Lords Sitting of 23 April 1975

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The Chairman of Committees on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans.

OPEN UNIVERSITY TUITION FEES
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the dual purpose of the Open University will be kept in mind if any proposals are made that would discourage poorer students by raising the fee of £25 per subject for first year studies.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, the proposal under discussion is to increase the tuition fee for a credit course from £25 to £40 from the academic year 1976. The fee of £ 25 has applied since the academic year 1973 and the proposed increase is intended to maintain the value of the University's fee income in relation to grant. My right honourable friend fully appreciates the tremendous contribution which the Open University is making to higher education in this country and he is confident that it will continue to attract large numbers and a very wide range of students.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is an ironic and totally disgraceful Answer? Is he further aware that the Open University was established in order that poor students as well as better-off students should be able to have education of a graduate and post-graduate character? Does he realise that the Open University students are already paying a higher percentage of the costs of their university than are the students in any other university? Is he aware of the deep resentment that will be caused if
886
the poorer students are now to be excluded?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the noble Baroness for her great work in establishing the Open University and assure her that I could not have greater sympathy with the aims of the Open University. As for poorer students, the fact is that there has been a gratifying increase in the proportion of students coming to the Open University from the manual and routine non-manual occupations. The position is that they now make up about one-third of all applicants, and therefore about one-third of all those admitted. I would point out to the noble Baroness that the proposal to increase the fees at the Open University is broadly in line with the increase in wages paid since the fees were last adjusted. I am aware that, on the grants side, there are difficulties and it is true, as the noble Baroness said, that students at the Open University pay perhaps higher fees compared with students at other universities. However, this is a relative matter; they actually have incomes from which those fees are paid, as opposed to the situation in other universities where students are on fulltime courses.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply is really a contradiction of what he is trying to say? Is he aware that housewives have not had a great increase in their incomes and that the criticism of the Open University in the early days was that it did not attract sufficient people with a lower income level? Is he now saying that, at the very time when people with a lower income level are learning about the Open University and are applying to become students, they are now to be told that this university is not for the likes of them?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, Open University students can apply to local education authorities for discretionary grants. I understand that the great majority of authorities assist with the cost of attending summer schools and that some of them help with tuition fees and other expenses. On 25th March I discussed this matter with, among others, representatives of the Open University. No final decisions have been reached. I believe that there

887
are very real problems about fees and about financial assistance to students at the Open University. There are difficulties about extending the mandatory grant system to them, and I do not think that that would be the right way to go ahead. But I am considering this whole question in discussion with the Open University, because my aims are the same as those of the noble Baroness in this respect; I want to produce a situation in which the increasing number of people from the manual occupations and the routine non-manual occupations—the gratifying increase we have seen—will continue.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many local authorities make discretionary grants for this purpose, and what proportion that number is of the total number of local authorities?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I do not think I can answer that supplementary question precisely—
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, it is 30 per cent.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: —but, my Lords, I think it is more than the noble Baroness has just suggested. It is considerably more than we thought at one time but I will find out the precise figures and send them to the noble Baroness.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his indication that he is prepared to reconsider this matter will give very great satisfaction? I think he must be aware of the deep anxiety that the whole purpose of this university will be defeated by the increase in fees. May I ask the noble Lord, whether he realises, as I am sure is the case, that the point and purpose of this university was to give a second opportunity to people who had forfeited the first opportunity largely for want of means?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that supplementary question. It is not so much a question of my agreeing to reconsider this. As I pointed out to the Vice-Chancellor and his colleagues who came to see me on 25th March, I am really very worried about this whole
888
matter. I promised that I would continue to review it in conjunction with their proposals. That is really what I am doing, because I want to make it possible to produce a situation in which the aims: of the Open University, which has made the most significant and encouraging progress, will continue.

TAX ADVICE AND INLAND REVENUE STAFF
2.42 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: 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 employees of the Inland Revenue may within the terms of their employment in the district in which they work, or outside of that district, advise companies on tax matters which could lead to tax avoidance.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Inland Revenue's code of conduct expressly for-bids members of the Department under-taking work as taxation advisers or accountants. The rule does not distinguish between companies and other tax-payers, nor the area in which the advice is given. Local Revenue offices do, of course, give advice to taxpayers in the course of their normal business, but this does not extend to help with tax avoidance schemes.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that what would be legitimate within the law for an accountant would be quite improper for an officer of the Inland Revenue?
Lord JACQUES: Yes, my Lords.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, as a former Secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of any circumstances, or any specific cases, upon which a question of this kind could be based?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have no such evidence. If any Member of this House can give us details of a case which requires investigation, I can give an assurance that it will be investigated.

DOMESTIC DRAINAGE CHARGES
Lord BRAYE: 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 why, as stated by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment in her Written Answer of 30th January, domestic properties not connected to the main sewerage should be subject to a charge of 50 per cent, of the general services charge payable by domestic properties which are so connected.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, in a further Written Answer on 27th March, I explained that all members of the community, whether or not their properties are connected to mains drainage, benefit from the existence of adequate sewerage and sewage disposal facilities as well as from the other services, such as surface water drainage and pollution control, covered by the general services charge. This explains why the relief is limited to 50 per cent.
Lord BRAYE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that in the case of isolated domestic properties—and, indeed farms—this charge of 50 per cent, is somewhat excessive?
Baroness BIRK: I am sorry, my Lords, but I did not hear the end of the noble Lord's Question.
Lord BRAYE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that the charge of 50 per cent, for main drainage, in relation to farms and isolated domestic properties which are not connected to the main sewerage, is very excessive? Would she not agree that people are being asked to pay for something that they have not got?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords. However isolated the properties may be, there are still other sewerage problems, road problems and problems of drainage. Furthermore, I should point out to the noble Lord that the charge was previously 100 per cent., and so 50 per cent, is
890
better than having to pay the whole lot. Therefore occupiers of these properties have now done considerably better.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that rates levied by local authorities are not levied in respect of specific services rendered to specific householders, but in order to pay for a general service? Is my noble friend aware, for example, that middleaged spinsters are compelled to pay for the maternity and child welfare part of the rate?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords; and people without children have to pay towards the education services.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness explain to her noble friend that this does not apply to the particular charge to which this Question relates?
The Earl of DUNDONALD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that unlike the general rate demand, in respect of which the accompanying leaflet gives details of what the funds are required for, no such details have so far been given for the general service charge, which is set out on an arbitrary basis of so many pence in the pound? Would not the noble Baroness agree that the time has now come for the water authorities to give fuller details of this charge?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is hoped that in about 1977–78, when the water authorities have taken over completely, they will be able to work this out with more precision, but for the moment it has been impossible to be more precise about it. It has been decided, with the advice of the National Water Council, that 50 per cent, is a very fair compromise.
The Earl of DUNDONALD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she can confirm that while the transitional arrangements are proceeding properties not connected to main drainage will have their septic tanks emptied free of charge?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the answer to that question is dependent on the local authority area. Some areas do this, but the local authorities are empowered to charge.

SOUTH-EAST ASIA DEFENCE
2.47 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: 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 defence obligations, if any, the United Kingdom has towards Thailand and/or Malaysia.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have a consultative commitment in the Five-Power Defence Arrangement to which Malaysia is a party. We will continue our membership of SEATO, of which Thailand is a member. The Manila Treaty of 1954, establishing SEATO, embodies a commitment to consult over the defence of the Treaty area.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I first ask whether he subscribes to the "Domino" theory? Secondly, can he say whether, as a result of that, Her Majesty's Government are to contemplate a Pontius Pilate act; and, if not, how can that be reconciled with the Government's reduction of the Services to the strength of a fourth-rate Power?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not disposed to discuss theories— whether "Domino" or otherwise. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, that is rather tendentious. As for the third part, whatever predisposition we make of our defence resources, I am quite sure that it need not lead to a diminution of adequate security in this area which, after all, rests on the will and determination of the indigenous people.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Labour Party has twice within 10 years withdrawn British forces from Malaysia and Singapore, does the noble Lord think that his answer will be convincing to us, and, least of all, to the Malaysians and Singaporeans?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not with confidence hope to convince the noble Lord. But I am quite sure that what I have said— that the crux of defence and security in this area rests on the political will and determination of the indigenous population— is a lesson that must be learned.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the illogicality of the demands for the extension of our so-called military police forces all over the world are in absolute contrast to yesterday's debate, when we were asked to forgo our sovereignty and join in with a European system of defence? I have never heard such madness!
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that the consultative role that is operated by the United Kingdom in the Pacific areas is of any consequence? Is he not aware that there is serious trouble in Malaysia at the present time, and that there is a danger of the Government being overrun by guerillas? In those circumstances, is it not likely that there will be repercussions in the Pacific generally, affecting the Philippines and so on? Are we to understand that we have abandoned all our obligations to Malaysia? What are likely to be the consequences?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would not accept my noble friend's assessment of the prospects of the Malaysian Government. As to our role in South-East Asia, clearly recent events must give reason for thought to every-body. But we remain, and intend to remain, members of SEATO and of the Five-Power defence arrangement. The extent to which we can contribute to the security and peace of South-East Asia is naturally limited to our resources. However, for 20 years these arrangements, SEATO and the FPDA, have proved of great help in maintaining peace and security in that area. We intend to maintain our membership of both organisations.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, am I to understand from my noble friend's original Answer that is it not the purpose or intention of Her Majesty's Government to abdicate from our commitment so far as Malaysia is concerned?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord take this opportunity, or ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to take an early opportunity, of condemning the breaking of the Paris Peace Treaty and the massive invasion by North Vietnam of South Vietnam, using regular forces very heavily armed and entirely against all the agreements signed in Paris?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have repeatedly condemned the infringements of the Paris Agreement from whatever quarters those infringements have emerged.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON:My Lords, when the noble Lord says that the security of this area depends on the will of the indigenous population, does he intend the corollary—that we are no longer in a position to do anything at all to help them?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Not in the least, my Lords. As I have said, we intend to maintain our membership of these two very useful organisations. I feel bound to emphasise that a main part of the peace and security of any area, as well as of this one, must clearly rest on the will and determination of the indigenous population.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied, in view of the Defence Review, the further £100 million saving on defence expenditure and the scrapping of all our strategic aircraft, that the British Forces could honour their commitments?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Certainly, my Lords, we could engage in the consultative commitment to which we are obliged by these Treaties.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, in terms of the wishes of the indigenous inhabitants, may I ask the Minister whether he would agree that, while the countries of South-East Asia may be opposed to China, whether they are opposed to Communism may be another matter—it is a question of high politics only—so that the word "Communism" may be looked upon as a mere label?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in so far as I followed the arguments behind the noble Lord's question, I would say this. It is for the countries of any given area to define their attitudes to their neighbours. We, for our part, will do all in our power to assist countries which ask us to help them. It is for us to define how far and how fast we can help them.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask I my noble friend whether he is not taking a rather complacent view of the situation in Malaysia? He announced in reply to one supplementary question that as a result of SEATO peace has prevailed in that area for the last 20 years. But can he furnish any accurate information about what is actually happening in Malaysia at the present time, and what are likely to be the consequences? Despite our association with the Five-Power pact, is there any practical advantage from the standpoint of the defence of Malaysia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we see practical and continuing advantage in our adherence to membership of both Treaty organisations, so long as the countries concerned want us to remain. As to my appraisal of the prospects of Malaysia, what I said was that I could not go along with my noble friend's appraisal. Clearly, Malaysia and every other country in this area have grave problems, perhaps graver in the immediate future than in the past. That is as far as I can go this afternoon.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, would the noble Lord assure the Prime Minister of Singapore when he comes here that the welfare of Malaysia and Singapore is a matter of real concern to this country? Will he make that abundantly clear to the Prime Minister?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have recently made that clear to the Prime Minister of Singapore and to the Prime Minister of Malaysia. We shall do so again. I can assure the noble Earl that both Premiers fully understand and agree with the United Kingdom's attitude.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree to convey the worry that has been expressed in this House today? Are the present Government as worried as we

895
are? If not, will they get their worries dealt with from our point of view?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, concern for the immediate future in this area is obviously not the prerogative of any one Party or faction in this country. Of course Her Majesty's Government are giving the most anxious consideration to the situation in South-East Asia.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, would my noble friend agree, having regard to the events in South-East Asia, that any question of the implication of military intervention will need very careful consideration?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have emphasised that these two Treaties which were initiated by our predecessors are consultative in their commitment.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is it part of our Treaty obligations to sustain the will and confidence of the indigenous inhabitants? Can my noble friend say how we propose to do that if we reduce our commitments in that area?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is certainly our intention and desire to assist these countries, and other countries similarly placed, to forge their own future in peace and security. Insofar as this country can help to do it, we shall do it.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, have the Malaysian Government told Her Majesty's Government whether they would like a token force to continue to be maintained in that country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I cannot address myself to that specific question. We are in constant consultation with our partners in both SEATO and FPDA. These questions are regularly discussed among us.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to answer two questions—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, may I intervene at this point? I know that this is a matter of concern to many noble Lords. May I suggest that the noble Lord be allowed to put his question to the House, and that the House should agree that that be an end to it? This is a question in which all noble Lords are interested. It is difficult to know how to intervene and say that enough is enough.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, I very much thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that. I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. First, is now the time to withdraw a frigate, a battalion and a few Nimrod aircraft from the Five-Power Defence Agreement?—because in other places we have not done so. We have maintained the presence of British troops in Berlin, for example. I very much doubt whether a promise to consult would have been enough there. Secondly, why did Australia and New Zealand get different answers from the SEATO consultations from those obtained by this country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the first question, I take full note of what the noble Lord has said. On the second question, I should like to look into this matter, because I do not think I have grasped the point made by the noble Lord. Perhaps he will have a word with me after Question Time.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (ARREST OF OFFENDERS) BILL [H.L.]
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to authorise the arrest without warrant of certain persons suspected of contravening regulations about the conduct of passengers in public service vehicles. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read la. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord HOY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974 with respect to the banks at which solicitors shall keep clients' money and trust money. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a— (Lord Hoy.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
The Report was as follows:

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION BILL
The Committee recommended that the House authorities should apply the provisions of the Employment Protection Bill, when enacted and its associated legislation to the staff of the House of Lords as if they were Crown employees.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
3.2 p.m.
Lord ALPORT Lord ALPORT rose to call attention to the desirability of inviting a Speaker's Conference to examine and recommend the form of proportional representation best suited to maintaining the traditional independence of a Member of Parliament as the representative of a territorial constituency and to provide a more equitable distribution of Party representation in Parliament; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to propose the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Proportional representation has been regarded for many years past as either the private reserve of the Liberal Party, or as a happy hunting ground for constitutional theorists. It has now become in the minds of many people
898
in Parliament and outside it a major political issue in Britain. I confess to your Lordships that my own concern with it is of very recent date. I know and shared in the House of Commons the strong prejudice of Members of Parliament against the change in the present form of constituency representation. I am well aware, as your Lordships will be, of the attitudes, up to now, of both the Conservative and Labour Parties to electoral reform, which may seem to them to deprive them possibly of the chance of assuming power on a single Party basis. I know that the singlemember territorial constituency, like the geographical parish of the Church of England, has come to be regarded as a peculiar virtue of the British Parliamentary system.
Let me emphasise that I am not claiming in my Motion that proportional representation in any of its many forms is the proven remedy for our present problems. What I propose is that the many variations in existence should be examined and the one considered most appropriate to our style and traditions be recommended to Parliament; that Parliament itself should tackle this on an all-Party basis through a Speaker's Conference, and that Parliament itself must decide whether or not to change the present system as a result of the Speaker's Conference Report. I have stipulated in my Motion only that the system recommended should, if possible, preserve the identification of Members of Parliament with the people who dwell in the immensely varied and consciously different parts of Great Britain. I believe that the strength and balance of our nation derives from the vitality of its provincialism. I find it difficult to support anything which might obliterate within Parliament the motivation which a Member of the House of Commons derives from the feeling that the people of Cornwall, Cumbria or Caithness are his people and he is their man.
The reason why I submit this Motion to your Lordships at this time is that, in the first place, I believe the authority of Parliament, and public respect for it, has been dangerously eroded during the past decade. I believe that the economic health of Britain depends on its political health, and the political health, in turn, depends upon the degree to which the great mass of the people, and the groups

899
into which they organise themselves, are prepared to recognise the authority of free institutions such as Parliament. They will do so only if they are persuaded that these institutions fairly represent their cherished values and profound aspirations. I do not think that this is true of Parliament today. I could give plenty of evidence to support this view. The concentration of power in sectional hands has sometimes been able to unhorse Governments in the past. The real danger today is that power, irresponsibly exercised, may destroy Parliament itself, and with it the basic freedoms of a democratic society and, even, the unity of Great Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, last week said:
"Millions of people will not be coerced. If, however, they reject the disciplines of Parliamentary law, they must find some self-discipline to take its place or we will sink into anarchy or the perils of … dictatorship…"—[Official Report, 15/4/75, col. 307.]
It is not only from certain sections of the trades union movement, to which the noble Lord was referring, that this threat comes. There are other anti-Parliamentary forces active or lurking in the back-ground of our national life; and who knows whether such a dictatorship might not come as easily from the Right as from the Left? The aim must be to restore the authority of Parliament today, and if this is to be done I believe we need to embark on a new era of Parliamentary reform. Let us consider, then, whether the road to reform might lie in the direction of a new and more equitable electoral system.
My second reason is that the assemblies for Scotland and Wales, when they are established, will almost certainly be based upon proportional representation. It will not be possible to ignore the recommendations either of the Kilbrandon Report or of Lord Crowther-Hunt's Minority Report that the basis of election to the Scottish Assembly should be by proportional representation. This has already been applied to Northern Ireland. I believe it inconceivable that there should be one form of election to West-minister and another to Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff. I know, of course, that the present Government has so far inclined towards the single-Member constituencies for Scotland because, as they say they are simple to operate and easily
900
understood. I do not think the British electorate is any more stupid or unsophisticated than, for example, the Australian, whose Constitution has operated proportional representation successfully and with remarkable stability for the most part of this century. Cynics sometimes say that the British have imposed proportional representation on overseas countries, but have rejected it themselves.
Lord CARR1NGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord; in case anybody should think that this goes unchallenged, the Australians do not have proportional representation, they have a preferential system.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, they have one form, not proportional representation in the strict sense, but certainly, as I understand it, in the Senate they have a form of representation which is not a single-Member constituency.
Is it possible, as I was suggesting to your Lordships, that we can make use of this system in our own interests at the present time? My third reason, is that the present single-Member constituency imposes such intolerable strains and pressures on a Member of Parliament as to distort his judgment, undermine integrity and deprive Parliament prematurely of too many experienced and able men and women. Many good men have recently left the House of Commons long before they have reached their full potential in the public service, and they cannot easily be replaced. Moreover, I think the two-Party system dangerously magnifies political differences and gives exaggerated influence to unrepresentative minorities of Party zealots on their extreme wings. I believe this is why the moderately inclined mass of the British nation has lost confidence in the representative character of Parliament and is increasingly losing respect for its authority.
It is not my intention today to advocate any particular form of proportional representation: that would be a matter for the Speaker's Conference to propose. There are many variants to be thought of, from the single transferable vote or the alternative vote to other systems such as exist in Australia. But I should like to refer briefly to one or two misconceptions regarding proportional representation. First, the multi-Member constituency is not new in this country.

