to serve in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive, in their statement of economic and social aid presented to the Northern Ireland Assembly, affirmed that the future of agriculture in Northern Ireland should depend on the development of grassland and the raising of livestock. I hope therefore that there will be opportunity for the size of the grant under this Order to be kept under review and that the Government will undertake to see that this is done.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for accepting this Motion in the spirit in which he has done. He has asked me three questions which, if I may, I will answer in reverse order. This grant has not been tailored to suit the Budget. It was arranged before the Budget, and it would be quite wrong to suggest that any effects which come from the Budget have been taken into account. That would hardly have been possible. Secondly, on the question of pigs, this grant has never applied to pigs and it does not apply to pigs to-day. The position of pigs in Northern Ireland is worrying everybody, and the position of the pig producer in England and the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, has been dealt with recently by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture in Brussels. As a result, a considerable mitigation for the pig breeders' job has been achieved. The differential between producers in Northern Ireland and this country is under discussion between the Ministers and no decisions have yet been made. This matter is in the Minister's mind, however, and the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland is in contact with my right honourable friend here on the subject. I cannot say more than that at the moment.

747
As to the adequacy of the grant, the noble Lord will know from past experience that it has never been fully taken up. The estimate for the take-up last year is between £200,000 and £300,000 short of the grant given, and it is not expected that it will be fully taken up this year. Without suggesting that Northern Ireland agriculture does not need its assistance looked at—I do not want anybody to think that we are trying to cut them down—this does not seem an appropriate place to do any more. We are giving, under this particular provision, rather more than they will in fact use.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE REGULATIONS 1974
4.14 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Representation of the People Regulations 1974, be approved. My Lords, you may imagine how relieved I am at being able to follow the tradition of your Lordships' House by making my maiden speech on an uncontroversial matter. I am fully aware that my departmental responsibilities are such that I may not be able to follow up this auspicious start by remaining non-controversial, but I think that on the Representation of the People Regulations I shall at least be able to carry noble Lords opposite with me as the Regulations were made by the right honourable gentleman the last Home Secretary the day before the last General Election was announced.
These are important Regulations: they deal with the registration of electors and the arrangements for absent voting but they are chiefly a matter of consolidation. In the main, they continue the provisions of the Regulations of 1969 and 1973 which they replace. Most of the changes that are made arise as a consequence of local government reorganisation. As these were so numerous, it seemed advisable to make new Regulations rather than to make extensive amendments to the existing ones. I am sure that this decision will commend itself to all who have to use the Regulations.
It may be helpful if I summarise the new provisions. The most important are
748
in Regulation 5. These arise from the provision in the Local Government Act 1972 that each district and London borough council shall appoint one of its officers to be electoral registration officer. However, where a constituency cuts across district boundaries, one registration officer has to be designated to be acting returning officer for the constituency. The effect of Regulation 5 is that, in such a constituency, there is consistency as to how the register is prepared and also how absent voting applications are dealt with.
The 1973 Regulations provided for a Member of Parliament to receive a free copy of the register for his constituency, and Regulation 22(3) now provides for every member of a local authority also to receive a free copy of the register for the area he or she represents.
Regulation 29(2)(b)(ii) deals with applications for absent voting facilities on the grounds of physical incapacity. Although no substantial change has been made in the Regulation itself, in advance of the consideration which the Speaker's Conference is expected to give to the whole question of absent voting, the related Form Q in the Schedule has been changed. The first change is that the certificate is now to be signed only by a registered medical practitioner. This is because only a doctor should sign what is essentially a medical certificate. The second change is the addition of a declaration which may be signed by anyone else. Note 2 to the form makes it plain that the application will be accepted if the certificate is signed by a doctor and that it may be accepted if the declaration is signed by someone else. I should explain that the application does not have to be signed by anyone else, but the registration officer must be satisfied that the applicant is entitled, and this may be difficult if no one has signed the declaration. These provisions are all those of the existing law. The form simply clarifies the position. I believe that the new form is an improvement on the old. If we can simplify it still further later, we shall do so.
For the rest, the Regulations contain only minor, consequential and technical changes. The Regulations are the outcome of thorough consultations which my Department has had during the last year with local government officials concerned with their operation and with the political

749
parties. The Regulations have been approved in another place, and if approved here will come into operation on April 1, when the new local authorities take over in England and Wales. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Representation of the People Regulations 1974 be approved.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am glad that it falls to me, as the noble Lord's immediate predecessor in Office to congratulate him on his maiden speech. It was, as he indicated it would be, uncontroversial, the more so in that it had the rather unusual feature of being to some extent déjà vu, from the fact that some of its content I recognise from a speech made in another place when similar Regulations were introduced there the other day. His speech was also admirably short and the noble Lord will, I hope, continue to take that course, as I attempted to do before him. I have often heard it said when maiden speakers are being congratulated and welcomed in this House that we all very much hope that they will again soon take part in debates, and I think that this is no pious wish in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. If his experience is the same as mine, he will be amazed by the number of times he will take part in the proceedings of your Lordships' House. The variety and diversity, and indeed in some cases the strangeness, of the subject matter will be matched only by the amazing variety of expertise and wisdom which noble Lords in all quarters of the House can put forward on almost any subject that even the Home Office can give to the Minister of State there. We look forward with enthusiasm to the noble Lord's subsequent speeches—indeed, we are to have another one this afternoon. We wish him very well indeed, and I am sure he will find this a pleasant House in which to work, and one where he will enjoy himself a good deal, even if there are a few sticky patches from time to time.
I go back to the substance of these Regulations, and I need say very little. The noble Lord has explained them quite admirably, and I have no questions to ask. Moreover, the Regulations concern what is almost entirely a matter for another place and for the local authorities; and Members of another place, as
750
I noted from the OFFICIAL REPORT, had no questions to ask either. My honourable friend the Member for Cambridge asked some questions about other matters to do with voting, which are of course of concern to a number of people, and a promise was given that they would be looked at. They do not arise under the Order. I am all for consolidation and simplification, and the noble Lord's Regulations go in for both. So I am happy to welcome them, as I do him.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord opposite upon his maiden speech, which I thought was quite excellent and entirely non-controversial, which I think was very clever of him on this particular subject. I should like to ask him one question about Regulation 27. The Explanatory Note at the end of this Order says:
"Regulation 27 no longer requires the proper officer of a local authority, who has to make out a corrupt and illegal practices list for his area in accordance with section 40(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1949, to send a copy to the registration officer."
Indeed, I cannot find in Regulation 27 any provision that he should, which is what I should expect. It also says that the registration officer shall do this, that, and the next thing about the corrupt and illegal practices list. How is the registration officer to do this if he has not been sent a list? It seems to me that it would be simpler if he were sent a list, and I was wondering whether the Speaker's Conference had approved the fact that he should not be sent a list. I apologise for not having given warning to the noble Lord that I proposed to raise this question. I hope that sooner or later he will be able to provide an answer, but I shall understand if he cannot do it right away.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, may I first say how grateful I am to both the noble Viscount and the noble Duke for the generous words that they have expressed on the occasion of my maiden speech. If I may say so to the noble Duke, he will not be completely taken by surprise by the fact that I am totally incapable of answering his question, but I will do my best to find out the answer and send it to him in writing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1974
4.23 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES) rose to move, That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1974, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before speaking to the Regulations, I should like to join in the congratulations extended to my noble friend on his maiden speech. I should like to tell him that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will always reply to him in the same courteous and felicitous terms, even when he is totally disagreeing with him, just as he will when in total agreement because he recognised parts of the speech in advance. The noble Duke will also be equally polite—and nearly always as difficult. I am just wondering what rod he has in pickle for me on the Scottish Regulations, which he obviously has read. One of the advantages of having the Scottish Regulations following the English ones—although they are not identical, some parts are the same—is that I have to make a shorter speech. This fits in both with the convenience of your Lordships' House and the natural instincts of the Scottish Office for economy.
These Regulations amend the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1969 so as to make Part IV of the 1969 Regulations, which deals with the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers, apt for elections of councillors for the new local authorities to be established under the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The first elections to the new authorities take place on May 7 and accordingly the amendments apply from April 1 so that they will be effective for the election period which starts early in April.
The effect of Regulations 2 and 4 is to require references in Part IV of the 1969 Regulations to "election rules" to be construed, in relation to local elections, as references to the Scottish Local Elections Rules 1974 instead of to the Scottish Local Elections Rules in Schedule 3 to the Representation of the People Act 1949. The 1974 Rules made on January 21, 1974, under Section 7 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973,
752
were laid before Parliament on February 7 and came into force on April 1. They govern the conduct of elections to the new authorities. The Rules in the 1949 Act governed the elections to the old authorities, elections to which have now been suspended under the provisions of the 1973 Act.
Regulation 3 amends Regulation 57, also contained in Part IV of the 1969 Regulations, with the effect of requiring documents in connection with postal voting to be forwarded by the returning officer to the proper officer of the council to which elections are held, with special provision for the first elections when a proper officer will not have been appointed, instead of to the appropriate county or town clerk. The regulations do not introduce any changes in procedure; they are essentially consequential on the introduction of new local elections rules which in turn were made to take account of the new structure of local government. I would suggest to those of your Lordships who are interested that this will be much more intelligible if you read it in Hansard to-morrow than it sounds this afternoon. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1974, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl will find to say on this, but I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, stuck extraordinarily closely to the Explanatory Note, although he in fact explained it rather more fully than does that Note. As the last few sentences spoken by the noble Lord suggested that these Regulations are purely consequential (which is rather what I thought by looking at the text), I do not think I have any questions to ask him. Therefore, I welcome them and note that they will come into force on, I think, Monday, parallel with the other Regulations that he mentioned, which were made earlier this year.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I know that I am going to disappoint the noble Lord opposite in that I too have absolutely no questions on these Regulations, even though I had to look at them as a Member of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I would only say to the noble Duke that he does not disappoint me in the slightest; he relieves me.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RATING OF MINOR STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS TO DWELLINGS (SPECIFIED AMOUNT) ORDER 1974
4.28 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY rose to move, That the Rating of Minor Structural Alterations to Dwellings (Specified Amount) Order 1974, be approved. The noble Lord said: This Order is made under Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1974. That section has the effect of excluding proposals being made to change the valuation list if structural alterations have been made to a property, either to install central heating or if the alterations would give rise to an increase in gross value not exceeding a prescribed amount. The purpose of this Order is to prescribe the amount, and we think £30 is the right figure. This means that if a householder builds a normal sized garage his rateable value will not be increased between revaluations. The same will apply to porches, bay windows and so forth.
I hope that if your Lordships approve this Order we shall have got rid of one of the irritations of the rating system. Many ratepayers have complained that they are penalised for improving their properties; this Order will ensure that they get a respite. The respite cannot be made permanent because that would not be fair to other ratepayers but at least we can remove the immediate source of complaint. I therefore commend this Order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Rating of Minor Structural Alterations to Dwellings (Specified Amount) Order 1974, be approved.—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for explaining this Order so clearly. As this is the first opportunity that I have had to do so, I should like to congratulate him on his new job. I assume that he will be speaking on all matters to do with the Department of the Environment and I hope
754
that he will enjoy his work. I am sure that he wil find it as interesting and as worth while as I did. At the same time, I feel certain that he will not in any sense tyke it amiss if I repeat what has been said to me by Members in all parts of your Lordships' House and by people outside, that it is a matter of disappointment that we do not have a Minister in this House who is responsible for environmental matters. I say that because we have so many Members here who are not only experts in, but are practising members of, local government, and people who are acknowledged nationally for their interest in the environment.
I very much welcome this Order which, as the noble Lord explained so clearly, flows from the Local Government Act 1974 which was the very last Act of the Conservative Government. As he said, the Order removes an inequity and a great irritation to householders who make relatively small improvements to their properties and who, without this Order, would immediately find themselves being charged with increased rates because the values had gore up. Also, it was most helpful of the noble Lord to give some examples of the kind of minor improvements which the Order will cover. I understand that it will give relief until the next revaluation and will therefore tide people over this interim period. As I said, I am glad to welcome the Order and I wish the noble Lord every success in his work with the Department of the Environment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for what she has said about myself. I am very conscious of the manner in which she discharged her duties while she was at the Department of the Environment. I have beard nothing but praise for the diligence and the expertise which she brought to the discharge of her duties and she has left a lasting impression there.
As regards the question of my always speaking on matters to do with the environment, no one is more relieved than I to say that that will not be so. That would indeed be a vast undertaking. I shall give such service as I can to the House and to the Department, and I fully appreciate what the noble Baroness has said. But I should like to repeat what was said earlier, that my noble friend the