901
There were two, three and even four-Member constituencies in this country for the greater part of the 19th century. Secondly, a Parliament based on proportional representation does not lead to governmental instability, unless there are social and economic factors creating tension and disorientation within the body politic. It was inflation and social collapse, leading to the undermining of Parliamentary institutions and to the emergence of anti-democratic minorities, which destroyed the Weimar Constitution. We, frankly, are not at the present time enjoying political stability here, and I would suggest that unless by reform we strengthen the institution of Parliament, we could suffer the same fate ourselves. Thirdly, proportional representation does not make coalition Government inevitable. True, it provides greater political flexibility; true, it cuts the overpowering Party organisations down to size; true, it provides the, to me, welcome opportunity for independence, but it can provide just as stable a one-Party Government as the present single-Member constituency system.
What it does is to ensure that everyone, or nearly everyone, has a man or woman who goes to Westminster because of his or her own vote. At the 1970 Election, of the 28 million who voted, 16 million elected 630 Members, and 12 million elected no one. At the October 1974 Election, of the 29 million voters, 14,300,000 elected 635 Members and 14,750,000 elected no one. In Sussex, a Labour voter is unlikely ever to be able to send a Member to Westminster to represent his views, and the same applies to a Conservative living in the County of Durham. I suggest to your Lordships that this situation is no longer acceptable to what the Prime Minister recently described as "the most clear-headed and sophisticated electorate of any democracy."
My Lords, what I am asking your Lordships to support is a new movement for Parliamentary reform. I would say to my Conservative friends that our Party has always stood for the maintenance of our institutions, but this can only be successful if we are prepared to accept the constant process of adaptation to meet new social and political conditions. Conservatism is not simply a creed based on a stubborn defiance of change. To the
902
Liberal Party, I would say: "You have laboured long in this field of electoral reform. There are reinforcements now at hand: I suggest we can well work together to achieve something which is essential not only for the 5 million who voted for the Liberal Party at the last Election, but for Britain as a whole." To the Democratic Labour Party, I would say this: "Join us in this movement for Parliamentary reform. I believe that of all the Parties in the State, the present system poses the greatest threat to your prospects of continuing to be able to make your historic contribution to the political life of Britain."
Only lethargy, compounded by cynicism and sectionalism, stands between us now and the restoration of Britain to prosperity and political strength. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in a speech last week, used the sinister words "civil war". Even a decade ago, such words would have been unthinkable from a statesman of long experience and proved moderation. As I have said previously to your Lordships, I as an historian, have been haunted by the political parallels between the first half of the 17th century and the second half of the 20th century. If history seldom repeats itself, its themes constantly recur; and today, as on many occasions in our history, the theme is the ability of a free Parliament, however composed or elected, to exercise its authority as the representative institution of the nation.
Since 1832, each Party has made its contribution to the cause of Parliamentary reform. Today, all the three historic Parties at Westminster have a common interest in safeguarding the health and restoring the authority of the British Parliament. It cannot and will not be done on the strength of any one Party acting alone. It is for this reason that I believe the initiative for this debate comes properly in your Lordships' House, where Party differences are least in evidence; and it is for this reason that I seek from all quarters of your Lordships' House active support for the Motion. My Lords, I now beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has argued the case for electoral reform with all the fervour and ability of a recent convert, and

903
I suppose I should begin by saying that there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner who has repented, than over the 99 others who perhaps still remain in your Lordships' House unconvinced of the powerful case advanced by the noble Lord. I suppose one should welcome this Motion, if only on the grounds that it has been virtually unheard of in my lifetime for anybody other than a Liberal to question the virtues of the electoral system we have at present, which we describe as the "first past the post" system of election. The advocates of electoral reform have been treated as harmless and rather amusing cranks, like nudists or the eaters of nut cutlets. They do nobody any harm, but we need not pay much attention to them. Now that all of a sudden others can see plainly what the Liberals have been pointing out for many years— that is, that a Government can be elected to power with a practical working majority when it has the support of only just over one-third of the people — they begin to consider whether, after all, we may not have developed the most perfectly democratic system in the whole world.
I have two reservations about this Motion. First, although the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said he thought that it was properly brought forward in your Lordships' House, I think there is always a risk that by discussing a matter which principally or solely concerns another place, we may antagonise those who would have to make the decision to change, and I think we have to be very careful about what we say to prevent that from happening. Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions, but if we are seeking to convert those with real power to make those changes we shall have to be very tactful as to how and where we express those opinions. I. appreciate that many of your Lordships have fought Elections in the past and may therefore feel entitled to say something on the subject. However, considering that we belong to a House which is composed entirely of nominated and hereditary Members, that may not be the spirit in which our deliberations may be viewed in the House.
Secondly, with great respect to the noble Lord, we have had rather a lot of Speaker's Conferences over the last 50
904
years. The device has not been a successful one and cannot supply the political will to reform when that political will is lacking in the two major Parties. Conversely, when the House of Commons has the political will and is able to take action, then it does so without needing the advice of the Speaker's Conference and, indeed, sometimes does so in direct opposition to the advice which it has received from one of those bodies.
I can illustrate those propositions by two examples. The first Speaker's Conference, which was held in 1916 and 1917, unanimously recommended the introduction of the single transferable vote— that is, preferential voting and quota counting — in all boroughs entitled to return three or more Members each, including London outside the City. The House of Commons rejected that proposition by 201 votes to 169. Then in the Conference of 1964 to 1967, which is the converse that I mentioned, the enfranchisement of 18-to 21-year-olds was rejected by a decisive majority, only three Members voting in favour of it—myself, Mrs. Lena Jeger and Mr. John Mendelson. Yet when the proposal came before the House of Commons in the form of the Representation of the People Bill 1968 it was carried with very little dissension, in spite of the fact that only the year before the Speaker's Conference had recommended by an over-whelming majority that it should not be done.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to say that I was also a Member of the same Speaker's Conference. To be fair, the noble Lord will remember that the majority of that Speaker's Conference recommended that the voting age should be 20, not 21. This was to take advantage of the fact that everybody who was likely to be 21 by the time the next Election came would be enfranchised— which previously they were not until they were 23.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in his recollection that that proposal was put. Prior to the Representation of the People Act 1968 the register was divided into two halves. Depending upon where your birthday happened to fall in the year, you were enfranchised in the first or the second half of the year. After long discussion, it was agreed by the majority of the

905
Speaker's Conference that the age should be reduced to 20, the object being that whenever your birthday fell during the course of the year that the Electoral Register was in force, by the time you were 21 you were bound to have a vote.
That was one proposition. But then, as I was saying, and as the noble Lord will recall, there was the more radical proposition which was put by the three Members whose names I have just mentioned, that the age should be reduced to 18. This was the decision of the House of Commons, coupled with the simple device of putting the month and day of birth on the Electoral Register so that somebody could vote immediately they reached the age of majority. I think that was a much more sensible solution and one which, as the noble Lord will recall, I had advocated in the Speaker's Conference. I am only telling this story to illustrate my proposition that sometimes a Speaker's Conference makes recommendations for reform which are subsequently rejected by the House of Commons, while at other times the Speaker's Conference is the conservative body and it is the House of Commons which makes progress towards the enfranchisement of other sections of our population.
I was going to say that one might conclude from these examples, and from many others of lesser importance which I might have quoted, that electoral reform of all kinds only makes progress when it is taken up as the official policy of one or other of the major Parties and that the House of Commons will never allow powers to be exercised on its behalf by a supposedly representative group of its members, however prestigious they may be. I think that the arguments for electoral reform can only be thrashed out within the Parties first and then later on the Floor of the House of Commons.
Furthermore, I would assert that changes affecting the most fundamental democratic rights of the citizens of this country ought to be examined in public, whereas, for reasons that have never been at all clear to me, and which I was unable to discover when I was on the Speaker's Conference, those bodies have always carried on their proceedings behind locked doors. Although a verbatim transcript of the proceedings of the Speaker's
906
Conference was provided for the Members, it never saw the light of day and, believe it or not, we were not allowed to see the transcripts of the proceedings of Speaker's Conferences which had been held in previous years. So the same arguments were no doubt rehearsed that had been most thoroughly ventilated by our predecessors of 1916 and 1917, 1929 and so on.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I think this House should be advised that the Speaker's Conference invites representations from various organisations and that some of them attend and give evidence. Therefore, there is some consultation with the public.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the Speaker's Conference invites evidence from outside bodies and receives a good deal of evidence, and those persons who submit evidence are free to publish it. As the noble Lord will recall, some of them produced versions of the evidence that they had given to the Speaker's Conference—the Electoral Reform Society in particular. However, I am referring to the arguments which took place subsequently after the witnesses had left when Members of the Speaker's Conference were reviewing what had been said to them and reaching conclusions in the light of their internal arguments. Those deliberations are not known to the members of the public, or even to the House of Commons. When it came to look at the Representation of the People Bill in 1968, it could not see why a decision had been made, for example, only to reduce the voting age to 20, not to 18, because the transcripts of the discussions in which those matters had been decided were not available to our colleagues. This is the argument which I am putting against the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that we should tackle this matter by means of a Speaker's Conference. I was going to say that perhaps the security risk against which these extraordinary precautions were supposed to guard was that dangerous, revolutionary ideas calculated to give the individual elector more power might escape, thus undermining the hegemony of the political Parties.
What are those ideas? If I may consider for one moment the defects in our present methods of election— none of these in any way new but they need to be

907
stated again—a Government may be elected to power by a minority of the votes cast and even with fewer votes cast than its main opponents, as happened both in 1951 and in the first Election of 1970. But the results of Elections would be the same if something like 40 per cent. of the voters who support losing candidates stayed at home and did not bother to go to the Polls. Thirdly. the individual elector has no say in the process of selecting his Party's candidates, which is the prerogative of a tiny caucus of activists. Following on from this, the elector has no chance at all of expressing an opinion on the conflicting strands of thought within his or her own Party, between Marxist and Social Democrat, comprehensive versus selective education, the nursing of lame ducks versus non-interventionism. statutory versus voluntary incomes policies, and pro-Europe versus anti-Europe—all of which issues have cut across Party boundaries. However, if you have a candidate of your own Party who is on one side of the argument and you happen to be on the other, you have the invidious choice of voting for a policy which you do not support or of deserting your Party at the Polls. Indeed, although the Common Market has been an issue at every one of the last six General Elections, there is no guarantee that at any stage during those six Parliaments the House of Commons has reflected the views of the people. That is one of the reasons why we have been forced to adopt this alien device of the referendum which was discussed in your Lordships' House yesterday.
Lord SLATER: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord SLATER: My Lords, as I was on the Bishops' Benches I must thank noble Lords very much. I hope they will not overlook such a point of Order in the future. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We are all colleagues. But I was rather interested when he said he was deserting his own people, his own constituents. Is he not overlooking the fact that a Member of Parliament is not there as a delegate; he is there as a representative of all the people within his constituency, whether Conservative, Liberal, Communist, or
908
whatever the nature of their political belief may be? Therefore, I suggest he ought to have a further look at the statement he has made, because in my opinion he has fallen down.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am sorry I did not make myself absolutely clear to the right reverend Prelate! Perhaps I may go back to the point I was making and try again. If I were a supporter of the EEC and at the same time was a staunch and paid-up member of the Labour Party, and I lived in a constituency where the Labour candidate was anti-Europe, I should have to make an invidious choice between standing up for my European convictions and voting against a Liberal or a Conservative, and standing up for my Party convictions and voting for a man whose views on Europe were anathema to me. That is the point I was making, which I am afraid is one of the defects inseparable from the present electoral system.
It was always claimed in the past that, no matter what the demerits of our system might have been, at least it ensured strong, stable government. In the last few years we have had Governments with very small majorities and the beginnings of the multiplicity of small Parties, which is said to be a feature of the foreign electoral systems that we have always eschewed. In 1964, and again in February last year, Mr. Wilson became Prime Minister with a majority too small to sustain for the full Parliamentary term. That cannot be very many people who believe that the present Government will last anything like five years. At the same time, we have the Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, the Ulster Unionists, all gaining a toe-hold in Parliatment, which is the very phenomenon which our electoral system is supposed to be intended to avoid.
The remedy for these defects is obviously the introduction of the single transferable vote in multi-Member constituencies as recommended by the first Speaker's Conference over 50 years ago and as practised by the Republic of Ireland ever since independence. The constituencies under this system would return from three to seven Members each depending on geographical considerations and electors would vote by placing one, two, three and so on, against the names of the candidates in order of their choice. In this

909
way, electors are able to express their preferences not only between different Parties but also between different shades of opinion within the Party they most favour, thus getting over the dilemma which I was attempting to describe a few minutes ago.
The criticisms of proportional representation which are heard so frequently relate not to this method, but to the so-called list systems which operate in some other countries such as Israel or the Netherlands. It is true that in those countries one finds that a plethora of small Parties comes into existence, and that the Parties have even greater power to determine who is finally elected than they have in Britain. But it is the inability of our opponents to distinguish between the various forms of proportional representation which has prevented any rational discussion of the alternatives, as I found when I was a member of the Speaker's Conference, because members of that Conference were fond of quoting the Weimar Republic or the Third Republic in France as an example of the evils that we had to avoid, when that was not the matter under discussion at all.
I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in believing that we have to examine all these various forms of proportional representation. One kind is so obviously superior to the rest. Those who have had the opportunity of examining the case obviously think so as well; otherwise, we should not have the single transferable vote in Northern Ireland and have it advocated by Kilbrandon for Scotland, so that, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said, we finish up with the absurd situation of the single transferable vote operating in elections for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, but a totally different system in Westminster. If we are thinking of adopting some other variation of proportional representation for Westminster the same argument applies: Why is the system that suits the people of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland also not good enough for those who live in England?
The only major objection to the single transferable vote which may have some validity, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is that it could weaken the association between the Member and the geographical area with which he has always been associated. But I would
910
ask: is this such a unique and precious feature of the electoral system that it must be preserved at all costs? First, it is of a precarious nature in the marginal seats, and where any Party has a continuous measure of support throughout a larger area the security of tenure of a Member would, in fact, as Lord Alport mentioned, be enhanced with the single transferable vote. Secondly—and this is something he did not mention—with periodic boundary changes the constituencies themeslves are impermanent and therefore the association between a Member and his constituency is by definition also impermanent; whereas what happens in a multi-Member constituency is that the boundaries can remain the same with a change in representation and the number of Members of Parliament which that multi-Member constituency returns can correspond with movements in the population.
Thirdly, the activities of the Member of Parliament as a supernumerary mayor and glorified welfare officer of last resort might be reduced. We must be honest enough to admit—and Lord Alport touched on this point as well—that these functions have become so great a burden on the conscientious Member of Parliament that he is left with insufficient time to deal with the examination of national issues. If one has 150 letters a week from constituents; if one has the weekly advice bureau; if one has every single Saturday and Sunday occupied by fetes, jumble sales, church services—the lot—so that one is working seven days a week, 12 or 15 hours a day, how can it be truly said that Members of Parliament are able to give proper attention to the national issues for which they were elected in the first place? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I do not suppose that many of our colleagues in another place will admit there is some force in this argument, but now that we are no longer there it is easier for us to say it. We demand a great deal, far too much, from the conscientious Member of Parliament and if we are to have good Government that burden must be reduced. If by changing from single-Member to multi-Member constituencies indirectly we lessen the burden, that is a great advantage.
Yesterday it was said that we had spent a great deal of time going backwards and forwards on Europe and the moment had

911
come to reach a decision. I believe that the moment has come to reach a decision on electoral reform. Furthermore, I believe that recently the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, in his capacity, as it was then, of constitutional adviser to the Prime Minister, made the report which dealt with electoral systems and their virtues and defects. As yet no word has reached another place, so far as I am aware, of the Prime Minister's consideration of that report. I hope that to assist Parliament and the country in reaching a conclusion there might be some possibility of its being published. In the meantime, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on bringing the Motion before your Lordships' House, and say that I hope that as a result of what is said this afternoon we shall reach a decision without the Speaker's Conference, which is unnecessary, if we are to make some progress towards a more democratic system in the country.
3.40 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, admitted that he was a convert to proportional representation, and I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will take it amiss if I describe him as almost the high priest of the religion; but I have to admit that over this matter I regard myself as an agnostic. I am ready to be convinced, but I am bound to say that I have not so far heard any truly cogent evidence. Nevertheless, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for providing an opportunity to discuss this matter; indeed, alternative methods of the expression of democratic opinion are in the air. We are, after all, faced with the referendum. Some of us believe that it is not strictly necessary to have one, but I shall not say any more about that. Many more of us, I think, are mightily hopeful that it will not be repeated. Therefore the question of expressing the will of the people and turning that expression, expressed by method of votes, into the choice of Members of the House of Commons, I suppose is something which goes along with the present sense of unease in our democratic processes.
In any discussion as to how, and by what method, votes shall be cast, and the
912
effect of them, it is not at all easy to avoid playing what I might describe as a "numbers game" which involves relatively complex calculations and nightmarish jargon for anybody who is not one of the esoteric circle of devotees of this form of election. I do not intend to go into the various different methods of proportional representation, except in so far as may be necessary by virtue of the terms of the noble Lord's Motion. This is not said merely because it is relatively easy to get into a muddle. Confusion is in fact compounded, because those who use various names and terms for the different methods of voting sometimes use the same terms to mean different things. Therefore, I shall resist the temptation to discuss, or perhaps pontificate about, what is known as the "droop quota" in these circles, merely leaving noble Lords to muse upon its meaning themselves. I suppose it could mean anything, from something to do with the nose of Concorde to the ladies' foundation garment industry.
This Motion is happily worded because it mentions the traditional independence of a Member of Parliament as the representative of a territorial constituency. This therefore would exclude the adoption of what is sometimes described as a "pure list system"; that is to say, where each Party produces a list of candidates, either for the country as a whole or possibly for a region. As I understand it, under that system the seats are allocated by a form of mathematical formula, and the inevitable result must be a more tenuous and certainly less territorial relationship between the Member of Parliament and his constituents. For myself, I would not favour such an electoral system, which although I believe it to be mathematically fair would produce an entirely different system of government from anything that we have known so far.
I suppose when one mentions mathematical formulae and mathematical fairness at first blush anyway, mathematically and politically our system is unfair. I had rather expected the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to produce the figures for the October 1974 General Election, to the effect, as I believe, that it took 36,000 votes to elect a Labour Member of Parliament, 38,000 votes odd to elect a Tory Member of Parliament but 411,000 votes to elect a Liberal Member of

913
Parliament. There cannot be anybody in your Lordships' House who is not made at least uneasy by such statistics. I will not produce further figures, but perhaps most of your Lordships will agree that figures like these show that there is a need to examine our methods. Whether such an examination will produce results which are acceptable to ail of us as citizens, no matter from which House of Parliament or anywhere else we come, is perhaps debatable. What is certain beyond a peradventure is that if we had had some form of proportional representation since the War, our political scene would now be quite different.
In the past we have prided ourselves on what, we like to think is our strong government, and of course whether a Government is strong or not depends on what it is, and no doubt on what it does. Certainly, although we have had stable Governments and relatively few General Elections over a period of 20 years, we have had many Chancellors of the Exchequer. Doing the sums, so far as their tenure of office is concerned, it averages out at about 18 months per Chancellor; and one wonders, and indeed questions whether that tenure of office can be enough for any man.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that, judging by their achievements, they were in office far too long?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, 18 months sometimes can be a life sentence and, with respect, we are rapidly approaching it now. At any rate, I do not think the noble Lord would quarrel with my theme that it is not exactly strong or efficient government to have one's Minister of Finance—for want of a better term—changing with such frequency, if not regularity. Whatever form of government we have had since the war, it certainly has not been very successful in economic terms. Economically, one is bound to admit that as a country we are now weak, and compared with other sophisticated countries in Western Europe we are growing weaker all the time and have been getting weaker for years. But as to the causes of this, they are not nearly so easy to define. Is it in fact because our system of government (as some would have us believe) through our system of election produces the wrong
914
sort of government, or is it in fact that we are a rather complacent and idle race which has taken too much out of our economy over a great number of years? For myself, I do not think the answer is easily come by.
But again, in the country at large one has to face the fact that Parliament itself does not command the respect that it once did. Many reasons may account for this, but the effect is that sections of the community feel that Parliament is not looking after them or their interests, and as a result they do not feel over-respectful of the law which emanates from Parliament. I hope I am not being over-contentious, still less provocative, if I point to the trade unions in this respect—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in recent speeches in your Lordships' House, has said as much. I do not seek to apportion blame for this; it is merely a fact of our modern Parliamentary life. Whether therefore a different system of voting—some form of proportional representation—would not have let the situation, civically speaking, deteriorate into what it has now become, or whether if we now adopted proportional representation immediately in the future, or even at some distant time in the future, the position would be ameliorated, I am afraid I do not know.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves the economic scene, would he perhaps comment on the fact that under our present system the great industry of steel has been nationalised, denationalised and renationalised (three operations in all) since the war, and whether this would have happened under a system of proportional representation? I think it is enormously important to the economic scene to look at this particular industry. Would the noble Earl care to comment?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, no, I would not care to comment. This is a matter of hypothesis, and how one can say that the will of a series of executives is reflected in the form of voting by which they reach power is, I think, a leap into the dark, and I certainly would not go along with it. What would happen if one had proportional representation politically, I do not know. Perhaps I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in that way. It might

915
be that the steel industry would never have been nationalised at all; it might be that it would have been nationalised and stayed that way—I cannot possibly conjecture.
My Lords, from such researches as I have been able to do, no Party since 1935 has had an overall majority of votes cast. It follows therefore, and I hope reasonably logically, that since the war, if we had had proportional representation, we would have had a series of coalition or minority Governments. Presumably the Parliamentary Liberal Party would have been engaged in a series of what I might term "horse deals", as a result of which there would have been a coalition of one kind or another of the two main Parties with the Liberals. There might well also have been a proliferation of smaller Parties with a possibly divisive effect upon our body politic and, in fact, on the nation itself. Certainly the power which our system gives to the electorate to choose a Government directly, instead of a Government brought into being through one or more deals, would have been much less. That may be a good thing or a bad thing. Whether the mechanical rearrangement of votes would give us a Government which is more, shall I say, sensitive to the needs of all people is again a matter of argument. I would say that those of us who are unionists—and I say "unionist" I hope in its best sense, that is to say believing in the union of the various countries which make up Great Britain —must be worried about the separatist movements which have started and gathered momentum in Scotland and Wales.
As I understand it, this Government, at least in Scotland, are committed to the establishment of some form of Scottish Assembly. What form of voting is used to elect the members of that body is rather wide of the terms of this Motion; but the noble Lord, Lord Alport, mentioned it and so, perhaps, can I. As I understand it, the Government at the moment want to retain the same number of Members of Parliament at Westminster as exists now and, secondly, wish the Members of the Scottish Assembly to be elected by our present "first past the post" principle. The Royal Commission on the Constitution recommended a single
916
transferable vote and, on reflection, if there is not to be a permanent inbuilt Labour majority in that body some form of proportional representation will have to be used. Noble Lords opposite might be delighted if there was a permanent inbuilt Labour majority in the Scottish Assembly. They might. Equally, if they are good democrats, they might take note of what has happened in Ulster; they might pay heed to the local inbuilt Labour majority in Glasgow and wish no such fate upon my poor country. But if that is not to be there will have to be some form of proportional representation. It is fair to say that Ulster is now going along the proportional representational road, and one hopes for every success in that unfortunate country.
I have at times, I fear, argued against myself, because it seems to me that this is a difficult question. I fully agree that it needs to be considered. Indeed, in the Manifesto of the Conservative Party for the last election in October 1974 we said that we would propose the establishment of a Speaker's Conference to examine our electoral system and to make recommendations. Further than that we did not go, and in my respectful submission it was not for us to do so at that stage.
The Manifesto also made reference to the European Parliament, and I should like to close on that note. By 1978 the European Parliament is to have direct elections, and each country will decide upon the form of its delegation. If, as most of us fervently hope, we are still in the Community in 1978, as things stand at the moment we shall, unless we change our rules, be the only country not sending a delegation to the European Parliament by some form of proportional representation. It may be a good thing to stand apart; it may not; but that is the situation as it will be. By way of summary, my Lords, I remain, as it were, unconvinced. I remain ready to be convinced, and I rather suspect that that is a frame of mind which probably commands the support of most of your Lordships' House.
3.57 p.m.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, I should like to make a brief contribution to this debate, if only to express my gratitude to the nobe Lord, Lord Alport, for raising this most important matter and

917
giving your Lordships' House an opportunity to debate it, however briefly. I think it is significant—at least, I hope it is significant—that for the first time so far as I am aware an initiative of this kind has come from the Conservative Benches and not from the Liberal Party, who have for so long been—as I think the noble Lord opposite said—the high priests of the religion of proportional representation. I think this is an extremely important matter and one which is becoming more and more urgent. Perhaps I might say, however mildly, that I was therefore rather disappointed at the somewhat lukewarm, and dare I say desiccated, response that came from the Front Bench opposite. I believe that this is a matter which we must follow not, if I may suggest, in the manner of a leading article in one of our famous daily newspapers—on the one hand and on the other—but rather in a spirit of appreciating the urgency of a situation in which it now seems to be obvious that the relative majority of the single Member constituencies, which is the current method of election in this country, is— as I think has been realised since the middle of the 19th century—inconsistent with truly representative democratic government. But I now believe this matter is becoming one of more immediate and urgent political import.
I said that the inequity, the unfairness, of the relative majority system has been recognised for some time. It was recognised first, I think, by the Danish political scientist, Andre. Then in the 19th century it was, of course, John Stuart Mill who was for a brief period (three years, I think) a Member of another place, who first enunciated the principles upon which most doctrines of proportional representation have since been based. Those of your Lordships who follow this subject with any great care will know that it was Mill's great friend, Thomas Hare, who first enunciated the principle which has led to the rather refined concept of the single transferable vote. Perhaps I may say here at the risk of undermining the little quip of the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite about the nose of Concorde, that the Drope factor—named after the distinguished Continental political scientist who discovered it—is extremely important, and is a crucial factor in determining the calculations of the single transferable vote. So I hope
918
we will not dismiss things of that nature too lightly.
The single transferable vote has been in operation in a number of countries for some time. It has been in operation in Ireland since 1922. As I believe I am to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, I shall leave him to comment, if comment is needed, upon the effectiveness there of the single transferable vote. I shall say no more than that I think it was introduced there for the express purpose, in accordance with the doctrines of John Stuart Mill, of ensuring that minorities were fully represented, and that electoral systems were not deformed and distorted by such things as religious prejudice and persuasion.
The single transferable vote has been in operation in Tasmania and Malta. Although it seems presumptuous to take issue with such a distinguished Antipodean expert as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I have to say that it is my opinion that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is quite correct in saying that in the Australian Senate proportional representation in the form of the single transferable vote is in operation, although not in the other House of the Australian Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, there are many other systems of proportional representation all over the world. Perhaps the most notable is the mixed system operating in the Federal Republic of Germany, one which I think it would repay us very well to study in this country.
My Lords, having made any kind of study, however superficial, of the way in which this system operates in other countries all one needs to say is that it seems to be the ideal way of ensuring an equitable system of representation for minority groups, especially for minority groups in a Parliamentary democracy. The present system which we cling to in this country, in common with one or two other Parliamentary democracies, has two major defects. The first is that it tends to create large monolithic Parties with narrow power bases. Certainly it has done so in this country, where we have two large Parties. The Labour Party has as its major political base the trade union movement and organised labour. The Conservative Party has its base in industry and business. These are narrow

919
power bases, but under our present electoral system they enable these two Parties to remain in power alternately, while smaller minorities seem to remain unrepresented, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said.
My Lords, the other defect of the system—and this has already been mentioned—is that it enables Government to be elected on minority votes. The noble Lord who spoke from the Front Bench opposite gave some statistics about the last Election. Perhaps a very vivid statistic is that the present Government —and this applies not only to the present Government, but to past Administrations as well—sits in Office on a vote of 28 per cent. of those who are entitled to vote in this country. This seems to me to indicate that there is a very urgent need to examine the possibilities of electoral reform.
We have a new and dangerous situation emerging in this country, for various reasons which I will not adduce now. I believe we are seeeing an erosion of the power of the Legislature. We are seeing a diminution of the powers of Parliament. We are seeing a gradual flow of power away from the elected representatives of this country into the hands of what one might call extra-Parliamentary institutions. Power is passing on the one hand into organised labour, into the hands of the major industrial trade unions; and, as a reaction to that, a great deal of power is beginning to pass into the hands of multinational industrial corporations. I believe that this is a dangerous tendency in a Parliamentary democracy, and we should be doing all we can to restore the power of the elected Legislature.
The need for electoral reform and the possibility of a system of proportional representation seem to me to be demonstrated. It is fairly obvious that that system should be the single transferable vote, but one would not wish to go to the stake on that. The question is: how do we get from where we are now to where we quite clearly should be? In some quarters it has been suggested that the right way to go about this is to appoint a Royal Commission. In normal circumstances if this matter had not been fully argued, fully analysed and fully researched in the past, there might be something to
920
be said for that. However, in the present circumstances, I think possibly not. There are very few new facts to be adduced. Various systems of proportional representation are well-known. The effects it would have on the system of this country are well-known. While it would certainly be impartial, much more so than a Speaker's Conference, the appointment of a Royal Commission would create a delay which, in the present circumstances, is not to be contemplated.
There is then the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that a Speaker's Conference should be convened. I have some doubts about the need for a Speaker's Conference to establish the principle. Indeed, I think that previous experience of Speaker's Conferences is not very encouraging. Noble Lords may recall that in 1965, the then Government Chief Whip of the Labour Administration said:
"The Government take the view that the time has arrived when we must examine in depth methods of electing Members of Parliament other than the present straight majority method. The present system obviously does not give a fair deal to important minorities like the Liberal Party."
So said the Chief Whip of the Labour Government in 1965. As we have already heard, this was followed by a Speaker's Conference which decided, I think by a majority of 19 to 1, to make no change. It decided that the present electoral system was the best. Since then, of course, things have changed very considerably. I have very little confidence that a Speaker's Conference convened tomorrow would come to a very different conclusion.
My Lords, there are, however, some rays of light to which we might turn. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, is not able to be in his place at present, because he is rather a crucial figure in all this. In the first place, your Lordships will recall that in his Minority Report on the Kilbrandon Commission on the Constitution, when referring to the setting up of a single Chamber assembly specifically in Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, said that it should consist of 100 Members. The noble Lord went on:
"They will be elected on the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. If this is so, we can be sure that minorities will be fully represented."
I do not think I need repeat at any great length what has already been said. If it

921
is necessary to protect the interests of minorities in Scotland and in Wales, then it is equally necessary to protect minorities in England. There are minorities in England who are not represented and I refer not entirely—although I do include it—to the Liberal Party.
Therefore, it seems to me that if the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, made that recommendation in his Minority Report, I should also say that one of the very few matters upon which the whole of the Kilbrandon Commission was unanimous was that whatever assemblies were set up in Scotland and in Wales, whether executive or legislative, they were to be elected by proportional representation on the single transferable vote. It therefore seems important that we should now treat the English at least as well as we propose to treat the Scots and the Welsh.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, comes into the picture again, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, because he was very recently invited by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister to do some background research into the possibility of reopening the question of electoral reform. I recognise that when he was asked to do this he was an adviser to the Government and acting as a civil servant, and the Government are, therefore, quite within their rights, and indeed are acting in a constitutional sense quite properly, in saying that his findings need not be made public. I believe, however, that in a matter of this kind, which is of such enormous political importance, it would be a very great help if, in some form, the findings and recommendations of so distinguished a political scientist as Lord Crowther-Hunt could be made available, so that those of us who have not had the opportunity to do these researches ourselves might take advantage of them in making up our own minds. I should, therefore, like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when he comes to reply, whether he can give us some encouragement, whether he can say that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, or at least certain relevant passages, may be made available publicly and in your Lordships' House, so that our further deliberations on this subject can have the benefit of his research.
922
It seems to me, however, as I hinted earlier, that we certainly do not need a Royal Commisssion, and I do not know that we need even a Speaker's Conference to establish the principle. It seems to me quite clear that there is a need urgently to reform the electoral system. It may be that a Speaker's Conference would be necessary to examine the modalities of this, how it should be done, what form of proportional representation should be employed. What is now needed is that one or both of the major political Parties in this country should commit themselves openly to the principle of electoral reform, to the introduction of some form of proportional representation. I believe that whichever of the great political Parties did that would not only be doing a great service to the nation, would not only be providing a guarantee against what seems to me to be the creeping disintegration of our political system, but they might be surprised at the enormous electoral advantage that they themselves would reap from such a commitment.
I should like, if I may, before I conclude, to read two sentences which John Stuart Mill, whom I have mentioned more than once in this short intervention, wrote in his Treatise on Representative Government in, I think, 1859. He was talking of proportional representation as a means of protecting the interests of minorities, and he said:
"Unless this happens, there is not equal government but a government of inequality and privilege. One part of the people rule over the rest. There is a part whose fair and equal share of influence in the representation is withheld from them, contrary to all just government, but, above all, contrary to the principle of democracy, which professes equality as its very root and foundation."
I believe that those words are as true today as they were when Mill first wrote them, and perhaps of even more immediate impact, because I believe we are moving into dangerous waters in our political life in this country. I believe that the erosion of the authority, prestige and reputation of Parliament is a dangerous phenomenon. I believe that we should do all we can to restore that reputation and prestige, and I believe very sincerely that one of the ways of doing that is an intelligent programme of electoral reform.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
4.14 p.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I was very heartened when I heard that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, had put down this Motion for consideration this afternoon, and I have great pleasure in making some rather disconnected remarks in support of his thesis. At first I was slightly disheartened when Lord Avebury did not appear to welcome this as much as I expected him to, but, equally, at the end of his speech he really came round to support what Lord Alport was trying to do. And the same, I think, goes for the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who at first I thought would turn the proposition down flat, but who then appeared to give it a certain amount of faint praise, so there is always hope for the future.
My Lords, I am speaking as someone who comes from the periphery. I feel that there is a slight British tendency to imagine that the system under which we operate is always best. Proportional representation could be forced on Ireland in 1921, or on Northern Ireland in the 'seventies, but, my Lords, it is not for us. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that I might like to expand a little on proportional representation in the Irish Republic. I should like to do so very much indeed, because thereby hangs rather an interesting tale. It was, of course, proposed by the British Government of the day and instituted when the Republic of Ireland got its independence. But they of their own volition had a referendum on the subject some nine or 10 years ago. Admittedly, this referendum was introduced by the governing Party—I might be getting on to rather tender ground now—and they hoped that it would produce a certain result. There were two questions on the paper: No. 1, would you like to have Mr. de Valera as your new President; No. 2, would you like to alter the system of proportional representation? Anyway, the way it was framed—I think I have got it slightly wrong—it was hoped that the less educated members of society in the Irish Republic having voted Yes for their President, they would also vote Yes for a change of the electoral system. But the Irish were not to be conned. They voted Yes for Mr. de Valera as President, and No for a change from the system of proportional representation. So thereby hangs an interesting tale.
924
If I may digress back to my original theme of how the British always think they are right, of course I am one of these people myself, and I always used, when I was speaking in America in the old days, to praise the system of Question Time in the House of Commons; I always said that it was one of our great British safeguards. As the fourth Question was being asked, and perhaps not entirely answered, today, I could not help thinking something I have now come to think in the last two or three years; that any Minister worth his salt, with the short time available for Question Time in the House of Commons, can succeed in not answering the Question. Therefore, a Congressional Committee of Inquiry in America can get to the bottom of something far better than Question Time does under the British system. I digress, I admit, but it is part of my theme that we always believe that what we do is right and best for us and that nobody else really understands our wonderful system.
Today policies are being carried out for which a considerable majority of the British people did not vote. I would hope that with some form of proportional representation the moderates would have a greater chance of success. Your Lordships may well say that this is not the case in Northern Ireland. You may well say that proportional representation does not really seem to have changed the situation, and, indeed, if all the gloomy forecasts in my part of the world are true, this Election which is to be held on 1st May will produce an unprecedented number of extremists in the new Constitutional Convention. You may say that, but that is the exception which proves the rule, and thank God! in Britain, on this side of the water, people do not vote on sectarian lines. Therefore, anything that happened last year in the Assembly, and is to happen again this year in the Convention in Northern Ireland, does not really apply, thank God! to Britain, and people should not be misled by that.
Some noble Lords have been worried about sovereignty, but, surely, what we want to see is the sovereignty of our Parliament reestablished over the increasing powers of outside bodies—and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has spoken much more ably than I can about that. Burke, who I am glad to say was an Irishman,

925
once said that Members of Parliament should be representatives and not delegates. I fear that increasingly a modern Member of Parliament tends to be, because of the great power of his Party machine, a delegate, and he should be a representative. He should be able to take his own decisions. I know that these things are very difficult. It is easy for us in this House to talk about another place, but once again one would hope that an alteration of the electoral system would make it easier for Members of Parliament to stand on their own feet.
If we merely look at these things from the point of view of Party solidarity, then of course we shall never change anything; but if other systems can work well in other countries, then we should have the humility to investigate them. May I suggest to noble Lords on this side of the House who still feel that the present system is best that they would do well to read the article which Harry Boyne wrote in the Daily Telegraph on 2nd April. He is a man I have known for many years and for whom I have some considerable feeling of support. This is what he said:
"That there is scant enthusiasm in the Labour Party for electoral reform is scarcely surprising. Labour has now been in office for roughly 13 of the last 30 years, and aspires, not without reason, to become the 'natural' majority Party under the present electoral system. Including the 1945 Election, it has 'won' six, against the Conservatives four."
I merely mention that so that certain noble Lords on this side of the House who feel that our present system suits the Conservative Party best might read Harry Boyne's article of 2nd April.
I have the fear that if we continue with the present system, the moderates in the Conservative Party and the Social Democrats in the Labour Party will slowly be squeezed out, and we shall then face the real possibility in the end of having either a Left Wing or a Right Wing dictatorship. I apologise for these rather unconsidered words, but I am very quick to support the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in the Motion which he has enabled us to discuss today. I was, if I may say so, slightly heartened by the speech from our Front Bench. I did not feel that I was listening to a closed mind. I therefore hope that, with the passage of not too long a time, thoughts on this side of the House may change.
4.25 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for introducing this Motion. I have had one down on rather similar lines for a matter of months, and this debate has therefore enabled me to take it off the Order Paper. I shall say a great deal that will echo what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has already said. I see the danger of not making reforms now. As I think that action is even more urgent than do some noble Lords who have already spoken, I may make my points rather more tersely and a little more extremely than they have done.
On 22nd May last year I was fortunate in being able to initiate a full Wednesday debate in the House on a Motion to consider:
"what changes could usefully be made to our Party and Parliamentary system to bring it into line with present day needs and improve the functioning of our democracy."
I then mentioned several areas in which I thought changes should be considered. One of these was, of course, proportional representation. I adhere today to everything I then said.
The time for doing something about it is running out. There is doubt in my mind whether any form of democracy as we know it will endure in this country unless we heed the warnings now. A recent leading article in The Times made this quite clear. It pointed out that with our present system it was possible, and I would say even quite likely, that the extreme Left of the Labour Party, supported by the trade unions, might succeed in completely wrecking and changing our society out of all recognition against the wishes of, perhaps, 80 per cent. of the electorate. Not only for this reason, but because of the contempt in which many people now hold the working of our Party system, some proportional representation, and probably a multi-Party system as in Germany, would be far preferable.
It has always surprised me that, when one comes into Parliament, somehow or other its Members seem to be almost insulated from the criticisms made from outside. It seems that after a time they believe that what they have been doing in the past cannot be bettered, and that there can be no criticism or need for change. I must say that it surprises me.

927
It would seem that we have come to regard the present detailed version of government which we call "democracy" as something above criticism: a sacred cow, if you like. It does not seem to matter how inefficiently it functions; principles are said to be at stake. Our present system is certainly not that of Athens, where the majority view of the people prevailed. The so-called mandates for a Party—if "mandate" means a demand—have become sheer hypocrisy, because in a large number of cases the vast majority of the nation do not agree with them.
Nowadays we have an effective choice between only two Parties, and many of the cynics say between two evils. The definition of democracy as "Government by the people for the people" is not very enlightening when one considers its working in detail. It is, I am sure, a truism that however perfect a system of government appears to be initially, it will, in time, become debased and changes in society will mean that reforms are necessary if the original ideals are to be maintained. We have only to look at the theoretically once perfect system of electing American Presidents to see the force of this argument.
In spite of major dissatisfaction with our Party politics, it seems that we are only just beginning to realise that some changes are needed if any form of democracy is to continue. To fail to make the reforms in time can only mean that all we have created in the past, and which most of us hold dear, will be swept away by a radical reform to another and almost certainly autocratic form of government. The writing has been on the wall for some time. Today it should be clear enough for all those who wish to read it.
Finally, I am sure that, privately, many of those in this House who were previously union leaders see this issue and more pressing problems of wags inflation much as I do. I appeal to those who are not in favour of completely and immediately demolishing our present society to stand up and be counted. I know this is difficult because of previous union loyalties, but the nation's future is at stake and their voice at this time could carry great weight. Very soon it may be too late. That, I am afraid, is a brief
928
and depressing picture. Nevertheless, I believe it to be true and I think it is right, if that is what one feels, to rise in your Lordships' House and say it unequivocably.
4.31 p.m.
Lord ORREWING: My Lords, I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for having initiated this debate. I am sorry that so far no person has spoken from the Government Back-Benches, but I hope there is still time, because I think every true democrat, wherever he may sit in this House or in another place, must be anxious about what is happening to our whole Parliamentary system, the way it is falling in the respect of the people and the way it is operating. Anything we can do to strengthen moderate opinion, both in the House and in the country, would seem to be wholly desirable. That is why I shall argue that a revision of cur electoral system towards some form of proportional representation is urgently necessary and why I so welcome the initiative of my noble friend.
I think the country as a whole feels, as other speakers have said, that it is unfair and unjust that it needs some 400,000 Liberal votes to elect a single Liberal members of Parliament and rather less than one-tenth of that amount to elect a Conservative or a Labour Member of Parliament. I think also that one should remember, as one speaker has already reminded your Lordships, that the present Government, which must be one of the most extreme political Governments, certainly of the last 50 years, was elected on 28 per cent. of the total electorate, and only 39·3 per cent. of those who voted in the last Election. I would remind your Lordships that it was in 1933 that Hitler came to power on 39 per cent. of the votes of the German people.
Sometimes people elected on a minority vote do not seem to be inhibited by any desire to be moderate and to carry the nation with them but embark on more extreme measures. I am not for a moment suggesting that this Government is tending towards Hitlerism, but I think we have to study the lessons of our life-time and see that sometimes people elected on a small vote stay there until their country is damaged irreparably and no one has another chance of electing a

929
successor. I believe that our Parliamentary democracy is really in extreme peril. We have always adapted our institutions. Those of us who attended in Westminster Hall the 700th anniversary of Simon de Montfort's Parliament, must have reflected at that time how much we have changed our system in 700 years to produce our present one. I cannot see why we should not continue to change with advantage to the institution and to our system.
I cannot help feeling that, as we slump with increasing inflation—while our competitors are solving their problems in that area—with increasing deficits in our balance of trade, with enormous public services and enormously swollen public expenditure, and with the starving of our wealth—creating industry, which, incidentally, is our exporting industry, all these happenings may lead to extreme measures, and that there will be those from the extremes of all political Parties who will be pressing, and who may play comes about. I believe that, if we do not have a coalition or an amalgam as a so disproportionate a part if this tragedy result of some form of proportional representation, then we shall slide inexorably into more serious trouble. Those who have much more seniority than my-self in the political field, and those, perhaps, who thought out their problems in past decades and are not of a mind to think them out again, tend to say that coalitions are ineffective and unsuccessful. I believe we are coming to the stage in this country where the choice may well be between a loose coalition—not necessarily a formal coalition—of political Parties, or a neo-Communist Government. If the choice is between those two, surely every democrat would come to support a loose coalition and any form of proportional representation which might bring that about. I do not wish to discuss the merits of the various forms. Once we start discussing them we should keep your Lordships longer than is necessary and we should get into long and technical arguments.
I see no demerit, certainly in our towns and the surroundings to our towns, to multi-Member constituencies. For 20 years I sat in the highly marginal seat of Hendon, North, a borough divided between Hendon, North and Hendon, South. I was surrounded on one side by Harrow, East, West, and Central and just
930
below that by Wembley, North, and South. I think in all those cases one could have a two-Member constituency without the constituents feeling any divorcement from their representatives. Quite honestly, in suburbs of London they know they live in NW7, Mill Hill or NW11, which is Colindale in my area, but they do not feel any intense loyalty to something which is described on the map as "Hendon, North", "Hendon, South", "Wembley, North" and "Wembley, South".
So I see no merit, certainly in the conurbations, if we swing towards multi-Member constituencies. I would suggest two or three Member seats as a compromise number. We have done this in the past not unsuccessfully. I see the merits, of course, in county seats, like the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who sat for Colchester, and I see it being simpler if you have just one representative in a county seat when everyone is clear about who is their representative.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, mentioned in his opening speech that the overworking of Members of Parliament was one of the reasons leading to the breakdown, to some extent, of respect for our Parliamentary system. Certainly, I acknowledge that in marginal seats one is overworked. In my 20 years I spent two occasions every week visiting my constituency. When you remember that about half the electorate move between every General Election, you have to run —like Alice in Wonderland—like mad to stay where you are in getting to know those who move in and sadly forgetting those who move out. So there is overwork. I stress that, and the load of Parliamentary work gets greater and greater. But I should have thought that there was some merit in the French system where they have an understudy to Members of Parliament called a suppléant. It seems to me that this would be quite a good provision, a training period for someone who wishes to serve his country in Parliament and get to know the system by serving in that manner. This is something which again I think could be examined in the context of electoral reform.
I must confess I did not expect a wild support from my Front Bench, and I was pleased to see that at least a chink was