755
Leader of the House will be heavily involved with the Department of the Environment. I think it will be some comfort to your Lordships to know that he will have an office there and will be playing a very considerable part in dealing with matters to do with the Department. I trust that that will allay many fears. Knowing the ability of my noble Leader and his capacity for work, I am quite sure that he will often be speaking for the Department. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for what she has said about this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMITS ON MOTORWAYS) (AMEND- MENT) REGULATIONS 1974
4.35 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY rose to move That the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) (Amendment) Regulations 1974, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these Regulations is simply to permit goods vehicles of over 3 tons unladen weight to travel at up to 60 m.p.h. on motorways, the position prevailing before the blanket 50 m.p.h. limit was brought in to save fuel last December. As such, I hope that they will not prove controversial and that your Lordships will agree that in present circumstances it is right to return to the status quo ante for all vehicles using the motorways. Your Lordships may, however, be wondering why we should be debating the speed limits for heavy lorries, rather than the restoration of the general road speed limit of 70 m.p.h. on motorways, and how it is that measures which were introduced "at a stroke" take a little longer to get rid of. I shall do my best to explain in brief compass.
Section 78 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 permits the Secretary of State, by regulations subject to Affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, to vary the speed limit of specified classes of vehicle when driven on a motorway. Vehicles not contained within one of the specified classes are simply subject to any prevailing road speed limit on motorways. Under the Regulations which were in force before the general 50 m.p.h. limit was introduced, the only class of vehicles which was limited to a
756
motorway speed of less than 70 m.p.h. but over 50 m.p.h. was the class of goods vehicles of over 3 tons unladen weight which was limited to a 60 m.p.h. maximum. Accordingly, when the general limit on motorways was reduced from 70 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h. it was necessary "for the avoidance of doubt", as the lawyers have it, to reduce to that lower figure the limit for heavy goods vehicles; in other words, a belt and braces job was done.
Regulations now having been made (subject to the Negative Resolution procedure) under Section 13 of the 1967 Act to restore the general 70 m.p.h. limit on motorways, the Regulations now before your Lordships restore the 60 m.p.h. limit for heavy goods vehicles by getting rid of the amending Regulations brought in for the emergency and restoring those in operation beforehand; that is, the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973. Incidentally, the latter are consolidated and contain all the relevant provisions about special vehicle speed limits on motorways. It may be asked: how does it come about that these Regulations, but not those made in December, require the approval of your Lordships? The answer is that last December an Order in Council made under the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 dispensed with the procedural requirements of the 1967 Act in the interests of fuel economy, and the Regulations were not subject to Affirmative Resolution. Such a procedure is not available for the restoration of the pre-December limits and that prescribed by the 1967 Act had to be followed. I hope that this will be sufficient explanation of the Regulations themselves. However, before moving that they be approved, I should perhaps say a word or two about the decision not to restore for the time being the 70 m.p.h. limit on roads other than motorways.
My Lords, the United Kingdom has traditionally been an importer of petrol and naphtha, which is closely related to it and is used as a feedstock for the petrochemical industry. Current output from home refineries will not be enough to meet the demand for these products and there is a risk that the imports on which the United Kingdom normally relies may not be available. There is, therefore, a continuing need for economy in the use of petrol not only because of

757
the present tight supply situation for this product, but also to protect the availability of naphtha for the petrochemical industry. It is, of course, possible to increase the production of petrol at the expense of naphtha, but this would result in a further cutback in supplies to the petrochemical industry at a time when the Government are doing everything possible to get manufacturing industry back to full production.
It is not possible to modify the savings arising directly from the introduction of the 50 m.p.h. limit because of the effect of the economies exercised voluntarily by motorists in reducing weekend motoring and cutting out non-essential Sunday driving. The speed limit of 50 m.p.h. was selected as one which offered a reasonable saving in fuel consumption consistent with the performance of the modern motor vehicle. As an indication of the kind of fuel savings that can be achieved, a typical medium-sized private car travelling at a steady speed of 50 m.p.h. will consume around 20 per cent. less petrol than one travelling at 70 m.p.h. It is appreciated that some vehicles may be designed to provide the maximum efficiency at a speed in excess of 50 m.p.h. but these form only a small proportion of the 15 million or so passenger vehicles currently on the road.
My Lords, the petrol supply position is such that the Government thought very hard indeed about making any relaxation at present. Nevertheless, although some of the fuel savings currently being achieved will be lost by lifting the limit on motorways where it is most irksome, there is still a good deal of motor traffic on other roads where the 50 m.p.h. limit still applies and there is accordingly scope here for much-needed savings. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) (Amendment) Regulations 1974, be approved.—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
4.42 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I too, like my noble friend Lady Young, would like to take this opportunity, the first I have had—other than at Question Time yesterday when I would not have been in order—to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Garns-worthy, on his position, in my case more
758
particularly so, because not only is he in my old room in the Department of the Environment but at my desk and using my former private office staff. So I wish him particularly well, and I know what splendid service he will get from that staff. I can only wish him every good luck.
I must thank him for explaining this Order which he is introducing, and of course we welcome it so far as it goes. The noble Lord explained that the need for fuel economy is still with us. I had hoped that the 10 per cent. overall cut to petrol stations might have been considered sufficient, coupled with the noble public spiritedness of the ordinary motorist in not using his car more than necessary. A cut of 10 per cent. to the petrol stations is considerable. We have to consider such roads as the A1, particularly what I call the pseudo-type motorway parts of it like the Stamford By-pass, and, to take the example of the new Andover dual carriageways, there is little difference between these types of road and the M roads. I know that there are differences, especially legal differences, but to get public co-operation here is going to be difficult and I think we ought to sympathise with the police in exercising their discretion on the matter. I would urge the noble Lord—I am sure he will—to bring the matter to the attention of his right honourable friend. I think it will pose difficulties of enforcement for the police because on these sort of roads which are so like the M-ways the public will find themselves in difficulty.
The only other point I want to mention is that it was always said by us when in Government that as soon as the crisis was over we would end the whole thing. I do not know whether this idea of gradually stopping had been envisaged, but it will tend to make enforcement difficult. On that point my message to the noble Lord and to the Government is that they should consider the position. However, we thank the noble Lord for bringing in this Order.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, on one point which has been raised with me. There is an area of confusion at the moment about where one can travel at 70 m.p.h. and where one can travel at 60 m.p.h. I suggest to the Government that it is a good idea to deal quickly with

759
the situation concerning the particular type of road which has been mentioned. I have also in mind the A40, which is very similar to a motorway, and to many people who use motorways it would appear that there is some danger if the speed is changed on motorways but not on other roads. It is felt that such an anomaly will attract more traffic on to motorways, and that surely cannot be desirable. I expect that the noble Lord can tell us when we may expect the change-over to take place in regard to the other motorways.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene for more than a moment. Although I would not oppose it, I should be sorry if this Order were to go through, on two grounds: first, on the general ground that I do not think we are in a position to relax economies on imports. It seems to me that the import situation is so serious that if we were able to make a cut on the requirements of oil or to divert oil to naphtha or other feed stocks for the chemical industry, for man-made fibres to plastics, and so on, which are then exported, we ought to do it. That is one point on which I do not know the figures well enough to substantiate my contention.
Secondly, it has been much more pleasant on our motorways since the restrictions have operated. I do not quite know for whose pleasure the limit was put back to 70 m.p.h. I frequently use the motorway going home, and I am hound to tell the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that it is the fast moving lorries that cause one trouble when they move out from the nearside lane to pass, especially when the surface is dirty after rain. I think that noble Lords will agree with me that whatever the speed limit one travels 5 m.p.h. faster and thinks that the police v ill not intervene because one is travelling at 75 m.p.h. or whatever. In my experience this has been evident with unladen lorries. Driving has been so much less nerve-racking with the lower speed limit that I regret the proposed increased sped on two grounds. I regret it, first, because I think that from the point of view of the national economy we ought now to try to save imports of oil. Secondly, I regret it because I think that the comfort and pleasure of those who use motorways is more important than
760
those who wish to be quick and hasty in getting to where they want to go.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am bound to disagree with a good deal of what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that the need for economy is still with us. On the other hand, one must remember that many cars use less petrol at 70 m.p.h. than do others at 50 m.p.h. The position is entirely dependent on the size of the car and the speed at which it is driven. But the mentality of the motorist is peculiar. Having been a motorist myself I can vouch for that. If there is a limit of 50 m.p.h., he will tend to drive at 50 m.p.h. and never drop below that speed. The result is constant bunching of traffic on the motorways, whereas if there were no limit, which I think would be the ideal on motorways, there is far less of that sort of thing. Nowadays certain people drive slower, particularly those with larger cars, while others drive faster. Therefore I think that to relax the speed limit as far as possible will make for much less crowding of traffic.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I must confess that I am one who does not believe in any speed limit whatever on a motorway, but taking the facts as they have been put to-day, we should first of all remember that the potential saving of petrol by private motorists does not represent a very large proportion—in fact, it is a very small proportion of the total requirements of the nation. I submit that once the limit is taken off motorways—and bearing in mind the traffic congestion that exists on a great many roads to-day—most people will not exceed 50 m.p.h. except for very short periods. Therefore I am not convinced by the argument that we are making any worthwhile saving at all by keeping the 50 m.p.h. speed limit on other roads.
When it comes to commercial vehicles, and even those people who are driving on business, one must also remember that one costs out the time—and I know that the extent to which one should do so is arguable—there is a tremendous loss by reducing the speed between two points. However one makes that calculation, this would far outweigh any minute

761
saving there might be on our overseas payments in keeping on the limit.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for not having been here when he was speaking. I came here as fast as I could. Something which my noble friend Lord Eccles said has tempted me to speak. As noble Lords know, over the years I have initiated a number of debates in this House in connection with road safety, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, referred in his speech to the question of safety. The fact remains that this limit has reduced the incidence of fatal and serious accidents throughout the country. I shall not touch upon the economy aspect as I did not hear what the noble Lord said, but I believe that some limitation in speed is prudent.
What my noble friend Lord Eccles said makes me mention a letter which appeared in a newspaper either to-day or yesterday of the driver who said, "I go fast along the roads because I am trying to get away from the 40-tonner that is on my bumpers behind." When one remembers the accidents we have had in fog this is a very real point. Over the years—and I have been a motorist for very many years—it has been a grief to me to see that whereas twenty years ago the heavy transport driver was the knight of the road, I regret to say that that to-day is no longer the case.
I feel that one factor which can be tackled in regard to economy in speeds and the saving in accidents would be to test out the schedules to which these commercial drivers have to drive. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, touched on that point. It is all very well saying that transport drivers should not be travelling in that way, but they have been used to a strict so-many-hours running and they have to cover so many miles in that run. Depending on conditions, they have to push along if they are to keep to their schedule in accordance with their employer's instructions. If commercial drivers are giving trouble by their excessive speeds, cannot something be done to tackle their employers to see whether the schedules they are given are too tight?
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier,
762
that the commercial vehicle driver used to be the knight of the road but that he is now the nightmare of the road. They occasionally make very grave mistakes, but none the less no one will convince me that a car or vehicle driven at 70 m.p.h. is more economical than one driven at 50 m.p.h. Equally, users of motorways and vehicles on motorways are much less sensitive to the speeds than those who travel on other kinds of roads where you get variations in hills and hollows, where you also get corners and there is the necessity for braking and accelerating which of course uses a lot of petrol. If you get a straight run, the difference in petrol or fuel consumption between 50 m.p.h. and 70 m.p.h. is not very great. Personally, I believe that the Motion that has been proposed contains a great deal of sense and I should like to support it, because particularly on motorways unless heavy transport vehicles call (when weather conditions permit) legitimately drive at 60 m.p.h. it is just a waste of motorway.
4.55 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, whether he would very carefully consider this 50 m.p.h. limit on roads other than motorways. When the 50 m.p.h. was imposed from the point of view of economy the situation was so critical, and it was so constantly being brought to the attention of everybody how critical it was, that the 50 m.p.h. limit did not need to be enforced because people were automatically enforcing it themselves out of good sense and a knowledge of the difficult situation of the country. This knowledge is now receding into the background. Petrol is adequate. Very few people are refused it. The tendency is for the speeds to go up all the time, particularly on dual carriageways. We are asking a great deal of the police to enforce a regulation, particularly on dual carriageways, which is beginning slowly to be ignored by people using them. I do not like laws which cannot be enforced and I feel that this 50 m.p.h. speed limit is rapidly reaching that situation.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, first may I associate myself with the congratulatory remarks which my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton made when responding to the Minister.

763
Secondly, having listened most carefully to what he has had to say, I must confess that I can see no good reason for continuing the restriction on roads other than motorways because the amount of saving is infinitesimal. Certainly there is—and I speak, my Lords, as a director of a company retailing petrol—an adequacy of fuel available up and down the country, and I also travel many miles.
The savings that have come about have been largely due to the price and I have little doubt that next week one or two other people will be making economies in their journeys. Those people who find it essential to travel, notwithstanding the price, are not concerned with saving something like three to seven miles per gallon, or 20 per cent.; because, after all, when you go to a filling station to buy £2-worth of petrol the difference between £l·97-worth and £2 is hardly noticeable. Therefore one does not think about a saving of fuel. If one really wants to bring home the urgent need to save fuel because of the overseas payments problem, there are many different ways of doing it. One way I suggest is that we postpone the opening of new filling stations, which will merely aggravate the situation and entice more people to buy more petrol for various and different reasons.
I was very disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in their condemnation of the lorry driver. You would expect me to be disappointed in listening to them. One must realise that when one takes a 28-ton or a 30-ton gross vehicle on a long run of 30 miles down a motorway one wants to get up to an economical and easily controlled speed. It certainly is welcome to the responsible long distance lorry driver to be able to go faster on a motorway. He thereby saves a great deal of his personal energy as well on the journey.
The other point, which I have made on many occasions in debates on Road Traffic Bills, was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. We now have four different speed limits up and down the country on a variety of roads which, on occasions, are exceptionally difficult to identify. If one happens to miss the entry sign, on some occasions it is difficult to decide whether you are on a by-pass, a motorway, an A road, a B road
764
or what have you; and I can see a great deal of confusion arising. We shall have policemen stopping motorists and lorry drivers and saying, "Do you know you are exceeding the speed limit?", and the drivers replying, "Which one?" It really seems to me to be quite unreasonable that one should have this artificial limitation for the only good reason that I was able to hear the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, suggest of a 20 per cent. saving on fuel by a limited number of vehicles using a limited number of roads.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I just point out that we have been listening to a great many contradictory statements, many of them quite unsupported, I imagine, by evidence. I should at least like to point out that a saving of 20 per cent. is not 3p on a bill of £2.
5.2 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, when I knew I was taking this Order I had the feeling that I risked running into this situation, but I feel that the debate has been thoroughly worthwhile in that so many Members of your Lordships' House have spoken. As the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has pointed out, many of the points made have been replied to by other noble Lords who have spoken. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for the very kind things he said. Perhaps I may say that I have found his office very pleasantly situated. I have been very busy since I have been there and I have had very little time to take in all the details, but I have noticed that he has robbed me of what I understand was a very beautiful picture that was on the wall opposite to where I sit which he was thoroughly entitled to do because it was his own personal property. If he would like to let me have it back on permanent loan I should be delighted to have it, and should feel that I had something of very considerable artistic merit as well as value. I can assure him that I should appreciate seeing that picture there as much as I am told he did when he was there. But he really was extremely kind.
My Lords, I think the House would not want me to reply over-fully to all the points that have been made, but if I may come to the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton (and