931
left open in the speech which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, delivered. I find this kind of subject is not popular with the two Front Benches. The Government of the day are inevitably over-worked, this one particularly, because they have to bring in a Budget every few months, and, therefore, there is a permanent Finance Bill rumbling through either the House or the Committees upstairs. On top of that they have many contentious measures, the Industry Act, nationalisation of aerospace and shipping, and goodness knows what else thrusting behind them!
The Opposition Front Bench have problems, too. They have to earn a living, they do not get much pay and they do not get the help which the civil servants provide so admirably for the Government of the day. In any case, the two big Parties seem to think that because they thought out this problem some time ago they do not need to think it out again. I urge noble Lords to accept that it is necessary to think it out again, because the rigid two-Party system is inevitably breaking down, and really it did not exist for very long, less than 100 years as I read my history. One sees it breaking down not only with the emergence of the Liberal vote but with the Scottish Nationalists, the Welsh Nationalists, the Ulster Nationalists—if I may use that term—and others. I believe that this process will continue as provincial and national strength, and nationalism, grow, and it would be much better to adapt our system now than to pretend that the rigid two-Party system will stay the same as it has in past decades.
It is also argued by those who have experience of the 'thirties that the Coalition of that time did not work very well. It did at least enable us to win the Battle of Britain and the war and to do rather better than most of the other industrial countries in solving the desperate unemployment problems we had, so I would not condemn it on those scores. Like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I believe that a Royal Commission—and I am sitting on one—is too slow and ponderous an organisation to deliberate this matter. I think that the Speaker's Conference, as proposed in this Motion, again would take a long time and, as others have pointed out, its recommendations
932
are not always adopted by the Government of the day. I therefore urge my Party or the Labour Party—the Social Democrats in the Labour Party—to consider what is happening and to consider whether this is not the kind of measure, the kind of action, which should be brought about in a sincere and desperate effort—and urgency is the need—to strengthen the moderates at the expense of the extremists.
4.43 p.m.
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, I have spoken twice already on this subject, once at the beginning of the last Parliament, in March of last year, and again near the beginning of this Parliament, last December, and I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would describe me as one of the repentant sinners or as one of the 99 who went not astray. I intend to be brief and to make only three points. The first arises from the terms of the Motion, and I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has said on this subject. It says that we should:
"… examine … the form of … representation best suited to maintaining the traditional independence of a Member of Parliament as the representative of a territorial constituency…"
I am all in favour of local loyalties of every kind, but constituencies in Britain have been changing continuously, in terms of their size, shape ad the kind of people they cover, for the last 300 to 400 years, and the moral imperatives of loyalty are not quite the same as they are in the case of loyalty to one's country, family or home.
When William Pitt died at a very early age, because he had worked too hard for his country as Prime Minister, he is reported by a favourable source to have exclaimed, "My country, how I leave my country", and by a less favourable source to have said, "I really think I could eat one of Bellamy's pork pies."Whichever is the right version, I am sure he would never have said, "My constituency, how I leave my constituency." There were cases in the 18th century, and even later, when Members who did not represent rotten boroughs nevertheless knew almost everybody in their constituencies, and sometimes some of them would say, "If you elect me, I will go into Parliament without accepting the Whig or Tory ticket. I will wait awhile and see which

933
Party is likely to do the most good for all of us here and possibly join it."Anybody who tried to get elected on that ground today would be sure to lose his deposit.
I thought Winston Churchill, who was always in favour of proportional representation, put this point very well when he gave Leeds as an example of a moderate-size, fairly large industrial town which had five single constituencies and which would, under proportional representation, be one constituency returning five Members. Winston used to say, "I would very much rather be one-fifth of the Members for the whole of Leeds than be the whole of one Member for one-fifth of Leeds." I think that all your Lordships who have served in another place would agree that all Members, whatever their Party, are always very diligent in attending to the personal affairs of their constituents who write to them. I think your Lordships might also agree that if single-Member constituencies were replaced in some parts of the country by five or even six-Member constituencies, the five or six Members would be perfectly capable of dividing among themselves the individual work which all Members have to do for their constituents, and they would probably divide it in such a way among the group that it would be done more quickly and efficiently than it is now.
The other two points I wish to raise arise from the remarks of my noble friend Lord Mansfield. He made an excellent contribution and I was delighted to hear him say that he was an agnostic. That is far better than saying—and he could not possibly have said it speaking from the Opposition Front Bench—that he was a convert. It would be utterly premature for any Front Bench speaker to say that now; and therefore the next best thing is to say one is an agnostic as the great Saint Augustine was before he became a Christian. He was an agnostic for a long time and he used to pray, "God make me a righteous man, but not quite yet if you don't mind." What my noble friend said was decidedly encouraging to those of us who believe that a change in our electoral laws is to be desired.
My noble friend gave an interesting example of the electoral results for the whole country at the last General Election.
934
As he is a Scotsman, and so am I, may I give a shorter extract which is confined to Scotland and which I believe is of particular relevance, because in the case of Scotland it is not merely a question of whether we can get a Speaker's Conference to recommend something. We have already had this recommended by a Royal Commission— not only by the Royal Commission of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon—but also in the equally powerful Minority Report by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, which recommended almost exactly the same thing. In view of that, I think that perhaps the electoral figures for Scotland may by themselves have special significance, especially as the Government have in their White Paper, to the great regret of most of us, turned down the proposal for proportional representation in the election of a Scottish Assembly.
I shall give the figures as quickly as I can. The total number of people in Scotland who voted at the last Election was about 2¾ million—the exact figure was 2,758,000. The number who voted Labour—this makes it all very simple— was almost exactly 1 million. It was 1,000 over the million. So 1 million voted Labour against 1¾ million for all the other Parties put together, of which the Conservatives had 681,000, the Scottish Nationalist Party 840,000, the Liberals 229,000 and other Parties 8,000—making a total of 1¾ million votes, compared with the figure for Labour of almost exactly 1 million. But, my Lords, the Labour Party which had only 36 per cent. of the votes got 57 per cent. of the seats, amounting to 41 seats against 30, giving them a majority of 11 in a total of 71 seats, although they got only 1 million votes out of 2¾ million. When your Lordships study these figures, you may realise why the Government have stated in their White Paper that they intend to reject the recommendation of the Royal Commission because, as they say, everybody is accustomed to the present system and it is nice and easy to understand.
I turn now to the question of stability which was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mansfield. Will we get more or less stability by having a different system of electing the Members of another place? My noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine sitting behind me pointed out

935
that since the war all the Government majorities have been elected by a minority of the voters, which is very true. One might add that the majority of the electors voted the same way every time, but under our present system of voting—with single Member constituencies with one vote— two, three or four per cent. can easily make a difference of 80 or 90 seats in the final result. Sometimes a very small percentage of the whole number of electors can make a difference of perhaps 100 seats in the Party composition, with the result that we continually get single Parties—Conservative or Labour— returned alternately on a minority vote. We get this not on the votes of 95 or 96 per cent. who vote more or less the same every time, but on the remaining two or three per cent. who change their minds every time. Some of them may be very wise and thoughtful, but they may not necessarily be the wisest and most reliable section of the electorate.
Is it not a little blind on our part to assume that because single Party governments do not have all the business of trying to get a coalition, they are therefore more stable than governments who have to do this? Particularly since the war, when it was being generally recognised that financial policy is so important in relation to everything else, is it not a very great temptation to any government to do, as an Election approaches, not what they think is right, but what they think may be approved of by the two or three per cent. of the not necessarily most wise and clever of the electors, who can make all the difference when the Election comes between the victory or defeat of either of the two great Parties?
Some noble Lords on the Benches opposite may not disagree with me or, at least, may not object, if I say that I think that the Budget presented by Mr. Roy Jenkins in 1970 was not nearly as bad as some Budgets have been since the war, and it may fairly be claimed in some respects to have been better than most of them. I would also suggest, in addition, that future historians writing of our time may conclude that it was because of the more sensible and consistent parts of the Budget presented by Mr. Roy Jenkins that the Labour Party lost the Election in that year. I think that it is
936
very possible that that may become the verdict of history.
My Lords, I do not intend to spend time in drawing comparisons, which is so easy to do and which is very well justified, between the economic progress made by Britain and that made by some of our neighbours who have a different electoral system, and who do not continually have big changes of extreme Party government. Instead, I shall merely suggest to your Lordships that it ought to be recognised that one does not get more instability— one probably gets much greater stability —by having a continued representation in one Parliament after another of the 96 or 97 per cent. of the electors who vote the same way every time, although they do not give an absolute majority to any one Party, than by a continuously changing, but unrepresentative majority whose victory or defeat depends on the swing of 2 or 3 per cent. of the electors.
4.59 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I intervene briefly to remind the House that I have sat on Speaker's Conferences from 1964 until I left the other House in 1970, and therefore I know something about the long, laborious processes of arriving at a decision to make a recommendation. I want to take this opportunity to protest strongly at some of the dismal Jeremiah speeches that have been made today about the British Parliamentary system. It is rather strange that this always arises when a Labour Government are in power. When the Party opposite is in power it seems to be O.K.; there is a wonderful Parliamentary system in operation. But immediately a Labour Government come into power the British Parliamentary system is all wrong.
The British Parliamentary system is the best in the world. If your Lordships look around the world at other countries, and visit them, as some of you have done, can anyone say that there is a better Parliamentary system than we have, despite some of its minor defects? At least in Britain we have true democracy, and no man can be bought in the representation of the people in this country. This is our proud boast. But look around at some of the so-called democratic countries and see the picture. Let us be realistic with ourselves. It is strange, as I have said, that the question

937
always arises when a Labour Government are in power. When a Labour Government are in power many of those representative here and in the Commons are among our best British democrats and patriots. As an example of a patriot, my noble friend Lord Shinwell is the greatest waver of the Union Jack in this House.
I want to refer briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. I do not agree with what he said. He talked about a multi-Member constituency. It is vital to preserve personal contact with the electors. He referred in scathing terms to glorified welfare officers. The very basis of Parliamentary representation in the Commons is based on personal contact with the people one represents. The "weekend surgery"—I never use that term—is the intimate contact with the problems of the people; it sends that Member, a little tired, back to the House the following week refreshed by human contact and sharing human problems. Multi-Member constituencies would wipe out the very basis of our Parliamentary representation, the real value of the personal contact.
I accept that changes are necessary, but I do not think the changes should come by recommendations from the Speaker's Conference. I think it is time that we had a change. First of all, it is an intolerable burden on Mr. Speaker that he has to spare the time to try to keep his Members on long, wearying debates, discussions and interviews. Therefore I think the time has come for reforming the system of deciding on changes in our Parliamentary legal system. It is true—and we should remind ourselves of it—that not only is there a Speaker's Conference operating at the time but a Home Office Committee as well; so that the Speakers' Conference does not take all the decisions. I think an independent body should deal with the changes necessary, and then, again, they must recommend because the final decision must be taken by the people affected; namely, the Commons.
Today, at times, we were straying on to some very dangerous ground because we are dealing with something which vitally affects the other place. One knows from previous contacts and from life in the other place how jealous the other place is of your Lordships' House. We here
938
have to be very careful indeed in what we say. That is why I regret some of the speeches that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, has done a service. He has raised an issue which is important, but, I repeat, please let us stop this running down of our Parliamentary system. We are playing into the hands of people outside and some of the media as well. It is time that we pointed out to the rest of the world that our Parliamentary system is the best in the world. If we can improve it, so be it; but the responsibility will be ours.
5.4 p.m.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, I rise merely to dispel one particular nostrum which is always advanced. It was advanced today by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who tended to suggest that we are not the men our fathers were. He spoke about the falling off in the public standards of Parliament. For an historian that seems pretty bad. He said he was an historian. Writers—any writer since the time of Pepys—have always denigrated Parliament. Parliament has always been held in affectionate contempt by the British people. Pepys referred to the bad and wild young men that have now got into the House. Stephenson said of Parliament that we are all ashamed of it. Carlyle wrote that Parliament mirrored the weakness of the State and not its strength. Dickens always referred to it with contempt. There is not one character in any of the works of Dickens that touch on the House who does not refer to it with contempt. Dickens was a shorthand reporter. He always referred to it as the great dust heap of Westminster. Hazlitt, the noblest of our essayists, said something about Parliament being like a cockpit in all its glory, or like Billingsgate on market day. If the noble Lord, Lord Alport, re-reads (as I am sure he has read) Rhodes James's book on Churchill, A Study in Failure, 1900–1939 he will read about the despair that Winston Churchill felt about Parliament in 1934—and that was only three years after a noble coalition.
How old is Parliament in its present system? The great Reform Act of 1832 gave only 4 per cent. of the electorate the vote. There is no use quoting John Stuart Mill in this context. It was a different kind of Parliament, a different electorate. It was an élite.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I interrupt—
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, I would prefer not to give way. The noble Lord has a right of reply.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, does not the noble Lord feel that there is a difference between the attitude of people to Members of Parliament as individuals and the powers and prestige of Parliament as an institution?—which is quite a different kettle of fish.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, I do not know. I was always treated with great respect in West Leeds. I am sure the honourable gentleman's experience in Colchester was the same. The weakness of his speech is that he thought that when he retired from Colchester the Lord Almighty "busted" the mould and those who came after him were lesser men.
If you take the whole period of the 19th century, you find that it was a smaller electorate, where the squire was equated almost with the Member of Parliament of the time. As a matter of fact, we never did achieve full democracy in this country until 1950 with the abolition of the university franchise and the business vote. That was the first time that we had "one man, one vote; one woman, one vote" across the board. This cry always comes up whenever there is a Party on the Left—even referring to the radicals. You can see the upsurge with the great Liberal majority in 1906.
I asked the late Richard Crossman— who often advanced this argument—what was the greatest period of Parliament, when it was at its pinnacle. He paused, hesitated, could not immediately give a date; and then he mumbled something about 1880. I could tell you something about Parliament, about the Commons, in 1880; something about the place and the men born to the job here. Even when I got to Parliament in 1949 I could see still the sinecures and the ideas which the Stokes Committee did something to abolish—and I have done my share in that place. This House of Parliament had no lease at all, no rights at all; it was just a tenant at the caprice of Her Majesty until 1965, when I was the Minister instrumental in shifting this. The honourable gentleman would be better to pin his case——
Several Noble Lords: Noble Lord!
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, he is an honourable gentleman as well as a noble Lord; but the House ought not to be so fastidious. The noble Lord would have been better off to rest his case on its strong points, the emergence of the Nationalist Party in Scotland and the Nationalist Party in Wales. Something must be done for those. The point on which I would agree with him is that one can hardly have a system of voting for those places that is denied to us.
5.9 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, it was just over a year ago that the House debated a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. His Motion was that the electoral system should be changed so that the number of seats obtained at General Elections and at local government elections should reflect more accurately the number of votes cast for each Party. In the light of that debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, in being slightly surprised at the coolness in the response of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, when he spoke this afternoon about the debate.
On the occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Wade, initiated his debate last year, your Lordships had a full and thoughtful debate on the subject of electoral reform; and the same has been true today. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for the way in which he has introduced his Motion, and for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter again. I think the noble Lord has recognised that a matter as important as the one he has raised today might most appropriately be discussed by a Speaker's Conference. I think that is a far more appropriate place in which to discuss it than a Royal Commission, which is one alternative that has been suggested today. The noble Lord said that the problem should be tackled on an all-Party basis and suggested it should be done by a Speaker's Conference. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that I should first of all discuss this specific matter before speaking more generally about proportional representation itself.
As your Lordships will know, the work of the last Speaker's Conference was interrupted by the General Election of February 1974. In the short time that it was

941
at work, the last Speaker's Conference produced a number of important and valuable recommendations. These covered such things as electoral registration, the minimum age for election and the timing of by-elections. They also gave some consideration to the question of the maximum permitted expenditure for candidates at Elections, and their recommendation on this was implemented by the Representation of the People Act 1974.
There were also a number of important matters that the Speaker's Conference was unable to consider and which a reconvened Speaker's Conference would no doubt wish to take up. Among these are the question of the franchise, and the conduct of Elections, particularly in relation to candidates' descriptions, absent voting, polling day and polling hours. There is also the question of candidates' expenses at Elections which is particularly relevant at this time of high inflation. The last Conference said that they felt that this whole matter should be the subject of a more detailed examination later. I mention these things to provide the context in which a Speaker's Conference might also consider the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has drawn attention. Clearly, if the question of electoral reform were to be referred to a Speaker's Conference it would form a most important and substantial subject for consideration.
This brings me to the question of the timing of a reconvened Speaker's Conference. As your Lordships will know, the convening of a Speaker's Conference is normally a matter for the leaders of the main Parties in consultation with Mr. Speaker himself. I cannot anticipate what the outcome of those consultations would be, but I should be surprised if it were not the general wish that a Speaker's Conference should be reconvened as soon as could be conveniently arranged once the referendum on our membership of the EEC was over.
I should now like to turn to the issues raised directly in the noble Lord's Motion. The House will know that our system of Elections has been considered on a number of occasions in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, went through a catalogue. The Royal Commission in 1910, the Speaker's Conference in 1917, the Conference of 1930 presided
942
over by Lord Ullswater and the Speaker's Conferences of 1944 and 1965 to 1968 have all considered the matter. It is a measure of the complexity of the questions involved and of the fundamental principles at stake that, in that time, no generally acceptable basis for change has emerged. The main argument for change is that our present electoral system discriminates unfairly against the smaller Parties.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Lord is wrong. The 1916 to 1917 Speaker's Conference recommended that the single transferable vote for the multi-Member constituency should be adopted, and that recommendation was unanimous.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the conclusion of Parliament on these matters was not as unanimous as the recommendation of the Conference, and that is the point to which I am addressing myself. I was trying to say to the House that the main argument for change is the position of the smaller Parties. As we know, the Liberal Party consider that it is unfair, that the 5 million votes they received at the October Election should have produced only 13 seats. On the other hand, the present system is simple, rapid in operation and straightforward in the result. Furthermore, the present one-Member constituencies provide a certain diversity of representation. The system clearly contains an element of rough justice—sometimes very rough, as in October 1951 when the Labour Party secured 230,684 more votes than the Conservatives, but found itself in opposition. I cannot remember the same enthusiasm for electoral reform on the Benches opposite on that occasion, and, following the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I cannot recall that the then Prime Minister felt particularly inhibited at proceeding to implement his Election Manifesto.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene. Regarding Manifestos, did not the late Sir Winston Churchill use the famous words:
"There is no reason why because you stick a thing in a Manifesto you should carry it out"?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure that my noble

943
friend's recollection of the words of the late Sir Winston Churchill are more accurate than my own; I would not dare correct him even if, by chance, he was wrong. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, spoke movingly about the evils of one-Party rule, and he instanced Glasgow. But I can recall, without a great deal of difficulty, a substantial number of local authorities controlled by his Party where his Party went to considerable lengths, when the aldermanic system existed to ensure that the aldermen of the minority Party found it extremely difficult to secure election at a local authority. I can recall a number of instances. We should not be too self-righteous on either side of the House about the conduct of political Parties on local authorities.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, would the noble Lord claim that the rate of civic progress in Glasgow is as much as any Tory-controlled borough?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, although the instance the noble Earl gave as to Glasgow is true, that it has been largely one Party, in fact it has not been wholly one Party as he will recall. The problems of South coast watering-places are perhaps not so difficult as they are in the town constructed at the height of the Industrial Revolution, which has been shamefully neglected by Governments for over a century.
If I may return now, having strayed from the path of righteousness myself, to the subject of proportional representation, a large number of different schemes have been proposed by their adherents. A number have been proposed this afternoon. In the debate today, the advantages of some of these systems have been discussed. For some of us, there might be some difficulties about having the very large constituencies (with between five and seven Members in each) which would probably work best for the single transferable vote system. Some people, too, would see difficulty in the development of a situation where very small Parties could hold the balance of power.
But there is, as many noble Lords have pointed out, no unanimity on the method of proportional representation
944
that might be chosen, should Parliament be minded to change the system. Indeed, I see from recent newspaper reports that there is some movement within the Conservative Party for the introduction of a system which, while retaining the traditional single-Member constituency, would give additional seats to Parties that were found to be unfairly represented in the light of the total number of votes cast on a national basis.
In passing, I found it interesting that the only "agnostic" on the Benches opposite was the noble Earl who sits on the Front Bench. All the other speakers —and this should give pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Alport—speaking on the other side of the House have recommended a change in the existing system. I should like to allude to the precise proposal which has been advocated by a number of friends of the noble Earl outside the House. I have not been able to give this proposal any deep consideration, but I think there would be some significant difficulties in its operation. If there were to be no increase in the total number of Members returned, such a system would require larger constituencies than those we have at present, because something like one third of the total number of seats would have to be reserved for the allocation process at the conclusion of the Election.
Two rather important aspects of our traditional system of representation are, I think, the link between a Member and his constituency to which the noble Lord referred, and the effect of the system on the Election of a Government. On the first point it has, I believe, been a matter of some pride to us that an MP should represent all the electors in his constituency, both those who voted for him and those who did not. This has led to the development of a close link between the elected Member and the total electorate for which he speaks. We should need to give very careful thought to any proposal that would directly or indirectly break this link.
The other question is the effect of electoral reform on the formation of a Government. Under our present system, the electorate, although voting for an individual candidate in a particular constituency, know that they are in effect electing a Government to carry out a certain political programme. Clearly the result of some forms of proportional