765
one or two other noble Lords raised it as well), he drew attention to the situation as regards the A.1 and the A.30. It is felt that to raise the limit to 70 m.p.h. on all dual carriageways would be too big a relaxation in the present fuel situation. If I may reply to a query raised by my noble friend Lady Phillips, as to some clear indication of the roads on which one can travel at 70 m.p.h., I take the motorways as an example. Motorways are clearly distinguishable by the blue signs at the entrance and by the prefix or suffix "M" to the road number. It is on these roads that the 50 m.p.h. limit has been found most irksome.
That brings me to one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford—and, if I may say so, I think this is, at least, a part of the answer to one of the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. If speed limits are going to be effective, there must be respect for them, and information given to me indicates that the limit of 50 m.p.h. is being increasingly flouted on the motorways. I do not know what time of day the noble Viscount travels, but the information available to the Department is much more in line with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. If I may say so, I am informed that the police are very anxious indeed that the position should be treated in the manner in which this Order will deal with it.
As I have said, a number of your Lordships answered points made by other noble Lords, but may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that if in point of fact lorry drivers exceed the limits, as he suggested they do, they must be aware that they are putting their own position at risk. If schedules are so drawn that lorry drivers are compelled to consistently and persistently exceed speed limits, and if they get caught for it, as I understand it, in extreme cases the employers themselves might very well put their operator's licence at risk. So I would think that there is no need for more to be done about that problem, but the situation is being constantly watched. I must say that when the noble Lord said that he had missed the opening of this debate, but he had hurried here as fast as he could, it seemed to me that he was accepting the need for the abolition of all speed limits so far as his own travel was concerned; but,
766
even so, I think it is a pity that he did not arrive here in time.
My Lords, I hope the House will approve this Order. I believe that it will serve a very useful purpose in two ways. It will make the position much easier on the motorways, and it will continue to assist—this is expert opinion—in fuel saving.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' CEMETERIES ORDER 1974
5.8 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY rose to move, That the Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1974, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know whether it is appropriate that we should be taking an Order dealing with cemeteries immediately after the one we have just had before us, and I am not sure whether we shall have as many experts on this subject as we did on the last one. But this Order, while unsensational in its content, and undertaken in the context of local government reorganisation, constitutes something of a landmark in the history of burial law.
The law of burial has developed rather messily as a result of a long series of Acts of Parliament from the middle of the 19th century onwards. It has for many years been recognised as one of the most out-of-date and chaotic branches of the law. The most obscure and complicated aspects of it were those relating to the provision and management of burial grounds and cemeteries by local authorities, many of whom (but not all) could work either under the Burial Acts 1852 to 1906 or under the even older, but at least more concise, Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847, which was applied by the Public Health (Interments) Act 1879. The London Government Act 1963 undertook some rationalisation of the law as it related to London, but the opportunity for a more thorough overhaul of the position nationally was taken in the Bill which became the Local Government Act 1972.
The Act repeals, as from April 1, 1974, the Public Health (Interments) Act 1879 and the provisions in the Burial Acts 1852 to 1906 conferring powers to provide burial grounds. Instead, the 1972

767
Act starts afresh by conferring the power to provide cemeteries on burial authorities—defined so as to include all local authorities, other than county councils, down to parish and community councils and indeed the parish meetings of parishes having no parish council. And the Act (in Section 214(3)) empowers the Secretary of State to make provision, by Order subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses, with respect to the management, regulation and control of the cemeteries of local authorities. The first such Order is the one now before the House.
As a precautionary measure the Act applies the code of operation contained in the Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847 (except for specified sections which are not relevant to local authorities) to all burial authorities until such time as the first Order made by the Secretary of State under Section 214(3) takes effect. The object was solely to ensure that if for any reason it proved impossible to bring an Order into force by April 1, 1974, burial authorities would still have a set of detailed powers for the operation of their cemeteries in spite of the repeals in the 1972 Act. But no one could really want to complicate the administration of the new burial authorities, or of the many parish burial authorities who continue in existence, by requiring them to operate temporarily under an Act of 1847 which most of them have never seen and which it would not be easy to lay hands on—hence the importance of seeing to it that the present Order takes effect on April 1.
The Order includes such material on the management of cemeteries as it seemed necessary to preserve from the mass of 19th century legislation which is being repealed, but a number of additions and improvements have been made in consultation with the interested organisations. It is intended to deal with special subjects, like the registration of burials and the conversion of cemeteries to lawn cemeteries, in further Orders, and to consolidate them with this one so that from now on burial authorities will have a concise and up-to-date code for the operation of their cemeteries.
What cannot be done in these Orders is to deal with matters other than the management, regulation and control of local authority cemeteries, or to deal at
768
all with matters relating to cemeteries provided otherwise than by local authorities. This leaves a number of aspects of the law of burial which could only be dealt with by Bill, for which, regrettably, previous Governments (both Conservative and Labour) have been unable to find Parliamentary time. These aspects of the law are being considered separately by the Department of the Environment. Meanwhile, my Lords, the Act of 1972 and this Order will have remedied the worst defects of the existing law of burial. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1974 be approved.—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
5.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I suppose it was rather more than ten years ago that I first drew the attention of this House to the state of the burial Jaw, and I have had the warmest support from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, ever since in my efforts to get something done about it. I emphasise and underline every word of opprobrium that has been poured upon the previous state of the law by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. I think it concerned chapels. This Order is indeed a landmark, or, if I may change the metaphor a little, a gift horse, and I do not want to look it too closely in the mouth.
There are just one or two question I should like to ask while the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, sits patiently waiting to put his Unstarred Question. I appreciate this Order has had to be produced in a hurry, but we have here a system which, though it has great advantages, also has some minor disadvantages which I shall deal with in a moment. We had Section 214 and Schedule 26 in the Local Government Act, and already quite a number of paragraphs in Schedule 26 have been repealed and replaced in the Order. First of all, what for instance is the material difference, if any, between the paragraphs 21 and 22 in the Schedule and their reincarnation as Articles 11 and 5, sub-paragraphs 1–3 in the Order? Is there any difference at all, or is this just tidying up?
Secondly, are we in due course to have a complete re-statement of the parts of the Schedule which deal with the provision and management of cemeteries all

769
in the same place? For instance, shall we have paragraph 11 of Schedule 26 reproduced in one of these Orders or in a consolidation Order? I ask that for this reason: much of the actual day-to-day work is going to be done by very small local authorities (previously parish councils and now local councils), and it is of the greatest importance that the clerk or other person in charge should be able to find the law in one place. The whole object of this exercise has been to get rid of the mountainous mass of prehistoric legislation which has literally hung like a tombstone round the neck of anybody trying to administer the burial law, and to give him a single, simple code to work on. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, promises this because he says there are two further Orders and then a consolidation. Will he please also consider getting rid of Schedue 26 altogether—apparently there are powers available to do this—or at any rate to get rid of as much of it as possible, so that we may have everything in one place? Then there will be just one Order, and that is all that has to be looked up by those who are running this sort of service in the local authorities.
The disadvantage of doing this by Order is rather a matter concerning those who produce textbooks or other guidance for the practitioner or the person operating a burial ground or cemetery, in that, so far as I know, one does not get any publisher to produce an annotated copy of a Statutory Instrument. It is most unusual to find the complete code of powers and provisions covering a subject like this in a Statutory Instrument. In Halsbury there is a whole section on burial and cremation. This will disappear completely, because all the Acts will be repealed and the only thing to be put in their place is a Statutory Instrument. Therefore there will be no annotated version. I hope that those who prepare the books for guidance will take account of that fact—I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is nodding; I think he takes my point. We shall need to have some notes and cross-references, which are so helpful to us all. To my knowledge, that is the only disadvantage in doing this by way of Statutory Instrument. The advantage, of course, is flexibility and the ability to repeal, amend and consolidate without the
770
necessity of putting a Bill before Parliament.
There is one point on consultation. As I have said, I can understand the hurry. But I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will bear in mind—and I see from the Department of the Environment some familiar faces advising him whom I remember well dealing with this subject ten years ago—that printing and posting is no longer what it was. The Government are required to consult local authorities and local authority associations on these matters; but the printing situation at the moment is so extraordinary and so slow, as is the post, that in practice what happened in this case with the local government association (the National Association of Local Councils) was that the consultative draft arrived in their office on the same day as this Order was laid before Parliament. Fortunately it did not matter, because they had already been in continuous discussion with the Department on this. The Government must realise that consultation has to make allowances for these slownesses, which I do not suppose the 4½p post is going to improve any more than the 3½p one did.
Would the noble Lord look at one detailed point? Under Article 6(1)(b) of the Order a burial authority will be able, if it chooses to be so silly, to provide, for instance, a Roman Catholic chapel on part of a cemetery which has been set apart under Article 5(1), say, for the Methodists. I do not suppose many people would do something as foolish as that, but if you have the wording as loose as it is in the Order, it is technically possible to do so. I think it needs tightening up so that you can put beyond question what the powers are once you have a particular denomination involved on a particular piece of land.
May I draw the noble Lord's attention to Article 18 of the Order. It says:
"Nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorising the disturbance of man remains."
What about women? Might it not be better to amend the Order, if we can do so, and put in two letters, "h" and "u" making the word "human"?
5.21 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for the expertise

771
which he has brought to his consideration of this Order. It is well known, of course, that he has had a considerable interest in this matter, as he has said, spreading over a period of some ten years. I am grateful for the fact that I have been given some advice by those whom, he has recognised, because I think they have had a very good understanding of his profound knowledge, as well as of his interest, in the subject. Regarding the point which the noble Lord raised regarding Article 18, I do not think it is possible to amend an Order: I think it either ought to go through as it is, or we should have a new Order.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, may I interrupt? That was intended to be a little light joke; but I promise the noble Lord that it can be dealt with under the printing provisions.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, note will be taken of what the noble Viscount had to say, and if it can be done that seems to me sensible. I think I understand the points he has raised, and I am grateful to him for giving me some indication of the line he would be taking. If I may reply to the points as he raised them this afternoon, he asked what differences are there between, say, paragraphs 21 and 22 of the 26th Schedule and Articles 11 and 5(1) to sub-paragraph 3 of the Order. As regards paragraph 21 of the 26th Schedule, which relates broadly to burials taking place with or without a Church of England service, part of this paragraph is indeed reproduced in Article 11 of the Order. But paragraph 21(2) of the Schedule is dropped because it relates to words in the Burial Laws Amendment Act 1880, which are being repealed by the Order and replaced by Article 5(5).
The noble Viscount will find paragraph 21(3) of the Schedule on the registration of burials reproduced as Article 5(7) of the Order. Paragraph 22 of the Schedule relates to the setting apart of unconsecrated land in a cemetery for a particular denomination. This is integrated into Article 5 of the Order, which deals both with consecration and setting apart.
The noble Viscount inquired as to whether it was highly inconvenient to have part of the powers in the 26th Schedule and part in the Order: why not,
772
for instance, put paragraph 11 of the Schedule into the Order? The Government accept the noble Viscount's proposition in principle, but the example he has given is one where it was consciously decided not to transfer the paragraph to the Order. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 26 confers on burial authorities the power to make or adopt by-laws. The Department of the Environment's model cemetery by-laws, with minor additions, have been included in the Order as Schedule 2, Part I; and provisions relating to proper behaviour in local authorities' cemeteries have been included in the Order as Article 14. It is hoped that these provisions will be enough to make it unnecessary for most, if not all, burial authorities to have by-laws. If experience confirms that the by-law making power is no longer needed, the Secretary of State has it in mind to use, in due course, the powers of repeal which he is given in Section 214(3) of the 1972 Act to repeal the paragraph relating to by-laws in Schedule 26.
On the subject of consultation, as the noble Viscount acknowledges, there has been and is considerable hurry to get certain Orders, including this one, brought into force by April 1. But the consultation required on the present Order took place last autumn, as the noble Viscount indicated, and the comments made by the various organisations consulted, including the National Association of Local Councils, were taken into consideration. However, the Order was not made until the present Government took office. At that stage no question arose of further consultations—that is as I understand the position—but at the same time as the Order was laid copies were sent for information to the organisations which had been consulted. Where we have inevitably had to cut the time short is in the interval between the laying of the Order and debate in both Houses. The Government would certainly have preferred to leave a longer interval but were constrained by the approach of April 1, the significance of which in relation to this Order I have endeavoured to explain.
On the question about what is to stop a burial authority, under Article 6(1)(b) of the Order, from providing a chapel for one religious denomination on a part of the cemetery which has been consecrated

773
or set apart under Article 5(1) for a different denomination, it is suggested that the wording of Article 6(1)(b) needs tightening up. There is little risk, I am advised, of this happening. It presupposes that a religious denomination who put up the money for the construction of a chapel for their own needs would be content to have it built on land set apart for another denomination, and that the burial authority who had gone to the trouble of setting the land apart for one denomination would then ignore the setting apart. If, however, any authority took such action it seems probable that the matter would be taken to the courts. The Government are advised by their lawyers, with unusual firmness, that the courts would link the provision of a chapel described in lines 2 to 4 of Article 6(1)(b) to the character of the particular part of the cemetery.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive my interrupting? If there is one thing that I suggest we can do in drafting Orders under this particular provision, it is to make perfectly certain nobody ever has to go to the courts about vires. If this is the answer that has been given to the noble Lord, would he consider putting it perfectly plainly in the Bill so that nobody ever has to go anywhere near the courts in order to see what the powers are?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am quite sure that what the noble Viscount has said will be taken note of and studied very carefully. I trust that I have answered the points that he raised; if I have overlooked any of them I will certainly write to him.
My Lords, I must confess that I have never in my life been attracted to the subject of cemeteries. I was once a member of a local authority, and any member who was late attending a committee meeting was automatically put on the Cemetery Committee. I managed to avoid being put on the Cemetery Committee. When I realised that I was having to take this Order, I thought it might have been a good thing had I had some earlier experience. When I knew that the noble Viscount was going to take the Order from the other side, I realised that I should be up against a talented and knowledgeable spokesman. I am grateful to him for the
774
manner in which he has dealt with the Order. We have had a much lengthier, and a more probing, debate than was the case when the Order was before the other place. I hope that what has been said here not only will be of advantage to your Lordships but may perhaps be read also by Members of another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IMMIGRATION LAWS: SEX DISCRIMINATION
5.32 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will equalise the immigration rights of men and women by permitting husbands to join wives who are legally resident in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question in my name on the Order Paper. We have been listening to a long series of Orders. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was perfectly correct when he suggested that, in listening to them, I was a little impatient. I recognise the very great importance of the subjects which have been discussed. If I had any impatience, it was sublimated by the two maiden speeches made by Ministers from the Front Bench. One was by my old friend Lord Wells-Pestell, who I converted to Socialism in the 'thirties. The other was by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, a new friend. I also appreciate the fact that he will be replying to this debate. I should like to express appreciation not only of the ability with which they acted as Ministers, but also of the command of the House which they gained. I am confident that they will be able to exert that same influence in the future.
My Lords, I am asking this Unstarred Question with great confidence. First, because of the climate of tolerance and humanity which there now is in the Home Office. That has been reflected in the very early decision to allow Ugandan Stateless husbands of women in this country who are British passport holders to come here, and to allow their student sons to come here. It has been reflected, secondly, in the decision that the quota of refugees from various parts of the world requested by the United Nations Refugee Commission should be accepted in this

775
country. We have been the first European country to do so. Thirdly, it is reflected in the fact that the Home Office has indicated that it is now considering an amnesty for those who have committed offences regarding immigration which it was proposed should be treated retrospectively. In view of that new climate in the Home Office, I am very confident about the subject matter of the Question I am now putting.
In addition, my Lords, I want to say that the case I am now going to present is so absolutely convincing, so absolutely unanswerable, that I am perfectly confident it will have the support of your Lordships in all parts of this House. I am not raising a question of immigration control; that is a separate issue. I am raising the question of sex discrimination within our present immigration laws. They can be summarised very simply. The wife of a man legally resident in this country can join him from overseas whatever her nationality: the husband of a woman legally resident here has not the right to join her if he is of another nationality. That is sheer sex discrimination. It ought not to be tolerated within our immigration laws. It is an obsolete idea, a Victorian idea, that the man should be regarded as head of the family, rather than that man and wife should be regarded as equal partners; and that the man is the sole, or the major, breadwinner in any family. That conception is utterly out of date, and it is increasingly untrue that the man is necessarily the sole, or the major, breadwinner in any family. The idea behind this is that the woman is the possession and chattel of the husband.
I appreciate that the Home Secretary has recognised this problem in the case of the Ugandan British passport holders, but this rule, which is the present rule, applies much more widely than only to the Uganda Asians. It applies to nonwhite women from all the Commonwealth territories—but not by any means only non-whites. These last few days I have been deeply impressed by the fact that I have been overwhelmed by letters from British white wives, written by them or on their behalf—wives in this country whose husbands cannot join them, or wives abroad who are not able to come here because their husbands are not per-
776
mitted to do so. I have never had in such a few days so many letters from all parts of the world. This is due to the fact that ten days ago the Sunday Times indicated that I had this Question on the Order Paper. I do not know whether it is because the Sunday Times has such a large world circulation or because an agency circulated it, but I have this mass of letters—from America; from Africa, particularly Nigeria; from Asia, even from Australia—complaining at the present discrimination between women and men in our immigration laws, and supporting the Question which I am now putting to the House.
It is difficult to select from these letters. One is from the headmaster of a public school in this country whose daughter wishes to marry an American and wants to be sure that that American will be allowed to join her in this country. One is from a British woman who is married to a Swede, and because the Swede cannot be admitted to this country they have taken refuge in Denmark which has admitted her spouse because she comes from an E.E.C. country. Another comes from the daughter of a Hastings woman who is married to a Chinese student who is required to leave this country on concluding his studies. One is from a distinguished staff member of St. Hilda's College, Oxford, who says that at Nairobi University she met several women in the same position as herself; women who were born and educated here in Britain and who are now faced with the unhappy choice of abandoning their husbands or living for the rest of their lives in a country with which they have few ties.
I am going to read extracts from one letter which has come from America. The British woman concerned, living in New York, says:
"I am not an ardent 'women's libber', believing that true liberation is freedom of the spirit, but now I must admit … I feel like a second-class citizen and worse besides.
"I am a British subject who came to this country in October, 1972, to pursue further studies at a drama school in New York. In November, 1973, I married an American citizen and we had planned to live in England … How terrible it is to have one's hopes shattered just by making a telephone call—a call to the British Consulate here in New York a few days ago, to learn about this law. I do not think I have ever experienced such utter dismay and thorough outrage… Am I to look forward to the prospect of being cut off from my own country or from my husband? This to me is utterly unbearable, and I think no