945
representation might well be that a Government would necessarily consist of a coalition of Members formed after a General Election. Under such a system the electorate could not know at the time of the Election what programme or policies such a coalition might follow. Similarly, if a Government had lost the confidence of the country, there might be difficulties at a subsequent General Election for the electorate to express their views effectively by means of their votes.
All this, however, is merely to echo the views expressed by many noble Lords that this is a difficult and serious topic. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for initiating this debate, which I hope he will agree has been useful and constructive. When the time comes for consultations to take place about the reconvening of the Speaker's Conference, I am sure that those concerned will take fully into account the views that have been expressed in the debate this afternoon.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I asked him a specific question during my brief intervention. I do not wish to press him for an answer now if he is not ready to give one, but may we have some kind of encouragement about the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will look into the point raised by the noble Lord.
5.23 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, I should like to say just one or two words of thanks to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. First, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the very helpful and sympathetic reply he has given to the initiative which we who have been discussing this have taken in preparing this debate. I take it that when the consultations for the Speaker's Conference are undertaken, the question of electoral reform will be one of the matters to be considered.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannell, who has been a colleague of mine in another place for a long time, that I think he did me a slight injustice. It was very far from my thoughts to suppose that those who are in the other place at present are any less men than
946
we were, or indeed than were our fathers and grandfathers. I would say that I personally was glad to leave the House of Commons, because I found the pressures and strains of being a Minister and a Member of Parliament as well as being the father of a moderately large family, were more than I could reasonably put up with. I have never gone back there, nor do I wish to; but that does not mean that I have not the greatest respect for those who are bearing those strains and pressures at the present moment I was making the point that I think those pressures are too great to render life tolerable at the sort of age when a man should be making his best contribution— say, between 35 and 50—to the work of the House of Commons and to Parliament generally.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friends who have supported me today. I wanted to put down this Motion—which I confess was done entirely on my own initiative—simply to show to people out-side Parliament that at any rate one House of Parliament, containing very many experienced politicians, contains Conservatives as well as Liberals who now recognise the importance of electoral reform to the future of Parliament. I would say, if I may, that even the noble Lord, Lord Pannell, and one of his noble friends who spoke from the Government Benches, in the end seemed to be agreeing, if rather grudgingly, that there might be something to be said for considering this problem at present.
I personally believe in my heart that it will be very difficult to move Members of both the great Parties in the House of Commons, unless there is some external pressure and representation made to them which shows that public opinion generally, and perhaps the rank and file of their respective Parties, are interested in securing some change of this sort. Therefore, I felt this might be an opportunity here in our House, which is not limited by the normal restrictions of the tactics of Party struggle, to take the initiative and thereby to encourage those outside the walls of Parliament who are also interested in this subject. It is a complicated subject and, for many people, a rather tedious and boring one.
But I think from the debate we have had today that your Lordships will agree there is a very great deal of interest in

947
and a great deal of support for, at any rate, an examination of this subject in whatever may be the most appropriate manner, to see whether it can contribute to the restoration of the authority of Parliament. Here I make the distinction that I made in my intervention in respect of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Pannell; that is, the distinction between flesh and blood Members of Parliament, who arc always the subject of criticism though they may receive dignity and respect in their own constituency, and Parliament itself as an institution.
It is my observation, rightly or wrongly —and I have been supported in this by many of your Lordships this afternoon— that the authority of Parliament has been undermined during recent years. I would strongly emphasise that I am not talking simply in terms of a Labour Government being in power. I was conscious of this and said exactly the same thing when a Conservative Government was in power before 1974. This is not a matter of minor "back-chat" of Party politics. It is an issue for all of us who are concerned not only with Parliament, but with the good government and prosperity of Britain. It is something to which we should apply our minds and, if possible, contribute to its progression.
As I say, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I hope they will have had at least some impact outside, although one cannot always hope for that in a short debate in your Lordships' House. In accordance with our custom on these occasions, I will in the nick of time request permission to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE TEXTILE INDUSTRIES
5.29 p.m.
Lord BARNBY Lord BARNBY rose to call attention to the present plight of the textile industries; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, unemployment has a high priority and topicality for everyone. This debate has no political partisanship, and it is approached from that angle. The position today, as authoritatively stated, is that 150,000 textile industry workers out of a total of more than
948
850,000 are either unemployed or underemployed, and this in an industry that has historically been high in the export league. It is at the present moment suffering from imports on a scale which is producing a crisis. Imports are on a scale which, it was asserted, at Ministerial level, in a pivotal section of the industry, spinning, amounted in 1974 to 26 per cent. of the industry's consumption while the year before the figure was only 14½ per cent. It is authoritatively stated that if the total imports of textiles of all characters are taken into account the figure would probably be above 50 per cent. of the total internal consumption.
Representations have been made by the industrial associations to Government Departments. Every kind of information has been given. Perhaps the most authoritative is that of the British Textile Corporation, which, may I remind your Lordships, embraces the whole of the textile interests, all the associations constituting it and also the trade unions that constitute the industry. It is also the representative body of British textile industries in the Comitextile, which is the all embracing organisation in the European Community which received such strong endorsement by your Lordships yesterday. I can perhaps best indicate the state of the industry by quoting Alan Clough, the Chairman of the British Textile Corporation, who currently says:
Recession in the British textile industry is greater than in any time since the 1930s. There is now grave danger that the industry will suffer irreparable damage unless steps are taken to secure its survival."
There was in the latter part of March a two-day debate in the other place with over 30 speakers engaging themselves on the plight of the textile industry. There was extracted from the Government an assurance that the Government stand for and desire a viable textile industry. That debate included a comprehensive speech from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who obviously was fully seized with a great deal of information that had been fed to him. There has been no lack of action by the industry in acquainting the Government with the situation. Indeed, I would go further and say that, arising from the discussion which the BTC had with the Secretary of State, very properly, questions of many characters were asked

949
by the Minister and he has been furnished with information which, there can be no question, is fully meeting all the points of concern which he raised. The situation is certainly critical and it calls for action—action, not words.
The points we ask for I come to right away: first, that there shall be a 20 per cent. reduction across the board on all textile imports that occurred in 1974; secondly, that licensing surveillance, which has been imposed by the Government on a portion of the industry, shall be extended to all apparel and manufactured garments of all kinds; thirdly, that negotiations under the MFA (that is the Multifibre Agreement) shall be energetically pursued by the Government so that there can be a more swift effect in the near and medium term following negotiations. I would add a subsidiary point applying only to the wool textile industry. The Government should act swiftly to get the European Community to exercise its available authority to make sure that the irregularities which are alleged affecting wool textile imports from the region known as Prato shall be corrected. They concern social services and need to be corrected. I read in a newspaper only yesterday that the Government are to take action under this head, and I hope the Minister can today assure us that such is the case.
May I remind your Lordships that the large textile industry is divided under three main heads: cotton textile, wool textile, and synthetic fibres. Formerly these sectors were distinctive but now they are obviously co-ordinated. We are fortunate today in that I see from the list of speakers that we are to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hale, who speaks with that long authority he has of the Lancashire cotton trade; the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, who has spent all his life with the wool textile industry and is reinforced by his great experience as Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire. We are also to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, who has long been associated with that giant in the textile industry, Courtaulds, and she certainly can speak with authority about their products. I am glad to see, too, that the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, is to contribute because his knowledge of research associations gives him intimate experience
950
relating to the efficiency of the textile industries.
May I ask the indulgence of the House to refer to a personal matter to assert that I speak with some knowledge of the textile industries. I have been associated with the textile industries all my life, a long life. I have seen many recessions or depressions. The first I can remember occurred in 1908 when I was in the United States of America managing the family firm. Then there was the depression following the so-called Knickerbocker Trust panic. There was fear that the Democratic Party would take off the duties. It was only as a result of the Election 1908, when William H. Taft was elected as President in the United States, that there was confirmation of the Republican McKinley duties which restored activity and prosperity to the industry. Again, I remember 1926 in this country when we had returned to the gold standard. At one stroke sterling was raised by 15 per cent.—to the disaster of the export industries, and of course textiles were high on that list that time. To come to more recent times, the 1930's were a terrible experience. The position was restored only by the imposition of the McKinley duties.
I have nostalgic memories of going from Yorkshire to Lancashire by train, looking out of the window and seeing cotton textile mills sprouting up like mushrooms in the first decade of this century. As examples of the depression of this great industry, the noble Lord, Lord Hale, could tell us that today these cotton textile mills are being used as warehousing for mail order houses, for raising broiler chickens and so on. The decay of the cotton textile industry has been tragic. I remember that before 1914, 80 per cent. of the wool textile machinery in the United States was of Bradford origin. Today, those exports are not 5 per cent. Those are very nostalgic memories and I hope that the House will pardon me for referring to them.
There is a temptation to refer to a wealth of figures. I shall not do so but will content myself with quoting the Chairman of the Wool Textile Industry, which is the central organisation for the whole of the wool textile industry in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern

951
Ireland. Mr. Roy Strouddel, speaks, therefore, with authority when he writes:
"The outlook from the point of view of the wool textile industry is indeed very gloomy. The majority of people see a worsening situation before any improvement, which, as most firms are working on short-time today, is very serious. The import situation only exacerbates the situation. As you know, as soon as trade turns down, there is a drift of trained employees away from the industry, and as the pipeline will be absolutely empty, because of destocking for liquidity reasons, when the upturn comes the industry may find itself in difficulties in meeting the demand, thus sucking in more imports. So we need this temporary restraint on imports in order to try to hold the position at no worse than it is at present."
I hope this will mean that the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, who is to reply to the debate and who, as an industrial archaeologist, has deep experience of the origins of industry will at least be sympathetic towards the textile industries. I hope, also, that he may be authorised today to give us some encouragement and expectation of what I asked for earlier in my remarks.
That the industry is efficient is shown by its achievements in research and by its exports of the machinery of all characters that it requires; and it is an industry that requires very wide characters of machinery. The wool textile industry is the recipient of a unique investment grant system, and the Government hope that it will be increased. However, may I remind the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, that any industry requires great courage to invest more freely in that industry in a period when inflation is of the order of 20 per cent. Profitability must be assured.
May I remind your Lordships that historically the industry has been on the horizontal rather than the vertical scale. This means that all sections of the industry must be viable; it is no good letting pressure produce such decadence in any one section that it is not able to make its contribution to the whole chain. Active home demand is essential for effective exports. This is a crisis. There is need for Government action without timidity, exacting to the fullest extent the possibilities of our rights under the Treaties. My Lords, God helps those countries that help themselves. I beg to move for Papers.
5.45 p.m.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, I am proud to follow the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, this afternoon and to congratulate him upon being successful in the ballot. May I congratulate him, too, on the way he has put over the case for the textile industries. We have been associated with this industry all our lives— although in my case not for so long as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. In all probability, he was in a section of the industry which considered itself to be the aristocrat of the trade, while mine was a little more lowly! However, over the years both of us have had a great affection and love for the industry and for the people who are in it. They are the kind of people who put the kettle on when you go in. not when you are coming out! That, I think, expresses the sentiments of both of us towards this industry.
The noble Lord can go back further in time than I can, and he has said that he has seen many ups and downs. So have all those of us who have been associated with, and who have had to earn their living in this industry. I can say that I am still interested in the industry and that I am able to declare an interest in it. Nevertheless, today I am in the position of being able to look at this industry in a more objective manner than I have ever been able to look at it before, and I can say without equivocation that the situation in which we find ourselves today is far more serious than anything that has happened since the turn of the century.
The first major blow that it had was in the 1920s when the blazingly cheap textiles from the Far East began to pour into our markets all around the world. The decline in the wool industry did not come for a considerable time after that, because of the craftsmanship that has to go into the wool fabric—craftsmanship which cannot altogether be measured in terms either of technique or of anything else, except the hands of the person who is working on the cloth. It was a long time before the Japanese mastered that craftsmanship, but eventually they did so and during my time at the Board of Trade I saw a reversal of the amounts we were exporting to the United States of America— Japan taking the larger quantity from us, and Britain exporting the smaller quantity which had previously been exported by the Japanese.

953
Having said that the crisis is deeper than I have ever seen it before, may I go on to praise those who are working on this job in the Department which used to be called the Board of Trade. We have people there who understand this job inside out. They have all the statistics; they have all the information from sources all over the world. They are trying as hard as they know how to do something about it. What they can do about it I will come to in a short time. But I know that they are in turn desperately seeking the opinions of people who have an objective view, and perhaps this afternoon they will get views which may prove of use to them.
When I started in textiles they were very unsophisticated. There were the natural fibres— wool, cotton and silk — and then the man-made fibres came in. But all the time consumer choice has been growing, advertising has been growing and every time the trade cycle has hit the wool and cotton and man-made fibres industry the disturbance has been more violent. The factors are different now. We not only have a recession all over the world; we have some very severe self-inflicted wounds in terms of the contribution to inflation that we are foolishly making throughout the country in one form or another.
It is not raw materials alone which cause the upsurge in prices, but of course a succession of wage demands, and increases in prices to the manufacturer having to be taken into his costs. Raw materials used to be looked after by the commodity exchanges, and manufacturers had to protect themselves from the ups and downs by using these exchanges. But now we have inflation breeding inflation, surplus money buying surplus goods, leading to the time when our people have been buying consumer goods, just as a few years ago we were buying consumer durables on the basis of "Get your money spent". We do not yet know what the true level of textiles will be, but it will not be long before we find out. However, there is one thing that is certain; that is, that we cannot allow this industry to be decimated any more, because if it is the trouble that we have experienced in our balance of payments at the hands of OPEC will be equalled by the trouble we shall experience if the textile industry is allowed to be run down.
954
It may be said that if cheap goods come in that is bound to bring down the cost of living, but the question arises: do we allow free imports of clothing to come in at low prices, which in theory reduces the prices here, or do we curb imports in order to keep a reasonable figure of employment in the industry? We are worried about how much we shall upset our trade partners. It is only natural that we should be thinking about these things, but times are very strange. We have never experienced anything like this in our history. Countries with sophisticated machinery— more sophisticated probably than ours— who have surpluses at the present time are exporting surpluses overseas. New phenomena are emerging every month.
Take the case, my Lords, of the manufacturers in America shipping their polyester fibres over to this country on a scale never known before. They have not put up their oil prices since OPEC began, 12 months last November. Polymers made from the oil are at the same, or nearly the same, price as before OPEC increased theirs. They are now shipping polyester fibres and products made from it at a rate that is causing disruption on a large scale.
What has been done? The Government have set up surveillance committees and the trade as a whole is grateful for that. The licensing of man-made fibres and of all yarns and fabric imports from countries not in the EEC is under consideration. But, as President of the Clothing Export Council, let me say that it is not going far enough and I know that the need is there for the surveillance of made-up goods, knitwear and clothing. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said, that the textile industry as a whole depends for its existence on a viable making-up industry. Every measure of people that we have had in this industry over the years has left its mark, and I noticed in reading the Hansard report of the debate which was held in another place on 20th March that Mr. Meacher, who was replying for the DTI, was accusing textile manufacturers in this country of buying yarns and cloth from abroad and he implied that the textile industry should put its own house in order. May I say in answer to that question that it is impossible for a viable textile industry to do without all kinds

955
of fabrics to make up a range, and this is no exception.
If we do not take action at a time like this, disparities and distortions will grow. We know that the industry and the retailers need access to world textiles to give variety and to enable them to obtain fabrics which are no longer available in this country. But it is the extraordinary imports which the textile industry is subject to at the moment, when countries all over the world with surpluses are directing their exports to the easiest market in the world; that is, this country. We must do something about it, but the question is: what are we to do? What are the alternatives?
In 1964 we had an import surcharge; in that year we started building up a structure of agreement between one country and another so that there would be a voluntary curtailing of exports to this country. This was largely successful. But those figures have been exceeded tremendously over the last couple of years. While it may be said by the Minister that imports into this country have declined somewhat during these last three months, may I point out to him that they are running at a sufficiently high figure to ruin the textile industry here. There is a large amount of textiles coming in at a time when our own production is low and it is hitting us at a very difficult time. Alternatively, do we adopt Italy's import deposit scheme of last summer? Or, do we impose quantitative restrictions, as we did soon after the last war?
It is suggested that action by the EEC or the United Kingdom will produce counter-reaction all over the world. But it is my belief that industrialists in other countries would rather see a steady viable market for their goods here than a situation of "boom and bust" that we are now facing. It may be that Government can assist by making bilateral arrangements, such as the United States has already made with many countries in the Far East. But I am coming to the conclusion that time is running out; we have to act. We have to decide which of the methods brought to your Lordships' notice best suit the circumstances, or whether it would not be better to have a 20 per cent, cut right across the board. Action is imperative now.
956
Take it from me, my Lords, as an old-timer in this industry, do not hesitate— curb what is coming in now. The industrialists overseas will make no trouble. But it will give heart to those textile people in this country who are looking for some action to be taken, and to those technicians who at the moment are wondering whether they will be better off employed by periphery countries who are setting up textile industries with Arab money. This is not alarmist; it is fact. I meet them every week. Think about the human aspect, the economic common sense of what we are saying, and I have no doubt that the Government will come up with some action. Unless they do, the industry cannot survive.
6.2 p.m.
The Earl of SHANNON: My Lords, I too, am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and his good luck in securing this debate this afternoon—a debate on a painful subject in more ways than one. I am most diffident in intervening in a debate where there are so many noble Lords with far greater knowledge of the industry than I. However, at this point I must declare my interest in industrial research, as well as my membership of a research requirements board of the Department of Industry.
My Lords, I appreciate the concern of the previous speakers. I also understand what I believe to be the attitude of the British Textile Confederation. But I think that basically that is a negative attitude, although to ask for restrictions, as a previous speaker has pointed out, is a course to which we have been driven and which is now absolutely essential. In this debate I should like to take a slightly different, and I hope slightly brighter, line of argument. Although speaking mainly about the textile industry, I would remind your Lordships that many of the arguments I am trying to deploy will be applicable to our other traditional industries. I begin with a quotation from the preamble to the report of the Working Party for the Formation of the Federation of European Industrial Co-operative Research Organisations. It is as follows:
"It is to their established, traditional industries that the countries of the European Economic Community as elsewhere, must continue to look for the production of the bulk of their industrial output and for the employment of the majority of their national working population in industry."

957
Politicians forget this at their peril. Unfortunately, as we have seen, too many of them seem to be utterly immune to, and unaware of, their peril.
To return to the textile industry in particular, perhaps we should for a moment pause and consider how and when it was created. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, I tend to go back much further, though I assure your Lordships not with personal recollection. You do not, as this country did, establish a large and important industry unless in one way or another you have an edge on your competitors. We are reminded particularly in this House of the very early days of the British textile industry in that the great Officer of State who presides over your Lordships' House was sat upon a sack of wool to remind him upon what England's prosperity in those days depended. It was on the export of wool for weaving, largely to the Low Countries, I understand. In those days this country was an exporter to other countries of raw materials for processing. Textiles in those days and for many centuries was a cottage industry, but we established a great industry out of it. How? Not by doing the same thing as our competitors, or perhaps by just having more cottages in which to do it. We did it by using our brains and technology, resulting from and contributing in a large way to the industrial revolution.
Nowadays, machinery has world-wide availability and we are back attempting to compete on a level basis with other countries which have lower labour costs and overheads. It is highly creditable that our traditional textile industry has done as well as it has in the recent past. I think we have in our hands the long-term solution that we have always had. As before we should use our capability for innovation and development. I am not suggesting that we shall come up with another spinning jenny. Also, as I have mentioned, any new development that is around the world is available to our competitors in a comparatively short time. Developments here with our own inborn innovative capacity will give our industry a lead for a while, by which time we hope we will have gone on to the next stage. This is the edge we had before, which we still have and which we should use now.
It is a fact of recent modern history that there can be no great national industrial
958
presence in any particular industry on a world scale without the home Government's support and assistance. This is not always necessary in just straight cash. I appreciate that from a political point of view there are no votes in research. In industrial research, especially in traditional fields, Ministers appointed to look after the matter tend to have a comparatively short Ministerial life. They are usually comparatively junior in the hierarchy, and often are unaware, on appointment, of the details of a particularly complex subject. They have to get down to learning about it. If they do well, all too often and all too soon, their Party leader says, "There's a bright chap; let's move him to the Foreign Office". If he does badly, he is probably sent to the Back-Benches again to give someone else a chance, and the cycle starts again. Is this the way to treat the one great aspect of our national capability which made our industry great in the past, and will continue to do so?
My Lords, I count as traditional industries those which have been with us for some time, are established and produce the bulk of the national output, and supply employment for the bulk of the labour force. Traditional industry accounts for over 90 per cent, of our national earning power in world markets. Our Government spend about £1,000 million per annum on research and development. Less than £10 million is spent in assisting research and development in those often considered unglamorous areas of traditional industry, which nevertheless are the areas which supply the bread and butter on which we all live.
I have deliberately given very rounded figures. I know there are many qualifications. Much money is spent on defence and other necessary things. But I would impress on the House not the detail of the figures, but the gross, incorrect imbalance of Government assistance, not just in matters of percentages, but in orders of magnitude. This practice has been common to many Governments over many decades, and has caused much of the economic trouble we are in today. Of course it is a great temptation politically to spend any such money as may be available on short-term projects with immediately visible and preferably exotic

959
results; but these are not the things which earn us our bread and butter.
My Lords, recently there has been a great improvement in the situation in the establishment by the last Administration, fortunately continued by the present Administration, of the Research Requirements Boards for industry, where people with understanding of the industry can advise on where public money is best spent in this sphere. The only real trouble still being experienced is that these Boards are on far too short a rein when one considers the sums they have for this most valuable investment, as opposed to sums which I suggest are squandered elsewhere with far less potential. I am not suggesting just a small increase in assistance for our traditional industries, assistance aimed at the one area in which we can, will, and do still succeed. I am suggesting an increase in the order of magnitude of under 1 per cent, from where the real returns come. Such assistance would go towards encouraging those companies who arc trying very hard to produce results. It would go towards developing new machines and new processes which, although they may soon become available worldwide, will be developed here, giving the United Kingdom industry a lead in time. Such assistance would be used also to ensure that existing machines and processes are used to the maximum efficiency by our industry.
Noble Lords may say, "That's fine, those are great generalisations". But let us become a little more interesting. With your Lordships' permission, perhaps I may give the House a few small examples of what is going on. These examples may be unexciting, but I think your Lordships will agree that they can, and no doubt will, make a great contribution to the industry and to the nation. Here I must become a little diffident once again in speaking before those noble Lords with such great knowledge of the industry, but perhaps they will bear with me.
My Lords, in manufacturing large quantities of textiles, and sometimes not even very large quantities, one can have tremendous difficulty with colour variation in the dyeing. Modem systems of instrumentation to monitor and control the dyeing processes and to check the
960
colour of the treated fabric will reduce the variations, thus reducing the scrap and improving the value of a consignment. Work is also being done on the development of lightweight nonwoven fabrics, having satisfactory textile characteristics. Many of these new fabrics are under consideration, and could very easily result in a lead to this country.
Then there is development on the very humble aspect of the more efficient techniques for drying. Much of the textile industry involves wetting, drying, wetting, drying and so on, the cycle being repeated with great use of energy. Incidentally, in many other industries, the cycle is often different— heating, cooling, heating, cooling. Here, again, a little unglamorous but intelligent research could well reduce costs, and make a considerable economic advantage for the industry concerned. There are developments in systems for making garments, to shortcircuit the cycle thread flat sheet probably by weaving, cutting, stitching together and making a garment. One can either consider thread to the garment in one cycle, or perhaps thread/shaped piece/stitched together into the garment, and the savings in such work will be obvious. Most probably it will be achieved by knitting techniques. We made stockings this way and lady's tights. Why not make other garments this way?
My Lords, there is one little example which may interest the House. On the Continent, some ladies underpants are being currently marketed which basically consists of a short length of knitted tube open at one end, and joined at a short distance in the centre at the other end. This is a very elementary minisack garment, relying entirely on its stretch to adapt itself to the proper shape in wear. How much better would this be, and also other garments, if produced from thread into a fully-fashioned garment in one operation; not just the current minisack which is a rectangular tube which relies on stretch to achieve the proper shape, but from thread to one fully-fashioned seamless garment in one go. This is being done; I have seen it done in this country. It needs a little more work on it yet, but how advantageous will that be to our industry when we have got it right.
There is also work currently in hand on producing textiles from polymeric film,

961
not from spun thread but from film, and such might be the work being done on fibrillated polypropylene which is being done here at present. All these are unexotic mundane things but, nevertheless, commercially they are very exciting prospects. They are taking place here, at the Shirley Institute, the Hosiery and Allied Trades Research Association, Wira, Lambe Industrial Research Association in Northern Ireland; and much other interesting work is being done in companies, universities and other institutions.
I give these examples to show how we still have an efficient industry. How much more so if we adopt a really intelligent attitude to proper assistance to one area where we can really succeed. It is in the energetic exploitation of the innovative field where we have excelled in the past—and are doing not so terribly brilliantly at present—where the real future of our traditional industry lies. It is not, I suggest, only in restrictive market practices. However, in this instance, through necessity, I support those who request such restrictive action now, as no future, however bright, is of much interest to an industry if it does not see itself living to enjoy it.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, on his very timely introduction of the debate today. No man has given more years to the textile industry and with such distinction. Many years ago, before I was elected to another place, I worked for a company of which he was far and away the most knowledgeable director. I am happy to find myself in consort, and in agreement indeed, with that doughty Lancastrian, Lord Rhodes, and am indeed proud to follow the illuminating and expert diagnosis of the enormous amount of research that the industry does. At different periods of my life I have spent 11 years associated with the textile industry.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, may I intervene — Yorkshireman, not Lancastrian; since last April a Greater Manchestonian.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord probably prefers the earlier citation to the new one, but I apologise if I wrongly described
962
him. I must declare my current interest, in that I was privileged to succeed the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, as adviser on consumer affairs at Courtaulds when she retired last year.
My Lords, long before we had even thought of a motor industry, and electricity, let alone radio, the textile industry was the spine of British exports, as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, so graphically outlined, and my only protest is that he beat me to the allusion about the Woolsack. I think it is important that in this debate we should emphasise the complete unaminity of both sides of the industry on the desperate need for prompt and effective action if we are to rescue it from a quite disastrous recession. Lord Barnby mentioned that up to February there were 150,000 people on short time, and according to figures given in the other place in that month 8,000 were made redundant. I wonder whether, when he comes to reply, the noble Lord can tell us the end of March figures in relation to the industry.
Last year, textile imports totalled 528,000 tonnes at a cost of £1,090 million. In the fourth quarter, imports rose to two-thirds of the fibre supplied to the home market. I understand that the limited restrictions imposed on foreign fibres and fabrics this month, but not on garments, have not been anywhere near sufficient to halt the industry's bleeding. My Lords, it is not a crepe bandage we want; we want a tourniquet— fast, effectice, and enough to restore to the industry its rightful share of its own market circulation.
There are massive imports coming into this country at very distressed prices, often well below cost. The huge buying capacity of major retailers in Great Britain, and the wide spread of the merchandising community, makes the United Kingdom a soft option for imports, and indeed many of the underdeveloped countries seem to think that to pour their surpluses into the United Kingdom is an inalienable and unstoppable right. Because our market is so highly organised and concentrated, we are quite obviously the Mecca for the overseas salesman. In a dozen calls in London he can obtain more orders from the great chain stores than probably 1,000 or more visits in France, or even, strangely enough, in the

963
United States, where the local store buyer is God and large-scale centralised buying is nowhere near as highly developed as it is in our great chain stores here.
Britain is the first stop for countries with excess textiles to dump. As the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, said, even the United States has been off-loading man-made fibres, yarns and fabrics into this country, though mercifully their prices are not quite as cut-throat as those from the Far East. Thus, while our home demand, after a pre-Budget spree, tapers off, while retailers limit their stocks to the minimum and manufacturers are keeping their workforces only part-time employed on stockpiling of fibres, fabrics and garments which they cannot at the moment sell, the imports sail merrily in. In some cases, they have increased disastrously in recent months. In only a few have they dropped off.
It is just not good enough to preach to this great industry about our immediate obligations to the developing countries, or even for some people to suggest that by having these cheap goods we are helping to cut the cost of living. In some of the underdeveloped countries, in fact in the average of the Far Eastern countries, their wages are one-fifth of ours. I would warn your Lordships that the quarterly sterling value of imports is not a true guide to the present crisis, as countries are unloading supplies here at savagely uneconomic prices. Imports of man-made fibres have been cut in price on average by as much as 25 per cent, over the last six months. Acrylic spun yarn, which was 164p a kilogram last June, was reduced to 98p in December. So to compare the value of imports with the value of imports does not give a true picture of the bulk of imports coming in. And this at a lime when costs here in wages, raw materials, rates, electricity and transport have soared.
In the last three months of 1974, the price of fully fashioned women's jumpers dropped by 29 per cent. Some years ago, as chairman of a Courtaulds knitwear group and facing fierce competition from the Far East, I brought home some samples because we still had the occasional person who said, "From the Far East? Junk."I threw them at the experts and said: "Right, boys, take them apart and let me have your considered view
964
on the comparison with what we produce."As one of them put it: "They are made on the same machines. They are made of the same fibres, and although quite possibly they have pinched their designs, nevertheless they are as good as we are able to make."As one put it: "If we gave our garment companies the fibre for nothing, we still could not make at that price, not in competition with wages of £10 a month."
In recent years, desperate for foreign currency, the Eastern European countries have joined in the rush for our market. They will sell a suit ex-factory for under £5, although their own people may have to pay £40 for it in the market. When that suit gets here—I am thinking of one particular example—it is sold for £12.99. A £12 suit may be cheap to a civil servant or railwayman who, in his job, has no foreign competition, but it is a season ticket to unemployment for the textile worker losing his livelihood.
I believe that the Department of Industry and the Ministry of Employment are not unsympathetic and are certainly well aware that this great industry is having a raw deal. The Board of Trade, I suspect, and the Foreign Office are the ones who ignore the red light and forecast gloom, retaliation and resentment from our customers abroad when anyone mentions tariffs or quotas. But I have never found that America, Australia, or Canada wait until a home industry is on its knees before they help it. I can remember protesting in Australia because the second largest company in my constituency, who had fulfilled a very large export order they had won and had got it on the ship, were suddenly faced with a total embargo which came on within 48 hours. When I asked the Minister of Commerce in Australia whether this was not a bit tough, he smiled at me beautifully and said: "Dame Pat, that just shows how damned efficient we are." The textile industry is asking our Government to be just as smartly efficient. At the same time, as the noble Lord has mentioned. Italy and Finland have taken action. Why cannot we take action to help ourselves?
In the long term we are not going to increase our trade with the under-developed countries if we have escalating

965
unemployment, if we ruin a great industry like this, because we shall not be in a position to sell the exports in order to find the money to buy our imports. Whatever is said about free trade, it must not be one-sided and at the expense of putting a quarter of the textile industry out of work.
The EEC has recognised that the United Kingdom get the major quantity of these dumped surpluses and the Government are, I know, negotiating what is aptly termed a "burden sharing" programme with the Member States of the Community to restrain textile imports to past levels, plus a growth factor. But in the formula that I have seen we shall still carry the biggest load for the next year or so. This will be too late and too little. We are accustomed to, and tolerant towards, imports in this country, but I think it is about time that perhaps we more firmly launched a programme in these difficult times to "Buy British".
The British textile industry, with all its ramifications, is our fourth largest exporter—it is no small industry that you can write off—and it seeks to remain so, but it can only do so on a flourishing home market of which it must have a greater share. With a worldwide textile recession, every order is going to be harder to win. At this moment, investments are being postponed or cancelled, and many firms are eating up their cash reserves in order to keep their people even in parttime work. Unless something is done quickly many firms will close, and some will go bankrupt.
Our strength in the industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, pointed out, has been in the balance of the industry, capable of undertaking all the different and varied textile processes. Shatter any part of this complicated edifice, and you can destroy the textile industry in this country. If one interlocking section goes, vast capital investment—and it is a very capital intensive industry—will be sold for scrap, and the foreigner will step in and the industry will not easily recover. The British Textile Confederation is not asking for an embargo, only for an across the board cut of 20 per cent., as has been outlined by other noble Lords, by value on 1974 figures of all textile imports— fibres, fabrics and garments.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given grave warnings to this country, and
966
we simply cannot allow this great industry, with its thousands of textile employees, to be sold down the river. Nor can we afford to lose the enormous capital investment that there is in this great industry. I believe that this debate, on behalf of one of our oldest and greatest industries, cuts right across Party lines, and I beg the Government to implement their much publicised aims to sustain employment and reduce short-time working by prompt action to save the textile industry.
6.38 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, on Sunday morning I heard a knock at my door. It was barely noon and of course I was not out of bed. But I hurried down to receive a very welcome visitor, a man who for 21 years has been a member of the Royal Academy and one of the best raconteurs that I have ever met. I told him shyly that I was in a state of advanced pregnancy on two speeches about textiles for today, and that I was apprehensive about the result because I had not touched the subject for so long in deference to the two Members for Oldham, who were both friends of mine and who I wished to leave unhampered by observations from me. So he talked to me about his father's early days in the old Satanic mills, of the loss of life in his family, of the toll that was taken in this industry. We talked of the malign fate that had condemned this, the greatest of our industries, to constant and repetitive recessions.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, that these were never minor difficulties; they were facing competition all the time from goods that could be sold in this country in competition with ours at prices less than we had to pay America for the cotton. The margins were immense, and every Government interference seemed to be disastrous. I recall my first visit to Oldham in 1937 as a carpet packer when the ivy was growing on the walls of the mills, when 90-odd shops in the main street were closed. Although we had a diversity of industry, that was a crisis that was, to some extent affecting them all. It was a city, a great borough, suffering under the magnitude of a disaster that I do not think was ever realised by people who lived in the South of England.
One Government interference— and until recently all Governments have been

967
pretty well as bad—was to arrange an organised diminution of production by paying compensation for the cutting out of machines. Textile manufacturers were compensated for putting a large number of machines— naturally, quite old ones— permanently out of action in this country. But the Government forgot to order them to be destroyed and they went out to Hong Kong and Shanghai at scrap metal prices to help to build the competition there. We have suffered a good deal from the economy, but the textile industry has worked very hard. In Oldham we make the best textile machineries in the world. It seems almost an anomaly that we are exporting textile machinery abroad. Of course it would not seem an anomaly if the great firm of Platts were in Devonshire and the cotton industry were in Lancashire. It was certainly an anomaly when the man-made fibre industry began to create itself far away from the textile mills, so that it took employment from Oldham which had to be replaced from the Midlands.
I will not quote figures today, because I want to discuss cotton. Textile is a word that now has no meaning. I have studied until I was almost scatty the figures in the various tables. In some, textiles include boots and shoes; in many they include clothing; in all they include man-made fibres, mixtures, cloths, polyesters, rayons, nylons and so on. I used to find that I was often a lone voice in representing this industry, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, gave me immense pleasure with her speech, one of the greatest I have heard. I used to think that there were more Members for Hong Kong than for Oldham!
By God! my Lords, I think I have a right to be proud of the part I personally took in War on Want with Harold Wilson, Fenner Brockway, and with Richard Ackland. As one of the pioneers, I have always said, "Let us support the poor nations ".But you do not support them by permitting low-paid labour to be exploited in Hong Kong. Pakistan is a country of immense disaster and suffering. Let us give to them all we can. But we have taken into Oldham a large number of Pakistanis who are employed in the textile industry and working well. We have managed to absorb them, despite their being perhaps
968
the most difficult of immigrants because so few have mastered our language. But we have absorbed them quite happily and without any controversy.
We are paying in oil subsidies to Pakistan, which are being distributed from the Arab oil countries to the tune, we are told, of hundreds of millions. How can anyone argue that by permitting an absolute continuation of cutprice textiles, and putting our people out of work, that we are helping the cause of "War on Want" or any other cause? We would soon be in a position where we should have to look after ourselves entirely. Suppose 60,000 people in the cotton sections had lost their work before this crisis mounted. They always come like a small cloud in the sky that seems rapidly to grow—60,000 out of about 620,000 in Great Britain over the last year or two. That is the price we had to pay.
One of the economic reasons we must face now in the restricted market is that although the production of cotton yarn has substantially increased per head, every time they increased production they put some of their fellows out of work, because there is a limited sale, and the more you produce is an argument that has never worked in my knowledge of textiles. I was instructed by a Labour Government to appeal to the workers to work harder in 1950. I would not. I said what would happen when the foreign politicians appealed to their wokers to work harder—French, German and other textile producers. All you get then is a crisis of over production. All these elegant, charming, economic rules work only where there is a possibility of a rapidly expanding market and organised production and development. I recall the time when textile workers were striking against using the products of slave labour from America — the long cotton famine, the long history of distress of the Irish strike breakers who came and were fully absorbed in the population of Oldham.
I wanted to mention a single event in 1966.I was the guest of the Master Cotton Spinners of Oldham who were celebrating their 100th anniversary. It was one of those occasions that cannot happen in many places. Every trade union leader was there as a guest, and the MCS had prepared a history of the textile industry,

969
with all the strikes and troubles that confronted it in the 19th century. Over the previous 30 or 40 years, they said, not an industrial disturbance worth mentioning was listed at all. There may be a case for saying— and some of them say it — that sometimes the militant gets the benefit and the quiet industrial hardworking man is overlooked, as the nurses were overlooked when Members of Parliament a few years ago were saying, "The nurses will not go on strike." At that time I was conducting a single-handed campaign in which I was trying to say "You are driving them to the point when they will strike. There is a point of no resistance."
A great event in the textile industry recently was the formation of the British Textile Confederation and, unlike the rival contestants' propaganda on the Common Market, it represents all sections of the industry. It even has as associate members great firms like Marks and Spencer, a firm which has done more for British cotton than any other because in almost every department it sells quality as reasonably as quality goods can be sold. The Confederation has conducted a propaganda campaign which is neither partisan nor in any narrow sense political, but which is a forceful, able discussion of the real problems of the industry and its possible remedies. I do not know whether it was part of its doing that the debate took place in the House of Commons in March.
Here I am in some difficulty because I understand that the rules of this House preclude my quoting by name the Members who spoke in that debate, and I think I am even precluded from quoting from the Minister's reply, because I do not think a reply to an adjournment debate would classify as an official Government statement. I shall say only that the Member for Oldham West was the Minister in charge of the debate, and I believe that all who spoke commented on his sincerity, on the work he had tried to do and on the help that this Government were at long last trying to give. Certainly one knows the problems and the arguments. GATT provides for textiles to receive exceptional provisions. There is an anti-dumping law, but it is all too difficult to define or clearly to expose. There are sections in the Common Market Treaty which provide for special provisions and the Government
970
can boast that they have initiated a whole series of measures, not perhaps drastic but probably as much as they could do for the surveillance of imports. An agreement, a reasonable and proper one, under the Common Market which would be helpful in this matter—if we stay in— would be for the sharing of production and for the control of excessive imports such as have been coming in from Turkey.
I should have said that Pakistan is not the menace at all today. That country is not even producing its quota. The imports are coming from developed countries outside the Common Market. One of them, Turkey, which is now in the Common Market, was pouring in cotton yarn to excess until it was stopped. Much of it comes from countries behind the Iron Curtain and, as the Minister said, there are textile employers who are importing cheap goods while at the same time trying to sell their own goods, and because of the lack of a really adequate marking system, there are imports being sold without any clear indication of their foreign origin and, indeed, at prices which are outrageous in relation to what the importer has to say. Some very unhappy things have been happening.
The Minister was asked— because the whole matter has always been raised in textile debates— what are the Government doing about their own buying? How much are they buying abroad? The Minister said, I am sure honestly, that the total amount of Government buying was only about 2 per cent, of total production; and about 95 per cent, of that, we believe, is bought in London. The British Textile Confederation has some doubts about this and the villains of the piece have always been the Ministry of Defence. The British Army is constantly clothed in foreign textiles and I would have thought that it was a special case for special treatment. The Confederation has supplied us with some very odd letters — for example, the Ministry of Defence buying from Sweden webbing made in Portugal. Why? I imagine that the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate has seen these letters.
The governor of a prison in Cumbria, either through the Home Office Purchasing Department or direct, and it looks like direct, has been returning, by chance, cones to a British industry which should have been returned to an importer in

971
Pakistan or India. Why? I have made a brief list of some headlines showing what has happened. I have got them from the House of Commons Library and they all come from The Times, which I do not regard as a terribly reliable newspaper, but at least one can quote from it with a certain amount of feeling of not breaking any obvious rules. The headlines really tell the story since January. On 21st February we read:
"8,000 face lay-off in textile industry."
On 6th March:
"Textile workers planning one-day strike over rising cotton imports."
On 6th March the great firm of Courtaulds were being persuaded not to close down one of their great factories in Lancashire for another few months to see whether action could at last be taken to enable the factory to continue. Incidentally, they received large subsidies when they went to Lancashire and nobody doubts that they are a very great and able firm. On 22nd March came a headline telling of textile jobs vanishing:
"Fall of 1,600 during month in cotton and allied industries."
On 13th March:
"Gravity of cotton prices impressed in Brussels: Euro cotton, the Community cotton textile indexing in Brussels."
Then there followed the two-day textile debate in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said in his admirable speech, 32 Members representing varying textile constituencies sought to take part in a four-hour debate. The debate had to be specially extended. It was something I had never known in my time in the Commons. Thirty-two Members from all parts of the country took part. Some of them were interested in the hosiery trade. There were Members from Yorkshire and Lancashire, and some from the Southern counties. In every branch of the industry the recession was being felt. That was something new, and it was then that the Government announced their policy of surveillance, which has given much satisfaction. They have now agreed to establish their policy of surveillance of imports from Portugal, which looked like one of the immediate problems, until recently never foreseen or experienced.
On 4th April the Under-Secretary of State for Industry wrote to The Times.
972
begging people in the industry to refrain from importing millions of yards of cotton textiles because they were cheap. On 12th April Mr. Benn went to Lancashire and somewhat tactlessly said that he was very greatly impressed. One would have thought that the debate with 32 Members might have impressed him quite a lot. Mr. Benn, said The Times, was very shaken by the strength of argument on the textile case. On 18th April we got just what we expected. Under the headline "Chagrin" it was stated:
"The Minister of Defence has recently engaged an official on a three-year contract in Hong Kong to ensure quality control over all the Ministry's purchases from textile plants."
I ask the Minister: why do we want a full-time purchaser of Hong Kong textiles for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force? How can we need a full-time official on a three-year contract if all that is being bought is a modest proportion of 2 per cent. of our total production? How can it work out like that? I shall ask the Minister, and shall go on asking him, until we solve the mystery of whether The Times is mistaken or whether the Ministry of Defence is misguided.
My Lords, I apologise for having taken so long. I also apologise in advance to the admirable noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who is due to follow me, for the fact that when the Whips shuffled the list of runners and jockeys for this debate they overlooked the fact that I have to be on my feet again the moment the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, sits down. My doctor has given me some advice about my physical condition, and if I leave the House for three or four minutes I hope that the noble Lord will excuse me. I have listened with very great pleasure to all of the debate; I thought that the noble Baroness—always a great speaker—was at her best, and that she put the argument with great and undoubted force.
7.4 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I intervene for only a few moments, because a number of noble Lords who have spoken in this very interesting debate mentioned certain matters which occurred when I was President of the Board of Trade. I should like to refer to them, and then make one point about the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, certainly deserves our thanks.