777
one should be forced into having to decide on this sort of priority.
"This is a disgrace and an outrage, let alone just downright cruel to British women."
My Lords, to balance that letter from America, I should like to read extracts from one from Nigeria. The writer says:
"I am a British woman, born and bred in Britain, married to a non-British subject. Since my marriage, I have found to my cost that the British law discriminates against women in my position with a result that many British women are suffering extreme hardship and many, many others, while not suffering hardship, are in a position of extreme insecurity…
"When a British woman marries a foreigner, her husband is not allowed to live and work in Britain. She is therefore virtually evicted from her own country, since obviously she will wish to be with her husband… In some emergency situation (for example, a severe illness, which cannot he treated in one's husband's country), a woman may be obliged to return to Britain, and is thus forced to be separated from her husband.
"In my own case, I spent some months in Britain whilst I was having my first baby. My husband was in Britain for six months at that time but was not allowed to work. This meant that for those six months neither of us was working, and at the same time we had to cater for the expenses of a new baby."
I recognise that if a woman can prove hardship to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal her husband from abroad may be allowed to stay with her. That she should have to ask for such permission is in itself a humiliation. It is often refused, and the definition of "hardship" excludes poverty and destitution: they are not regarded as a hardship when one goes to the Appeals Tribunal. We are arguing this afternoon not for a compassionate concession of that humiliating kind, but for the woman to have her husband with her as a right.
I know only one argument that is made against the case which I am now putting to the House. It is that the right might be abused; that marriages of convenience might be arranged to allow an otherwise illegal or undesirable immigrant to enter Britain. I recognise that these abuses occur: I have taken part in them myself. I did so when we were fighting Hitler and the Nazis, when a young woman in Vienna, prominent in the struggle against Hitler, could escape imprisonment and death only by marrying a British man. I tried to arrange it, but I did not succeed. I am not sure that I ought to say this, but the man
778
concerned is now a Member of this House.
My Lords, I am not suggesting that the abuses in these cases are justified. My point is that they are already taking place in the cases where husbands are here and where the women are allowed to come to them. Look at the "underground" Press in this country and you will see every week advertisements of men who are prepared, to their financial gain, to marry women abroad, so that they can come here—married for three months and then divorced. The extension of the right I am urging would make no difference at all to this problem of abuse. May I remind the House that the Home Office already has the right to intervene wherever it considers that an abuse may occur. I doubt very much whether the number of cases of abuse of this kind is sufficiently large to make interferences with privacy justified and to have a general rule, but nevertheless I suggest to the Home Office that it would be possible to say that for a period of years immigrant status should be allowed only while the marriage lasts. This argument of abuse could be met on those lines.
In conclusion, I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships to a grave humiliation and cruelty which arises from sex discrimination in our immigration laws. If a British woman is married to a foreigner and gives birth to a child abroad, that child is not recognised as hers when she travels to this country. A child, even an infant, may not legally appear on its mother's passport. If by chance it does, when she reaches Heathrow or a British port of entry and an immigration officer discovers that the child has been born abroad, on the passport against that child's name is entered "Six months only". The child is supposed to have a separate identity certificate. At Heathrow, if a mother—a British woman—comes with two children, one of whom has been born in this country and the other has been born abroad, she may take the child who has been born in this country through the gateway for British citizens while the child who has not been born in this country has to go through the other gateway under the care of the hostess of the airplane.
I have a large number of letters on this subject. I will read one from a petition

779
of six women which I received yesterday. They write:
"We, the undersigned, all British-born women married to foreign husbands, are protesting about the sex discrimination we experience when bringing our children to our own country, Britain. Children in the same family are treated in different ways, depending upon whether they are British-born or foreign-born. A British male parent married to a foreign wife has no problem with his children, his foreign adopted children or stepchildren; but our children, born to us overseas, are given a different status from the mother. No British woman can tolerate this, as by placing mothers and children in different categories the family is split."
My Lords, I have here ten cases and I shall be forwarding them all to the Home Office for consideration. I will quote from only one of them:
"I am Mrs. M., British born and holding a British passport. My husband is Nigerian. My two older children—a boy aged seven and a girl aged five (both born in Britain) travel on my British passport and enter Britain with no problems. My third child, born February, 1973, in Nigeria has problems. In July, 1973, I had to travel to Britain because my mother was seriously ill in hospital. My baby was four months old and the immigration officer (British High Commission, Ibadan) allowed my child to travel with me for compassionate reasons—he was given a British entry certificate for six months. I returned to Nigeria in September, 1973.
"In December (my baby now being ten months old) I had to travel again to Britain because of the death of my mother. My baby's six months entry certificate to Britain had expired and I applied for renewal. I was held up for one week as the British High Commissioner did not want to renew. Finally the baby's entry certificate was extended to January 26, 1974, and by that time I found my stay in Britain was limited to 15 days.
"To make doubly sure of me they cancelled my British passport from January 26, 1974, although my passport was valid to August, 1975."
My Lords, there was a case reported in the Press last week of a British woman married to a Spaniard. She had a girl of three, born in Spain; she had a boy, four months old, born in Britain. In last Monday's Guardian the grandmother of the children, Mrs. Audrey Brookbank of Walton-on-Thames—I told the Minister I was not going to give names; I apologise, but her name was given in the Guardian—the grandmother of the children stated:
"When my daughter brings the children to see us, she and the baby go through the British gate on my daughter's British passport, but the little girl has to go through the foreigners' gate."
Two children of a British mother at Heathrow! Says the Guardian:
"The problem arose when Mrs. Brookbank's daughter applied for a renewal of her British passport and the addition to it of the names of the two children. The baby's name was added because he was British, but the Passport Office insisted that the little girl must have her own Spanish passport."
I am pleading that a British wife should have the right to her own children, wherever those children are born. The United States of America has set us an example. The United States recognises the principle of the mother's right, and wherever the children of the mother are born they are admitted to America on equal terms. I hope the fact that we now have such a tolerant and humane Government here will mean that these new principles are accepted in Britain.
My Lords, I have put the case for the ending of sex discrimination within our immigration laws. These facts probably were unknown previously to many Members of the House. I think they are possibly unknown to many members of the Government. I ask for the support of Members of this House to see that the rights of women, and human equality, may now be recognised.
6.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, or anyone else, will not consider that merely because I do not make a half-hour's speech on an Unstarred Question that it is not an important subject, but I really think that perhaps Unstarred Questions warrant fairly brief speeches. Also, if the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will forgive me, I will not touch on the last half of his speech because, with respect, I think it has nothing to do with the Question; it is a matter for the British Nationality Act.
All I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich is whether or not the present Government are continuing with their study of this exceedingly difficult matter, because I would suggest that not until that study is completed is any form of answer capable of being given to the question about children born abroad to mothers who are United Kingdom citizens by birth. Therefore, I shall confine myself quite briefly to the first part of the speech of the noble Lord,

781
Lord Brockway, which is, in fact, the Question that he has on the Order Paper.
I am also fairly confident that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, his colleagues in the Home Office, and the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, will find this question a good deal more difficult than one would imagine simply by listening to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. It is not only a matter to cause one considerable anxiety and distress but one which, upon examination, results in very great problems when one simply attempts the sweeping solutions to it that have been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I can tell the House what the policy used to be under the previous Administration, but perhaps that is neither here nor there. I believe it is worth while remembering (and I believe it to be correct) that what we do on the immigration control side is in line with what is done by many other countries. We are at least in line with international practice and law on this matter.
My Lords, secondly, I would remind the House (and this does not appear to vary according to whichever Government is in office) that Britain is apparently a highly attractive place and one to which those British women who marry foreign husbands, whether Commonwealth or alien, apparently wish to return with their husbands and families. It is a country to which a large number of foreign men wish to come in order to marry British women resident here, and no doubt settle to bring up their families. This is a small island. Goodness knows! there are enough problems as it is in finding housing for those who already live here. We are to have a debate next week on race relations, and if I have said it once from the Dispatch Box I have said it fifty times, race relations are a matter of balance between the indigenous population and the incoming population which one cannot lightly overlook if one is to have harmony on the race front in this country. To open the floodgates is not likely to be very successful in promoting race harmony.
These are some of the aspects which come into this question. I think they are likely to be matters which will give the noble Lord, Lord Harris, cause for thought, and which certainly vexed us when we were dealing with these heart-
782
rending problems of individual cases such as were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships' House of the genesis of the rule that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has so trenchantly criticised. I quote from a Written Answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place (30/1/69, cols. 366–7):
"During 1968, 1,676 Commonwealth citizens were admitted for marriage to women resident in the United Kingdom. These men were admitted under a concessionary provision, in addition to the 3,828 adult males admitted under the employment voucher scheme. Their numbers have risen steeply over the last year or so and are now on such a scale that it seems that marriage is being used by many young men of working age as a means of entering, working and settling in this country. This abuse of the concession is inconsistent with the general scheme of Commonwealth immigration control, particularly the employment voucher scheme. The Government have, therefore, decided that the concession under which male Commonwealth citizens are allowed to settle here in right of their wife must be withdrawn.
"In future, the admission of husbands and fiancés from the Commonwealth for settlement will be restricted to cases presenting special features, and it will be a requirement that an entry certificate must have been obtained. Consistently with this, men who have been admitted as visitors, students or for other temporary purposes, will not be permitted to settle here following marriage, save in exceptional circumstances.
"Account will be taken in individual cases of any special circumstances, whether of a family nature or otherwise, which makes exclusion from the United Kingdom undesirable; but men, whether husbands or fiancés, seeking admission under this special dispensation must obtain an entry certificate before setting out for the United Kingdom."
That was Mr. Callaghan as Home Secretary withdrawing the concession. He did so for the reasons set out in the Written Answer. Since that time, we have equated the position of the Commonwealth citizens and the aliens to all intents and purposes for getting into this country; we do not have employment vouchers now, but entry certificates.
My Lords, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Harris, if he can do no more this afternoon, at least to say whether he thinks that the pressure on the United Kingdom has slackened since the days in early 1969 when that statement was made. I would tend to think—although I do not know a great deal about this—that the lengthy queues of people (indeed, United Kingdom passport holders) in various