973
In the 1950s, the moral issue of whether we should restrict imports from the developing countries—and particularly our ex-Colonies—was very much in our minds. Many of those countries had millions of people on subsistence level, and they constantly said to us, "Don't give us money. Buy our goods. Give us something that will employ our people". When one looked at that the matter could not stop there. We also had to look at the state of our own textile industry, and we came to the conclusion that it had a large obsolete element in it. Therefore, we put up a great deal of Government money. I introduced the scheme whereby the surplus spindles and looms were effectively scrapped and there was a subsidy for re-equipment. Unfortunately, at that time the textile cycle went against the full success of that experiment. But it undoubtedly left the industry in a condition where it was possible for very big structural changes to take place.
It is commonly recognised that Courtaulds led the way in a vertical rationalisation of a large section of the industry, right from the raw material to the spinning and all those processes through which the fibre has to go, on to weaving, and then, finally, to garments. I do not doubt for one moment that Courtaulds and several other large firms in the industry are now, on a fair competitive basis, efficient. But I think circumstances have changed since the 1950s. Then we did not have to worry—or, at least, to only a minor extent—about textile imports of the higher-grade goods and things coming from other advanced countries. I think we foresaw that this might happen, and another piece of legislation which I introduced at that time was the anti- dumping Act. It seems to me that that Act is not working, and this is one of the matters I wish to put to the noble Lord who is to reply. It is perfectly true that under the anti-dumping Act it is the aggrieved party in this country who must make the case and ask the appropriate Department—I suppose it is the DTI today—to take action and stop the imports. A certain number of cases are well-known to noble Lords in which action has been taken in the 17 years or so since that Act was put on the Statute Book.
But if the facts are as we are told they are—and we have heard from noble Lords
974
this afternoon that large volumes of textiles are being sold in this market, below the price at which they are sold in their home markets—I do not quite understand why the textile trade here has not been able to make out an effective case for action. We must ask why this is so, because the machinery is there if the trade and the Government use it. I know that it is sometimes rather difficult to get the full facts, which are generally disputed in the exporting country, regarding the cost of the goods about which we are complaining. But it seems to me from what I read in the Press—and certainly from what noble Lords have told us today —that there cannot be much dispute that there is a great volume of materials now coming into this country in respect of which the anti-dumping Act could be used.
My Lords, I wish to turn for a moment to the very interesting speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. He described a large number of possible techniques in the manufacture of fabrics and garments and of weaving where he thought that further research would be useful. It is very sad that in the textile machinery trade our designers have not produced the machines that we hoped they would, from the Shirley Institute or any other source; at least, not the looms. For a long time we have had to import looms of foreign design. I am afraid that that is not unique in British industry. It is in design where we have fallen behind so much. I hope that the noble Earl's friends can somehow produce better results, either with Government money or with money from some of the very big firms—and they are still very rich—in the textile industry. Firms like ICI and Courtaulds would be only too pleased to put up some money for that kind of development.
What I noticed about the noble Lord's speech was his omission; because the real weakness in British textiles for so long has been in the design of the fabric and the garments. It is there where we can compete but do not compete. Most textiles are bought by women, and women buy—and all credit to them—largely by feeling the fabric and by the look of it. Their colour sense is developed, as is their fashion sense. I think the noble Lord's speech was rather typical of what is happening. There is no mention of the

975
artist. It is the artist who has been so lacking. I remember a good case—and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith will be familiar with it— where the Italians were scooping the beachwear trade, bathrobes and so on. All you had to do was to get the towelling, dye it the right colours, and then design the right kind of beach clothing. There was an enormous market; everybody was going to Spain for their holidays. But we did not have the designers to do it. That may make a vast difference to the volume of sales. Therefore, in looking to the recovery in textiles, as I do, your Lordships will know that the textile cycle is very short-timed and is always going up and down and, by timing, we should be just beginning to come out of the trough. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply will give us any evidence of that. But let us always believe that the design of the final garment is one of the main things in a modern textile industry. The fashion papers go all around the world. Every-body, everywhere, knows what are the trends in fashion. We have had some good designers, especially of clothes for young people, but we have a long way to go if our designers are to be the first and to capture the world. If that were done it would be almost the biggest single step which the British textile industry could take.
7.15 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, or perhaps to his luck in the draw. Certainly he has given us the opportunity of discussing, and perhaps pleading for, the textile industry which affects us all in that our clothing and our home comforts are almost entirely dependent on it. After some notable speeches, I think it behoves me to be brief; nevertheless there are a few points which I should like to raise and one or two minor questions which I am sure the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to answer for us.
The industry has shown a famous ability to survive even during the recession currently affecting all of us; but it has seen nothing like this since the 1930s. As we have heard from several previous speakers, notably from my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith, the industry is united in
976
its plea to the Government for what is well-deserved help. With approximately 150,000 on short time out of a total 900,000 employed in the industry, the situation merits action. I have read in speeches in other places that there is up to 80 per cent. short-time working in the wool industry, with some equally fearsome digits in other sectors, in man-made fibres and in cotton. I see no reason to doubt these figures; and it is all the more serious as the industry is concentrated in Lancashire, North-West England and Yorkshire.
I believe that 23 per cent. of the working population of Lancashire and the North-West is involved directly in textiles. We find in various towns in Lancashire an even greater preponderance of work-people involved in textiles. I am told that 40 per cent. of the population of Nelson and 30 per cent. of the people of Rochdale are involved directly in textiles. We can see that the economy of the whole area is much dependent on the industry. Textiles employ 9½ per cent. of the total industrial employment in the United Kingdom, so it can be seen that we are not just discussing an inefficient and backward cottage or peasant business; we are discussing the third largest manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.
My Lords, the consumer in the United Kingdom is very fortunate, both in apparel and in furnishings. I believe we cannot find better value anywhere else in the world. As has already been said, retail efficiency is legendary in the United Kingdom. I believe there are about 20 large organisations accounting for approximately 90 per cent. of the sales of textiles in whatever form, and there are mail order houses and large chains of retail stores providing immense value and quality on a nationwide basis. However, I feel that we ought to direct our attention to the sources of production. Approximately 40 per cent. of our domestic consumption must come from overseas, as the industy here does not have the productive capacity to fill the gap and this would be uneconomic. Imports of textiles into the United Kingdom cost us approximately £1,100 million in 1974. At the present time, they are still rising and they comprise about 55 to 60 per cent. by size and weight of all textiles consumed in the United Kingdom. Here I am including

977
woven fabrics and fully made-up garments and clothes.
There is always the possibility that the United Kingdom is the victim of dumping. I do not believe that there is a substantial amount of it; but we have already heard of the appearance of various suits in the United Kingdom at between £5 and £8, coming mainly from Eastern Europe. This does not assist the stability of world trade. Another example is the nearly 1 million shirts imported from Eastern Europe at a cost in this country of approximately 20p. While we welcome cheaper shirts and suits in the shops, these are clearly examples of dumping. This is something that we hope the Government will look into and something that we deplore.
We should also bear in mind that the retail trade has had its own difficulties throughout the last 15 months in the rapidly rising costs of both financing itself and its stocks. Who is to blame the retailers if they want to take advantage of such low-cost products as we have been hearing about? I have already mentioned the good fortune of the United Kingdom consumer, but there is some obligation to support home products when this is possible. One of the few remedies that we can consider is to reduce imports. Any method of doing so is liable to cause difficulties for ourselves, for our overseas suppliers and for world trade in general.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade does allow us to take action, particularly when our balance of payments is in a poor state. At the same time, we cannot export our problems to weaker nations than ourselves. First, the United Kingdom is a trading nation, and to take precipitate action can, and will, invite retaliation against our exports, which could have unfortunate effects on other industries within the United Kingdom. I have heard that restrictions on the import of textiles from two foreign nations have already caused difficulties for our trade in a third country. Secondly, reducing imports from weaker and developing nations will adversely affect their ability to buy our goods as well as harming world trade.
But I do not consider that we owe a living to the citizens of these nations, for example, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. The textile industries situate
978
there can afford to purchase the world's best textile machinery, as we have heard in a notable speech by the noble Earl. Lord Shannon. British textile machinery and research is world-wide, and often we find these nations exporting their products having used our technology and machinery, which is perfectly fair. They export their goods at what, to them, is a realistic cost, but I am afraid that it is not necessarily a realistic cost to us. There comes a time when protests have to be made to these countries. Often, such protests are not heeded and trading relations worsen. Sadly, this is beginning to happen already between the United Kingdom and one or two other nations with whom we have very close and warm economic and political relationships. Regrettably, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to obtain all-round agreement when not just two, but several nations are involved.
We are members of GATT and Article XII should allow us to take some effective action. I also understand that there is a certain Regulation of the EEC which empowers the United Kingdom Government to protect themselves against either unfair competition or circumstances where an industry is placed in danger or is threatened. The Government should invoke either Article XII or this particular Regulation to protect our very necessary and vital textile industry. My views are not entirely shared by the textile industry; nevertheless, it is important that we hasten our discussions with those countries whose textiles we buy. The EEC Council of Ministers in October 1974, permitted the import of textiles into member countries, as well as into the United Kingdom. Thus there is no reason why the United Kingdom should continue to be thought of as a "soft touch". It seems that the EEC are not altogether happy with the agreement, and the arrival of textiles from third countries in the United Kingdom is steady, while the overall market here and overseas has dropped by 25 per cent.
There are different methods of reducing imports. Italy was permitted to operate a fierce system of import deposits in 1974, and it seems that this was relatively successfuly in protecting their balance of payments. I cannot see that we need to go to such extremes at present; but if the current recession in the United

979
Kingdom textile market persists, we do not have the capacity to be as generous to our overseas friends as in the past. In another place there was a notable and fascinating debate on this subject about a month ago which I read carefully, when the Government said they were setting up import surveillance. This is unlikely to meet the objections of the industry, since first it does not cover clothes or made up garments, and it gives the opportunities for dumping, as we have already seen, in these sectors. Secondly, it does not apply to the EEC. There may be problems here with our partners in the European Economic Community.
In conclusion, I ask the Government to use their best endeavours speedily to assist the British textile industry. This industry fears no competition, it does not seek to shut out imports, but it seeks fair and even-handed treatment, whether or not such treatment is meted out to our exports elsewhere. Never before has the industry been so united; never before has the industry been so determined, so efficient, so lean and competitive. Trade is mutual, it is a two-way or even three-way, traffic; but our customers must be able to buy from us just as they must abide by the GATT. Even so, there is room for firm action from the Government in saying to our foreign textile producers that we simply cannot tolerate the crippling of our textile industry, just as we seek to play fair with theirs. We shall ask our overseas friends what remedies they suggest to mitigate the arrival of their textiles here. I am confident that the Government must take a firmer line; at least a 20 per cent. rundown on the 1974 levels of all textile imports is a starting point. We cannot permit the health of our textile industry to decline any further. May I say, my Lords, that I welcome my noble friend Lord Barnby's luck in the draw this afternoon and seek to ask the Government what they can do for the future.
7.26 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, whether or not we can take much pleasure from the debate we have had this afternoon, there is no denying the necessity for holding it—and we must be obliged to that great and, if I may say so, venerable expert on the textile industry,
980
the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, for initiating the debate. His experience and mine compare almost as "greatest to least", but although I have not worked in the industry, several members of my family have. It may seem a dismal qualification, but my maternal grandfather, once the manager of the Midlands Lace Company in Nottingham, started his own company after the First World War, and, when the lace industry collapsed, lost most of his money and never recovered from the blow.
I can to some extent appreciate the depth of feeling of my noble friend Lord Hale in looking back on the history of the industry. What happened to my grandfather may have played some part in forming the interests I have always had in the history and fortunes of the textile industry. It is an industry which, from its booming early days at the very start of the Industrial Revolution—when Richard Arkwright, it was said, was able to leave his successors an inheritance greater than the then National Debt—has passed through stormy seas, leaving in its wake churned-up social conditions, wholly changed regions of our country, great fortunes—and often, as my noble friend Lord Hale said, much insecurity and misery. And one has to face the fact that right up to the present day it has continued to navigate, perhaps at times uncertainly, through treacherous waters.
The textile industry's level of activity is mainly determined by demand, but on this occasion there are conflicting pressures on demand, which are particularly severe on our textile industry. The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, has indicated some of them. Although consumers' expenditure on clothing declined by only 1 per cent. in 1974, and the index of retail sales (at constant prices) by clothing and foot-wear shops, which dropped last autumn, had recovered in January and February, this continued high level of demand has not been reflected in orders for our textile industry to replace goods sold in the shops. Retailers, concerned with their own liquidity position, are trying to keep their stocks at lower levels than in the past. Their cutback in ordering is magnified at each stage in textile production so that by the time the final stage is reached in spinning the yarn or manufacturing the man-made fibre the cumulative effect is considerable. At the same time, the

981
industry's own liquidity problems prevent it from manufacturing for stock as it has done in past textile cycles. The down-turn in demand is compounded this time because, as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, said, the textile cycle has turned down world-wide; and because virtually all countries are facing difficult economic problems, the result is substantial underutilisation of capacity throughout the textile industry here and in other countries.
This lack of new orders has had its most serious effect on employment. The British Textile Confederation have estimated, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said, that 150,000 people out of a total workforce in Great Britain of 830,000 were affected by short-time working in February. These figures, also quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, of 150,000 people on short time in February, were the industry's own estimate made by the British Textile Confederation. The BTC have not carried out a further survey, but they consider the picture has not drastically changed. The latest official figures show that about 30,000 employed in the textile and clothing industry were on short-time working during the week ending 10th March. I recognise that this figure probably excludes many part-time married women, for example, who will not have registered with the Department of Employment, and also workers in many firms are excluded who are working three weeks in every four. There were just under 2,000 redundancies in the textile industry during February, according to the provisional official figures. The British Textile Confederation's estimate of 8,000 redundancies covered the period of six months up to February.
Against this background, the level of imports is seen by the textile industry to be of crucial importance. It should be recognised that the position of imports varies significantly within the industry. Total imports in 1974 were valued at some £1,153 million, whereas total exports were £1,121 million, giving a trade deficit of £32 million. But this figure is reached by taking into account an adverse balance on clothing of £171 million, on woven cotton fabric of £78·5 million, and a credit balance on woollen fabric of £93 million and on man-made fibres of £62 million. The import figures for January and February this year, com-
982
pared with home production figures, show import penetration falling in man-made fibre and yarn production and in the Lancashire cotton and man-made fibre spinning. In other sectors imports show an increase; for example, in woven clothing, knitted fabrics and knitted clothing.
The British Textile Confederation have told us that the high level of imports reached in 1974 can no longer be absorbed by the United Kingdom market without serious disruption of the British textile industries. They have therefore proposed to the Government, as we have heard this afternoon, import restrictions designed to cut by 20 per cent. across the board the level of imports in 1974. This has been the central issue of this debate and it is the issue to which the Government are giving serious and thoughtful consideration, for it raises major and difficult implications for Government policy. The arguments which the BTC have put forward in their proposal, on many of which noble Lords have commented, are well-reasoned. The BTC consider that the British textile industry is particularly vulnerable to imports, because our distribution and retail industries are so highly developed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, has already pointed out.
The BTC have considered the dangers of the temporary restraints they advocate, and they do not believe that their proposal would lead to shortages, seriously restrict competition, or have any marked effect on retail prices. Moreover, because of the United Kingdom industry's particular circumstances, they believe that the risk of retaliation by other countries is slight. Noble Lords have also commented on the important economic and trade policies at issue here. We are a major trading nation, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, pointed out, and all our efforts to date have been to encourage our trading partners to sustain world trade at the highest possible level.
Noble Lords will not need reminding of the importance placed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement on the growth in world trade in 1976. Nor, I think, can the risk of retaliation be too lightly considered in view of the action I believe the Government of Turkey are proposing to take against our exports of a number of products—for example, polyethylene,

983
dumpers and electrical equipment—in response to our restriction of imports of Turkish cotton yarn. The Prime Minister has said that import controls, as a general policy, would be bad for Britain precisely because they would help to get world trade spiralling further downwards. The BTC's proposal, therefore, raises difficult and far-reaching implications for Government policy. However, we are giving it the most serious consideration and have not yet reached a decision on the proposal.
My Lords, the record of Government action to contain textile imports is an impressive one. The protection in the 1960s against low-cost suppliers of cotton yarn, woven cotton fabrics and made-ups has been steadily expanded to include in 1972 non-cotton textiles; namely, poly-ester-cotton fabrics and made-ups. It will be extended substantially this year under the Community restraints on knitwear, woven fabrics and made-ups of most fibres and, in addition, on spun synthetic yarn from the main South-East Asian suppliers. We have acted to restrain imports of cotton yam from Greece and Turkey—my noble friend Lord Hale referred to imports from Turkey—and we propose to continue the restrictions on cotton yarn from our traditional low-cost suppliers, principally India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. We achieved agreement in the EEC Council of Ministers last October with other Member States on a "burden-sharing" policy, which will progressively ease the pressure in the United Kingdom as the other markets in the Community are opened up to more lost-cost textile imports. Burden-sharing will operate as bilateral agreements are concluded with the developing countries. Our growth in import quotas will be severely limited. In cases where we are the major importing country in the Community, our growth will be 0·5 per cent. Other Community countries can expect to take growth rates ranging up to 500 per cent.
The Government remain prepared to take prompt action under the GATT Multifibre Arrangement provisions where there is a threat of market disruption, whenever there is a justified case for doing so. The surveillance licensing we have announced on imports from all non-EEC sources of man-made fibres and virtually all yarns and fabrics manufactured
984
from all the main fibres on 20th March has been welcomed by the industry. This will provide additional information to help the Government consider what further action, if any, may need to be taken. In reply to a point made by both the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, this applies to the USA as much as to any other exporting country. The noble Lords, Lord Barnby and Lord Lyell, referred to the extension of surveillance licensing.
We are considering the industry's request to extend these arrangements to include made-up articles and clothing. Many of these items will, in fact, be included in the actual restraints now being negotiated with the main low-cost Asian suppliers. The industry is on the point of finalising its suggestions for extended surveillance licensing, which we will then be in a final position to consider. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that the Government are energetically pursuing with the other Member States of the Community the negotiation of bilateral agreements under the MFA with our main developing country suppliers. We regret the delay, but I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that the first agreement has now been reached. Agreement with India was reached at 2.35 a.m. last Saturday. It is our intention that all these bilateral agreements should date from 1st January this year. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, also referred to the social security advantages of the Italian manufacturers of Prato. I can tell the noble Lord that the European Court has ruled against the Italian scheme. We are following this matter closely. The ending of these advantages will be of benefit not only to the wool industry but to all sections of the industry which compete with Italian manufacturers.
Nor does the Government's concern for the industry end with the subject of imports. We have done much to encourage investment. Under the wool textile scheme we had received 100 applications by the end of March 1975, representing investment plans in new machinery and buildings of £39 million to which the Government will contribute £7 million under this scheme. These applications represent £15 million of investment by the industry in the last financial

985
year, and a similar amount of investment is scheduled for this financial year. Following a review of progress of the scheme by the woollen industry's "Little Neddie" we have improved its details. It continues until the end of 1977 and we have set aside £15 million for Government assistance. We welcome this evidence, as does the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that the industry is increasing its capital expenditure substantially despite the present unfavourable state of the market.
I welcome the emphasis which the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, has given to the contribution which the textile research institutes make to the efficiency of the industry. He has referred to the system of research requirements boards in giving support to research. This system has been in operation for only a relatively short period, but it is proving effective in achieving the kind of results of which he has spoken.
The Clothing Economic Development Council, following a review of prospects to 1977, concluded that increased productivity in the clothing industry is vital to enable it to become a high wage industry and to overcome increasing shortages of labour, as well as reducing costs and strengthening its competitive position. For this purpose it noted the need for a higher rate of investment than previously prevailed. The Council has developed a complex set of proposals aimed at achieving these ends. These were recently submitted to the Department of Industry and are being given detailed consideration. In other sectors of the industry, particularly Lancashire, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, companies are taking advantage of the 1972 Industry Act facilities. Substantial investment, in excess of the average figure for all manufacturing industries, is taking place.
I know that the textile industry holds very strong views on what it regards as the difficulties it faces in proving dumping cases compared with the ease it considers some other countries have in doing so. The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, has mentioned specific instances of dumped imports from the Far East. It is important to differentiate between dumping as such and low-cost selling. "Dumping" means exporting a product at prices below those obtained for comparable sales on the exporter's home market.
986
Low-cost selling is not necessarily the same as dumping. But I call on the industry to present their case to the Department of Trade. I feel as bewildered as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. Why is there no effective case for action? The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said there may be less dumping than is thought. This appears superficially to be the case. The Department of Trade has received only one anti-dumping application from the textile industry in recent months, on acrylic yarn from the Far East, which was already subject to antidumping action by the EEC Commission on behalf of Member States. The Commission had obtained undertakings on price levels from the supplying countries in 1973. There have been no applications from the United Kingdom industry in respect of either cloth or made-up goods. The Department or the Commission can act only in response to an application on behalf of the industry affected, containing reasonable evidence—not proof, my Lords—of dumping and material injury.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, referred to the appeal made by my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry on 20th March to those major textile companies which import large quantities of textiles. The industry itself imports some tens of millions of yards of cloth and thus has the opportunity of holding back substantial amounts of cheap textile imports. There may be difficulties, as Lord Rhodes said, but I welcome the call by the British Textile Employers' Association to its member firms to ensure that the industry itself eliminates any potentially undesirable buying practices. My noble friend Lord Hale referred to Government purchasing policy. As he indicated, total Government purchases are but a small percentage of total United Kingdom textile products, perhaps 2 per cent., and the great bulk, 95 per cent. or more, is purchased in this country. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the official referred to in The Times is a civil servant who is taking up a two-year appointment in Hong Kong concerned with quality assurance for a variety of goods, including textiles, purchased locally for the use of the Hong Kong Garrison.
The Government are strongly urging the industry and its customers in the retail sector to come together to plan their