783
parts of the world, patiently waiting their turn to get an entry certificate under the quota scheme, is evidence enough that there is substantial pressure from that source alone. Now we are told that there are many Americans, Swedes, Africans, and goodness knows how many other nationalities not under the Commonwealth quota scheme at all (Australians and so on), who would also like to come. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will probably be able to confirm my impression that there is still a very large number of people who would like, if this concession were restored, to take advantage of it. If so, we must calculate whether this would be to the advantage of this country any more than it would be to the advantage of those who come in what must ex hypothesi be crowded and difficult circumstances for their settlement.
The other matter of which I should perhaps just remind the House is the extent to which the practice has perhaps developed in dealing with these cases since 1969. That Written Answer appeared to deal almost entirely with the personal circumstances of the man, the husband or the fiancé, as they presented themselves at the time he wished to arrive here. This has been extended, I should think by administrative practice, over the years, and when I last saw cases of this sort the consideration included all the circumstances of a family, wife, husband and any children. It included cases not only of people wishing to come in as fiancés or husbands to people resident in this country, but families wishing to return as a family unit where the wife was of United Kingdom origin having lived for some time in countries abroad, whether in Iraq, America or wherever it may have been.
In all these cases the individual circumstances—the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to hardship—which would apply if the family was not allowed into this country are carefully weighed. I am not aware of any definition of "hardship", and certainly the cases that I looked at myself were at a stage much earlier than going to any Immigration Appeals Tribunal, because that stage is only reached if in the first place permission is not given by the Home Office or by an entry clearance officer abroad. Many cases are in fact allowed through
784
without any recourse to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal at all. They are allowed on presentation of hardship or good reasons without any appeal. The noble Lord is not right on his facts on this point, because I have actually had these cases through my hands; I have had them recommended to me, and I have agreed with the advice that people in this category should be allowed to stay in this country. There has been no question of appeal.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am very sorry, but my notes have gone up to Hansard and I cannot quote the actual definition. There is a definition of "hardship" at the Immigration Appeals Tribunal; it excludes poverty and destitution. The consideration is as to whether the woman can go to the country where her husband lives, either on the grounds of background, social conditions, culture, or health. I would have been able to give that definition except that my notes have gone elsewhere.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, be that as it may; the noble Lord may be right. As I say, I did not examine a great many of these cases. What I am saying is that you do not necessarily have to go to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal at all.
LORD BROCKWAY: The noble Viscount said I was wrong.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am saying that I am not aware of a definition, and the sort of cases that do not go to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal do not get qualified by any such definitions so far as I am aware. If I am wrong the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will immediately put me right when he speaks.
We are not in a position this evening to take any decision on this, anyway. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be able to tell us what the Government are thinking. I would simply counsel him to go fairly gently and carefully in this, weighing up, no doubt, as certainly the previous Administration did, the sort of hardship cases the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has quoted against the very practical disadvantages of allowing wholesale relaxation of this rule, some of which at least I have attempted to touch on this evening.

785
Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that his right honourable friend is not going to make a precipitate decision on this matter but rather one that is carefully weighed, and no doubt one that we shall have an opportunity to argue about on a future occasion.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I ask him a question, because I find myself puzzled by his speech? As I understand it, he did not impugn the evidence put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. He mentioned the need for a thorough review of citizenship, but may I ask him whether he had any other positive suggestions to put forward as to what should be done about the very real problems mentioned by Lord Brockway? Does he really feel that the present state of affairs is satisfactory, because that, I felt, was the implication of what he said. Perhaps I misunderstood.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have sat down, but in courtesy to the noble Lord perhaps I might say one more word. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, raised two questions, one of which is on the Order Paper and one not. The one which is not I did not seek to comment upon at all. The one which is I suggested is a difficult one, but it is being handled administratively at the moment in a way which does not produce the totally unfair result the noble Lord suggested. I was leaving it to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to say whether or not the system commended itself to the present Government, and that, after all, is not something on which I can comment in any way.
6.16 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, from these Benches we would warmly support all that Lord Brockway has said so trenchantly and firmly. I wish to intervene for only a very brief moment to draw attention to, and possibly find a way to a solution of, a matter which I hope the House will agree is a cause of great injustice to a young British citizen. It arises from a mistake made many years ago by someone in the Foreign Office. It may be that the point I am raising is a little wide of the Question Lord Brockway is asking, but I think the House will agree it has sufficient relevance
786
and is sufficiently pertinent to allow me to raise it.
The name of the young man is James Hugh Maxwell. I do not know him, but I knew his father, who was resident director for B.O.A.C. in the Middle East and based on Cairo. In 1941 he sent his wife to Cape Town because of the unsettled conditions in Cairo. It was in Cape Town that this young man was born. Until 1949, I understand, there was no such thing as a South African citizen, and the status of British people resident there was that of a British subject. Therefore, this young man was a British subject from his birth. Both his parents were British. His mother was temporarily resident in Cape Town. In December, 1949, the South African Citizenship Act was passed. This appeared to make the young man a South African citizen but it seems he retained his status as a British subject, because in 1950 his father applied to the Foreign Office for a passport for the son and a British passport was issued and granted.
This was renewed regularly until the latter half of 1972, some twenty years later, when the young man, then resident and working in Paris, applied for the usual renewal. He received a letter dated December 14, 1972, from the British Consul-General in Paris stating, blandly, that no passport could be issued as the original had been granted—and really, my Lords, you will have to accept that this was said—through an administrative error. That, I think, was a remarkably pompous statement. Had his father known this fact in 1950, when he originally applied for the passport, he would have taken steps to have the matter put straight. For some twenty years he was, I maintain, justifiably confident that all was in order, as the passport had been regularly renewed.
It seems that this refusal came about through the passing of the South African Act 1962, which apparently revoked the status of British subjects granted under the Act of 1949. The first of the remedies suggested by the authorities now is that the young man should take out a South Africa passport. In the current political situation in that country I think this is an odious suggestion to make to any young British citizen. The second suggested remedy is that he should acquire British citizenship through naturalisation, which means that he has to give up his job and

787
career overseas, come back here, find a new job, wait five years, and then undertake to reside in this country. This, I submit, is a gross infringement of the rights of the subject. I submit, too, my Lords, that the South Africa Act of 1962 in its revocation of rights given twenty years before represents an intolerable retrospective piece of legislation.
I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Harris, comes to reply—and I have given him notice of this question—he will indicate that the matter can be taken up immediately with the appropriate Department and that now a British passport can be issued to this young man, so ending this injustice. I have been informed that owing to the ramifications of these various Acts it may be argued that there are legal difficulties in the way of doing what I suggest. I would not for one moment suggest in your Lordships' House that anybody should break the law, but I do suggest that it can occasionally be bent to everybody's advantage. Also, I understand that Ministers have discretionary powers in this connection, which in the past have been used at short notice. If such a course is really honestly not possible, would the noble Lord say in his reply that the Government would welcome a short Bill to amend this Act and so bring an end to this unhappy situation? If I can be of any assistance to the noble Lord in obtaining further information, or if he would care to discuss the matter with me outside, I hope he will not hesitate to let me know. Although it is a little late in the day, may I offer my congratulations on his maiden speech which he made earlier.
6.22 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, may I very shortly support the Question posed by my noble friend Lord Brockway? I can do so shortly first, because he made his own case with his usual skill, and secondly because this is of course a repeat of the debate which we had on July 19, 1971, on the then Immigration Bill on a number of Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I ventured to say then that I was old-fashioned, that I thought some things were right and some things were wrong and that I did not see how it could be other than wrong that while a Jamaican man who gets a work permit to work
788
here has of course a legal right to have his wife and children with him, a Jamaican nurse who is persuaded to help us in our hospitals and has an invalid husband to support has no such right. This is exactly the same point to-day.
There is, of course, a discretion, but if there is a dispute it has to go to a tribunal, and all my information is that it is the rarest thing for a tribunal ever to make a finding in favour of an English wife. The National Association of Community Relations Councils tell me that only in the very severest circumstances, where a wife can show that if permission were refused she would undergo considerable hardship through difference of language, race or social customs, or would suffer political persecution in her husband's country, is the appeals tribunal prepared to accept that a husband can live in this country with his wife. In practice, as I understand it, almost the only case is where an Englishwoman marries one of the Islamic faith and can prove to the tribunal that if she went with her husband to the Sudan, Nigeria, or wherever it might be, she would be completely ostracised by the whole of her husband's family.
I want, if I may, to make what is perhaps a rather newer point. I said in 1971 that I was concerned only with husbands and wives who I believed, should not be separated by law: I was not concerned with fiancés. There is one point that has come to my attention on which I think the law can be very hard on fiancés, and that is that, as I understand it, the Home Office will not say how they would exercise the discretion if the couple married until they do marry. Perhaps I may be permitted to quote a case on which I had some correspondence with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. An Englishwoman born and bred here, earning her own living is, I think, a teacher. She is engaged to a Portuguese, a highly skilled welder who could not find work in Portugal and who for some years now has been living and working in France. The question was: has she to become an outcast from her own country?
The noble Viscount was kind enough to write to me about the case. It is impossible apparently for her to find out if she does marry him where they can live or how they can live. I asked the noble

789
Viscount, if the English will not let them live here, and if the French will not let them live in France, what are they supposed to do? He said, "I suppose they could always live in Portugal"—where, of course, neither of them can find work. This is really a terrible position for fiancés to be in when they cannot find out what is going to happen, and the point is exactly the same. If this teacher had been a male of course nobody would drive him out of his own country because he marries a Portuguese girl. Here he is, this is his home country; here he has a job as a teacher. It is simply because the teacher is a woman that she is liable to become an outcast from her own country not knowing whether, if she marries him, there is anywhere in the world where they can live together or how they can earn a living.
My Lords, this Government have by their statements become highly committed to ending sex discrimination. I know, and we all know, that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is a very humane man. We must of course bear in mind that he has been in Office for only three weeks and he cannot have mastered all the various departmental lines which we know to be in the Home Office, but I, and I think many of my noble friends will be very disappointed if the Question which my noble friend Lord Brockway has raised will not some day, if not to-day, be answered very differently from the way in which it has been answered in the past.
6.28 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord and to the House for not having put my name on the list of speakers, but I have only recently returned from Wales and I was not sure whether I should be able to be in my place in time. I thought it would be unfortunate if women appeared to be indifferent to the Question posed by my noble friend Lord Brockway. I do not want to go into details at this relatively late hour, particularly as my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner has reminded us that we discussed this subject in some of its aspects fairly thoroughly on the Immigration Act. It appears to me that one should use this occasion to express one's entire repugnance to the view that sex should be the guide in this matter. I am aware of the international legal complications that arise, but as a pure question of prin-
790
ciple I as a woman find it entirely repugnant that my future could have been determined by the considerations which now prevail. My late husband was born in this country and there was of course no problem at all. His elder brother was born in South Africa, and had I for any reason married the elder rather than the younger son it is conceivable that I might find myself in a situation where it is suggested that I might go and live in South Africa—a state of affairs which any noble Lord who knows me would fully realise that I would find intolerable.
Having stated the principle, with which I have no doubt whatever that my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State are entirely in accord, and reminding him of the statement in the gracious Speech about the determination of the Government to end sex discrimination, I should nevertheless like to draw attention to one particular aspect of this problem which I think is disturbing to all of us who have read the accounts of mothers with children born in different circumstances and the difficulties which have arisen in that particular context. It may take quite a while to sort out the major problems but I should very much appreciate it if my noble friend, even to-night, could indicate that special consideration would be given to this question of children in the same family born to the same mother but with different nationality. Surely at least until they are of an age at which they can obtain individual passports, that is, 16, they should be permitted to be on their mother's passport regardless of their nationality.
It should be possible to legislate somehow in this sense. If that could be done at least as an earnest of intent it would be very much appreciated. It is entirely wrong that young children of the same family should be made, at that tender age, to feel different one from the other. It is very damaging psychologically, and I hope that on that point at least my noble friend can give us some assurance.
6.31 p.m.
BARONESS ELLES: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene briefly on this subject. I too apologise for not putting my name down, but, as your Lordships will know, I am very seldom in this country and this is a subject I have very much at heart. All of us were

791
very moved by the cases that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has read out tonight. One of the great difficulties in these cases of discrimination is that we feel very deeply for the suffering of individuals and we have to try to find a principle with which to alleviate the suffering of these particular individuals.
So far we have not really got to the kernel of the problem, because surely the duty of any Government is to protect their own nationals first of all in the field of employment, and enable them to earn their own living. I would add immediately regardless of race, sex and nationality of origin. It seems to me that this is really the problem. Indeed, it was mentioned in one of the letters read out by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, when he said that one of his correspondents had said, "I cannot live and work in the United Kingdom". The question is not that it is the wife's nationality or the husband's nationality that matters, but that the husband cannot earn his living in this country. It therefore follows from that that if a woman wishes to have discrimination removed and be allowed to live with her husband in this country, which I think is absolutely right because any form of discrimination is abhorrent to us, she should then, in like manner as any male national of this country, be able to maintain her husband. If she had the possibility in this country to maintain her husband with an adequate and proper income we should not be in the difficult situation that we now are, with wives wishing to bring in foreign husbands and the foreign husbands wanting the right to work in this country in order to maintain their British national wives.
Two other points follow from this which I would ask the Government to consider. One is that they press with all earnestness the rights of British national males married to foreign women abroad in foreign countries to have the right to work in those countries with the same assiduity with which they are considering allowing foreign nationals to come to work in this country. Secondly, I hope that they will pursue the policy of the last Government to create better and equal opportunities for women to earn their living and adequate salaries to maintain their husbands and children in this country.
6.34 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, may I make two preliminary points before coming to the substance of the matter raised by my noble friend. First of all, in relation to passports there is the question of children. This my noble friend Lady White raised. This is a matter, as she would know, that is primarily for my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, but the Government are very much alive to this issue and I will see that what she said is drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend. It will have to be looked at on the basis of what she said, and I will certainly indicate her views and those of other noble Lords to my right honourable friend. The second question of a preliminary character was raised by my noble friend Lord Brockway and the noble Viscount opposite, and the noble Earl, Lord Amherst. This deals with the general question of the law of nationality. This was dealt with in the Election Manifesto of the Labour Party at the recent General Election, where it was indicated that we proposed to review the law of nationality with a view to legislation, and that will be done.
I now turn to the substance of the matter. This is one of a number of aspects of immigration control to which the Government are now giving close consideration. The elimination of the restriction on the admission of all husbands in right of their wives, which my noble friend advocates, could not be achieved administratively; it would require an amendment of the Immigration Rules which would have to be laid before Parliament. The implications of such a change clearly require the most careful thought, and I cannot to-day give any indication of what the Government's conclusion will be. I should, however, like to say something about the history of the restriction, and to give an indication of some of the considerations which the Government will have to take into account in reaching their decision. I shall of course inform my right honourable friend of what my noble friend and other noble Lords have said in relation to certain cases, and any that are sent to us will be carefully considered so that he will be aware of the views expressed and the particular cases cited.

793
The history of the matter is that before January 30, 1969, a Commonwealth citizen married to a woman resident in the United Kingdom was normally allowed to live here, although he had no statutory right of settlement on the strength of his marriage. During 1968 the numbers of young men admitted from the Commonwealth for marriage rose steeply. It was considered that the explanation for this was that the employment voucher scheme was being circumvented by the use of marriage as a means of obtaining entry here for work and settlement. My right honourable friend the then Home Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, therefore, decided that the admission of husbands and male fiancés from the Commonwealth must be restricted to cases where special considerations made exclusion from the United Kingdom undesirable. The restriction was applied to husbands as well as to fiancés for the obvious reason that it could otherwise have been evaded by contracting a marriage of convenience outside the United Kingdom or by entering as a visitor and then marrying after admission.
The present Immigration Rules maintain this position. The provision for exceptions is set out in paragraph 47 of the Rules for Control of Entry of Commonwealth Citizens (HC 79) which lays it down that an entry clearance will be granted to enable a husband to join his wife who is settled here if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are special considerations, whether of a family nature or otherwise, which render exclusion undesirable; for example, because of the degree of hardship which, in the particular circumstances of the case, would be caused if the wife had to live outside the United Kingdom in order to be with her husband. There is a corresponding provision for foreign nationals in paragraph 42 of the Rules for Control on Entry of E.E.C. and other non-Commonwealth nationals (HC 81); and the rule for fiancés is similar.
I am well aware of the criticism made to-day that the Rules are harsh and oppressive. Nevertheless, it is only fair to point out that under their provisions "hardship" can be interpreted widely. First, there is the hardship that there might be if the wife had to live in her husband's country; for example, the difficulty that might face a woman settling in
794
a wholly alien environment in a strange country. Then there might be such factors as an adverse effect on her health, or practical difficulties in following her chosen occupation. There might be a disruption of the children's education or a problem of invalid parents who are in need of the wife's support. I cannot give a precise figure, but some 200 or 300 husbands or fiancés are admitted because of these kinds of considerations from the Commonwealth each year. A refusal to allow a husband to settle here is subject to appeal to the immigration appeal authorities who decide whether there is an exceptional case.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is, however, aware that there are cases where the application of these criteria of hardship has been far too rigid. Some couples have had to leave this country against all the dictates of common sense. I would assure the House that my right honourable friend will be examining individual cases as they arise in the future as sympathetically as he can. It may be said, "Well, if the Government are prepared to interpret the existing rules with sympathy and compassion, why not sweep them away altogether?" Then husbands and fiancés would be allowed in automatically and the problem could be resolved. But here we come up against a formidable difficulty.
I can do no better than repeat to your Lordships the broad effect of what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said on this point in another place this afternoon. He told the other place that were he to admit husbands on the same basis as wives this would undoubtedly lead to a substantial and continuing new wave of male immigration, particularly from the Indian subcontinent. As your Lordships are aware, arranged marriages, often with no prior acquaintanceship, is the common cultural practice in some parts of the Indian subcontinent. It is not for us casually to judge a cultural difference, but we are entitled to take note of its likely consequences. It would make it much more likely that many girls of Indian and Pakistani origin settled in this country would contract marriages with husbands in India or Pakistan—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Or Bangladesh.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH:— rather than among their own community here. My right honourable friend said that he must take this fact, with its substantial effect upon our rate of immigration, into account, anxious though he is to find an equitable solution to this problem.
That is the central problem now confronting us. We cannot shrug it off as being a matter of absolutely no account. The danger is that if this matter were to be mishandled by the present Government or by their successors we could experience a substantial new wave of immigration. The Government recognise that there is still a need to maintain a balance between the number of immigrants entering this country and the capacity of the country to absorb them. We have a responsibility towards the immigrant population not to put them as individuals into a situation where integration is made impossible or very difficult. This situation could arise if people were to be admitted in such large numbers that fear and resentment—both enemies of effective integration—were to be increasingly felt by the indigenous population. It is for this reason that we accept the need to control the flow of immigrants.
These then are the considerations facing us. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for raising the matter. I know that it has been worrying him and others for some time. I hope the House will acknowledge that there are real difficulties, and that my noble friend will be reassured by the determination of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to re-examine this problem as part of the general review of immigration policy that is now taking place. In the meantime, I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend will give the most sympathetic attention to the cases mentioned in the debate today.