987
production needs to ensure that when the demand comes the goods are there manufactured in the United Kingdom. The important point is to achieve much closer co-operation, and this we are trying to encourage. Noble Lords have been rightly concerned, as are the Government, about the viability of our textile industry. Despite its decline in the traditional Lancashire sector, which has been counter-balanced, to an extent, by growth in warp and weft knitting and synthetic filament fabric weaving, our industry as a whole is the second biggest in Europe. As other countries have shown, the textile industry has a good potential for growth.
My Lords, I know that the present economic situation is a difficult one: I know that the industry is looking to the Government to do more, and I also know that it is vital for the industry to invest to ensure that it is ready to take advantage of the upturn in the textile cycle when it comes. There are some encouraging signs of an upturn, although even two or three swallows do not yet make a summer. But I can assure your Lordships that it is central to the Government's thinking that the textile industry should remain viable and prosperous, and it is to this end that we are developing our policy.
7.47 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, this debate has brought into contemporary prominence the massive size and the great distress of the textile industry. There have been speeches of significant importance and that will have contributed largely, I hope, to recognition of what this debate was intended to ask for. If there are two points arising from the several most interesting speeches, they are these. First, we heard a most interesting speech from the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who speaks with such technical experience. Anybody who reads his speech will be impressed by what is being done technologically in connection with this industry. Secondly, I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hale, emphasised the angle of industrial relations in the textile industry. As I told your Lordships, all my life I have been associated with the wool textile
988
industry, and over those long 60 years I can testify that in that industry we have always enjoyed a relationship between employers and workers which is significant in the industrial life of the country. That point has been brought out by Lord Hale today as a great contribution to the achievements of this industry.
I was interested in the reasoning and reflections of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. His was a contribution which will cause us all to reflect. I am grateful also to my own Front Bench for supporting this debate. Of course, the hope of the exercise was that we should extract from the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, an actual decision by the Government that what we ask for is to be granted. I suppose we must be satisfied with his assurance that the matter is receiving the Government's consideration. The reply was disappointing to that extent. There may be—indeed, he said it —contributory reasonings for this position.
The noble Lord mentioned the case of retaliation; but under Article 12 of GATT, surely there can be no discrimination because, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will agree, there can be no other leading country with a textile industry that has a more significant balance of payments deficit than this country. Therefore, there is no discrimination, because we are well in the lead so far as that is concerned!
The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, has dealt generously with the circumstances surrounding the causes of this debate. We must hope that the peril of the position which has been voiced by all speakers today will be recognised by the Government and that there will yet be action along the lines which have been suggested. In conclusion, having had the privilege of starting the debate, may I thank all of those noble Lords who have taken part in it for their contribution and for the part they have played in, I hope, extracting the assurance from the Government that shortly there will be action along the lines that the peril of this great industry requires. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw this Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INDUSTRIAL LUNG DISEASES
7.52 p.m.
Lord HALE Lord HALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimated cost to the national Exchequer of the grant to the National Coal Board for sufferers from pneumoconiosis and when similar provision is to be made for sufferers from other industrial lung diseases including byssinosis and asbestosis. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in deference to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I will endeavour to open this debate in a cool, calculated, inhuman and unemotional manner. It is unbecoming to anyone with a taste for poetry and, indeed, it is unbecoming and difficult for anyone who really believes that human suffering is a matter about which one can justifiably be a little emotional.
When I first entered Parliament, many years ago, there came to my notice the case of a lad of 15 who was injured in the mines. He was not a member of the union. The greatest advocate of the day had undertaken to conduct that case for nothing, subject to a single condition which he had to make; namely, that he was already committed to a murder defence which could clash with it, in which event he was committed to defending the man for murder—as well he should. He was Norman Birkett—not a man free from emotion, but one of wide and generous emotions and a very great advocate. I will not attempt to introduce emotion into this debate. My boy of 15 had been employed, really, as a pit pony. He was lowering heavy tubs down the mine, and when they became too heavy for him he spread himself against a prop and bruised his shoulder. His doctor, who came here with me, said, "I advised him that he had bruised his shoulder, that it would be better in a day or two and that he was not to worry; but four days later he came back and I had to say to him that he had got osteomyelitis: that he must go at once for an emergency operation". So the lad of 15 did not give notice, and we lost the case on that. This was under the old Workmen's Compensation Act.
So far as industrial diseases are concerned, there were many. Fortunately, modern conditions have eliminated some. There was the dreadful disease in the
990
mines of miner's nystagmus which was oscillation of the eyeballs. It had the signal merit of bringing Nye Bevan from below ground to become Minister of Housing and of Health in Labour Governments. Fortunately, better conditions underground now prevail. In the cotton industry spinner's cancer was very prevalent at one time—cancer of the scrotum which was caused by oil. I think that this has now completely disappeared. The real disease of Oldham was rickets, caused by food deficiency. These are emotional matters.
For many years it was my fate, or good fortune, to find myself the solicitor of two Midland mining unions. Therefore, I had to handle the whole wretched business of the treatment of industrial disease, which was cruel to the point of absolute persecution and which, unhappily, left many men suffering from a very real persecution complex. This helped to make their shortened life more unhappy. These are better days. All Governments have a very much improved record in this matter, and much has been done. Therefore, let me say that I have had the good fortune to see that one of the very greatest experts on diseases of the lung has put his name down to speak in this debate. I know that he has come here at some inconvenience. I know also that he would like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he can make his speech as soon as possible.
There are three main lung diseases which are now scheduled. There is the coal miner's disease of pneumoconiosis —mineral dust in the lungs which can be detected on postmortem. If one ever has to see a miner's lung after his death, it shows a concentration of mineral irritant which it is emotional to see. Then there is the disease of byssinosis, of which I had great experience when I went to Oldham. That is a vegetable dust which is not easy to see on postmortem; diagnosis is more difficult. The third disease is asbestosis which I have included because, although I know nothing about it, clearly it has relevance. Indeed, I suspect that this is the most serious of all the dust diseases. I had the good fortune to have the support for many years not only of one of the great advocates of the House of Commons, but also of a lady who had personal experience of asbestosis cases. Therefore, I

991
will not expose further my ignorance about that disease.
Times have improved and health methods have improved. In this debate I propose to lean almost backwards in defence of the Government, because I feel that they have a wonderful record in this brief period of difficulty in the reforms they have made in relation to industrial disease. The figures are contained in the Coal Bill which will be the subject of discussion in this House in a day or two. It is curious that they were so coy about explaining it at one stage. There has never been any secret about it. They have said that for the old cases of coal miner's pneumoconiosis, for the old cases of lung disease in the coal mining industry, they will pay a sum of £55 million in this year, with a maximum of £100 million to provide substantial compensation for the many sufferers in the industry. They have done this by agreement with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, and they have arranged that this shall be administered entirely by a representative committee formed of those bodies. This has been welcomed, and I welcome it, as one of the very great and generous acts which light up our social legislation. Already, of course, the miners are very properly saying that this kind of case is missed out, but that will no doubt be adjusted. There are always anomalies. It is a great measure, and they are entitled to be most heartily congratulated upon it; no one is more pleased than I am.
They have done more, however, because one of the peculiarities of byssinosis was that it was scheduled much later than the other two after a bitter and contested fight under very limited conditions, so that to qualify a man had to have, first, a high degree of acknowledged disablement; second, to be able to show 20 years of employment in the processes of making raw cotton up to the spinning section—the card room. They are hard conditions, and, of course, while coal dust is a mineral and shows readily on the X-ray, in those days certainly— and it may be so today but I am not sure—an X-ray was of no use in the diagosis of the disease.
Some years ago the period of 20 years was reduced to 10. Under this
992
Government, since they were elected early in 1973 they have increased the hardship allowance to all sufferers. These increases were not spectacular, but there were two separate increases. They have reduced the period of qualification to five years in the spinning process exposed to dust. They have extended quite substantially the areas in the cotton spinning industry which enable a man to qualify. They have probably increased the number of claimants—never a very large figure, about 25 per cent. The actual figure of miners' pneumoconiosis claims was about 39,000 and for byssinosis the figure had gone up from about 3,000 to over 4,000, partly as a result of these measures.
So this Government have a right to be thanked and they might well say, "Look here, don't you come along and keep asking for more". The cotton industry is not an Oliver Twist. These people arc suffering from precisely the same type of disability and the Government have a right to say, "It is a nationalised industry; we believe in nationalisation, we believe we should give a special first trial to nationalisation". Indeed, they have a complete justification for paying this out of the national Exchequer, as clearly it could not be provided out of the National Insurance Fund, and if the Coal Board itself was to embark on such a scheme, the Government would anyhow have to repay the amount.
But so far as I remember, no one criticised it in the Commons debate. It was recognised that this was a major step forward. The textile workers say, "We are very grateful. We do not want to criticise, but why are we left out? We suffer just as much, we are on much lower wages and our problems are the same." It was at this stage that—and, again, I am in the same difficulty in not being able to quote from a Member of Parliament—the honourable Member for Oldham East raised an adjournment debate on the 14th March and I had a Question on the Order Paper on the subject on the following Monday. A reply was given by the Minister which I cannot quote because it was not an official Statement in the Commons, and my noble friend Lord Jacques, who is always the sole of courtesy and of help was given—I shall not use the word "brief"—but he was given it unfairly.
Your Lordships know that the noble Lord covers a vast variety of subjects and he must rely to some extent on the information provided by the Department, but I do not think on that day he was well served. He said almost exactly what was said in the Commons, but he said it better. I did not even think that in the Commons the real strength of the defence was put forward. What they said was this: first, the coalmining scheme is a special scheme because the miner is giving us, as part of the terms, his right to compensation for damages for tort. Damages for tort, if awarded, can be very big. The answer to that is that, so far as I know, they never have been awarded. It would be absolutely impossible under the old laws to bring a successful action for tort. Heaven knows! enough miners' solicitors have considered it, and I think there was one odd case with regard to asbestosis, but that is a different matter and, of course, there is no case in regard to byssinosis. One case was brought in the coal industry on legal advice and was settled out of court for a purely derisory figure. Still less could one do that with byssinosis, with a qualification of 20 years employment for some, 10 years for others and five years for others.
At the moment the Pearson Royal Commission is considering all aspects of actions for tort and we ought to wait until they have reported. We cannot do it piecemeal. This will not do: if you can do it for 39,000, you can do it for 3,000, without waiting. But here I acknowledge, and I want to say frankly to the noble Lord who is to reply, that I had underestimated him in deriding the possibility of this very gifted Committee being able to find any solution to this intractable problem. The strength of fairly recent legislation imposes certain additional standards of care on the industry which could in vague theory— and I honestly do not think in practice —provide an action for breach of statutory duty. No doubt the Pearson Committee will very ably and properly consider this, and it is certainly not for me to comment further.
That is the position. Then it was said that in the coal industry people have had to change their place of employment and most of the old coalmines had been closed down. But in the cotton industry the mills have been closing down,
994
as we heard in the last debate, year after year. The same difficulties have arisen of amalgamations, concentrations, new processes being introduced, and so on. The same conditions apply. It was said that this disease closely resembles a combination of chronic bronchitis combined with asthma, that medical diagnosis can be uncertain and that bronchitis is prevalent in coal mining areas—much more prevalent in Oldham, where 80 per cent. of the houses should have been condemned, according to the Medical Officer of Health. An immense proportion of them were built before 1870; back-to-back houses, thousands without even a lavatory and, of course, bronchitis is endemic. The tragedy of the disease is that we have many able doctors in Oldham, but it is only natural that, when a man goes to a doctor and does not mention that he has been working for 20 years in the cotton mill, they write "bronchitis" on a bit of paper because chronic bronchitis is so very close to it.
Before I conclude, I must pay tribute —and I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, will wish me to do so—to the researches into this disease by Professor Schilling, who took the old title of Monday Fever, I suspect, but at any rate was able to establish a method of diagnosis of the disease which was very satisfactory. He found that what was properly called Monday Fever did really show the Monday symptoms, because the man, who came out of the mill exposed to dust and had a couple of days out on the moors or in the country or watching the locals being defeated and went back on Monday, at once faced excessive dyspnoea, the excessive breathing which can be seen at once. The symptom of the disease they used to say was, "I feel as if I got an iron band round my chest". I am afraid it is not a curable disease. There may be intermissions, there may be delays, there may be postponement of death, but it is a slow, depressing death. I ask the Government to look at the matter again in all honesty, with all the tributes I have paid, and say, "If you tell us"—and I do tell them—"that even in the cotton textile industry employers and trade unions will form a committee and will administer it," I hope they will say: "We owe it to them; you are right,

995
we will make this provision." I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, whom I know is sympathetic, to do his best to give a reassuring answer.
8.12 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, the subject of industrial diseases of the lungs is essentially a medical subject and I thought that one of the medical Members of this House, who might be myself, should perhaps put down his name to say a few words about it. I think I can be very brief, because the medical facts of pneumoconiosis and other industrial lung diseases are not at present in dispute. There are considerable difficulties of diagnosis in some cases which concern doctors and particularly the experts on the pneumoconiosis panel. All those difficulties have not been solved. I would be the last to pretend that the problem is an easy one, but this is not in dispute tonight.
The Report of the Industrial Diseases Sub-Committee of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on the question of pneumoconiosis and byssinosis which was published in 1973 (Cmnd. 5443), sets out very well for us the medical problems of the diseases and deals effectively with questions of diagnosis, and so far as they can be dealt with, of attributability, of assessment of the degree of disability and of the difficult and awkward but, nevertheless, very important questions of disablement which is only partly due to occupations, but is also partly due to other respiratory disease notably bronchitis and emphysema, of which the major cause is pollution of the atmosphere, including the pollution of the inhaling of cigarette smoke. The main industrial chest diseases are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hale, has said, miners' pneumoconiosis. This is, perhaps, the most variable of them in the sense that in its simpler and less serious form it causes almost no disability, or indeed in some cases actually no disability at all.
The worst disease I encountered when I was a young medical person—at that time I was in Sheffield—was silicosis due to metal grinding on sandstone wheels. Sheffield grinders considered themselves old men at the age of 35 and very few survived over the age of 40. This was partly because the silicosis led to tuberculosis.
996
They would spit into the trough in which the wheel revolved, and in this way tuberculosis was very readily spread. The main disorders causing silicosis are now so protected by various means— masking, and so on—that fortunately it is very much less important from a numerical point of view than it used to be in those days.
Asbestosis may be the most serious of all, because it is the disease which can lead to cancer of the lung and also the pleura. Then there is byssinosis, which is perhaps the main topic, but by no means the only one, in this evening's Question, and affects workers in raw and waste cotton. There is also farmer's lung, which is also a prescribed respiratory disease of occupation. The medical panels of experts to which I have referred arc extremely important not only in seeing that the right people get the right diagnosis and are available for what compensation exists, but also in seeing that the wrong people do not claim industrial respiratory disease where no such disease exists.
Having said this, I do not think I need go any further into the medical aspect because, as I have said, there is really no disagreement about it. Having established that a worker is a sufferer from one of these diseases, the question as to whether there are 39,000 sufferers or 3,000 sufferers is irrelevant. The question really is whether persons who are equally disabled through their work, whatever it may be, are treated in different ways according to whether they happen to be working in the mining industry or in the cotton industry—to take two examples with which we are mainly concerned tonight—and, in the final count, to what extent their occupations contributed to their eventual death. These are difficult medical problems, but the question being asked tonight is whether they should not all be given the same treatment.
Being a simple-minded person not used to political decisions, there seems to me no particular reason why they should not all be given equal treatment, assuming that the disability in one case is the same as that in another. This is not a problem for me, and I shall be interested to know what the noble Lord is going to say in reply. I hope I can stay, although, as

997
the noble Lord, Lord Hale, said, I may not be able to stay the whole time. I sincerely hope that a solution can be found for this so that justice will not only be done, but will be seen to be done between these various occupations. I hope that the solution will not include the necessity to prove liability in Common Law; because I think this is something which is almost impossible to prove. From what the noble Lord, Lord Hale, was saying, I think he fully agrees with that. To try to do so would only lead to interminable argument and very great expense.
8.21 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, owing to the late hour I do not want to keep the House for too long. Apart from that, I have a little duty outside. But before I get to the few points that I want to make, I must pay a tribute to Sir Keith Joseph, because when he set up the Department of Health and Social Security a Report was published on the investigation of pneumoconiosis and byssinosis. This Report resulted in the Blue Book, which is a Report on pneumoconiosis and byssinosis by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in accordance with Section 62 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965.
My Lords, having been a Minister myself, I know that both sides of the House have made great progress since the 1945 period in attending to these diseases of the lungs. My noble friend Lord Hale mentioned the interesting question of the amount of money spent on this. As a result of an examination made by a celebrated doctor into industrial injuries, I would point out that for every 100,000 shifts worked in British pits we have the lowest incidence of injury in the world. In that regard much tribute should go to the National Coal Board for the establishment of the safety officers.
That brings me, at the end of one minute, to the 1974 Act and to a reference on safety. I do not want to enter into the pros and cons of the question. That excellent doctor, Dr. Murray, was advising the TUC, but at present there is a hiatus or a vacuum so far as medical advice to the TUC is concerned. I should like to see more doctors at the elbow of the Trades Union Congress to give first class advice, because as from the first of this month, the Safety at Work Act is operative.
998
I have an interest in that Act. I hope I shall not be thought to be blowing my own trumpet, but the biggest Private Bill ever presented to a British Parliament was presented by myself, and it was based on the Gowers Report. I hacked out that Bill myself, and it was the longest Private Member's Bill. It reached the stage of a Committee upstairs when we were thrown into a General Election. Out of that Bill stemmed many of the Bills on safety in offices and so on, including the one which became the Safety at Work Act.
Under this Act I should like to see safety committees set up in all branches of industry, to back up the matter of lung diseases. I should like to see safety committees set up in industries such as mining, cotton, and in asbestos. When I was a Minister asbestos was coming to the fore. Noble Lords will have to take the graph from me; the accurate figures are all here in the Blue Book if noble Lords wish to check my statistics. Before I mention any statistics, perhaps I had better give the trend. The trend shows a drop-down in pneumoconiosis. That will be found on page 14 of the Blue Book. We see that from 1953 to 1957 22,058 men in coal mining were diagnosed as suffering from pneumoconiosis, whereas for the period 1968 to 1972 the figure was 3,420. But one must take into account the fact that by December 1972 the numbers working in the pits had fallen by about one-third. The numbers employed in the pottery industry were also reduced, and in that industry, too, there was a reduction in the incidence of pneumoconiosis.
Gradually we are beginning to conquer the causes of the disease, or so I hope. Someone better informed than myself would not dream of entering into the realms of medicine, but the noble Lord, Lord Platt, who has had a distinguished career in medicine pointed out something that I was taught in Euston, when I went to the Pneumoconiosis Centre, and when I went to Cardiff. When I took slides of pneumoconionic lungs to China and Manchuria to show to the people in the Chinese mining industry, they tried to teach me how to read an X-ray, but it is very difficult to judge the amount of dust in the lungs.
Lord HALE: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me—
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I would be glad to, but I do not want to be too long.
Lord HALE: My Lords, in fairness to the last Government, they produced a Report on health in the cotton industry. It was a very fine Report and it contained the details of research machinery, and so on. But it is costly to put into force.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Of course it is. I paid tribute to the other Government, because byssinosis comes into this Report. I see that the five minutes that I promised myself are nearly up. Under the aegis of the Safety at Work Act which has been law since 1st April we should set up more safety committees. I am glad that the old-fashioned idea about pneumoconiosis is disappearing, but it took years to do it. It is referred to in the Blue Book. In 1967, I was able to change it a little, and add emphysema if a man at 50 had pneumoconiosis. I do not want to go into technical points about this, but in South Wales we fought for years on this issue of pneumoconiosis plus emphysema and at last that is taken into account. Progress has been made.
My Lords, progress has been made because noble Lords and Members of the other place who have come from industries such as cotton, pottery, coal, the asbestos producing areas, or ships—the "go-downs" where asbestos is loaded— have kept alive an interest in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hale, is to be congratulated upon that aspect. The attitude is different from that of the late Catherine Booth, God bless her! who wrote in War Cry in 1881:
"Oh, how I see the emptiness and vanity of everything. Compared with the salvation of the soul, what does it matter if a man dies in the workhouse? What does it matter if he dies on the doorstep covered with wounds, like Lazarus? What does it matter if his soul is saved?"
If noble Lords want to check that quotation, they can find it in a number of War Cry, 7th July, 1881.
Thank God that heavenly approach to the tattered blood and muscle of the workers in various industries has disappeared! It has disappeared through the gradual education of the other place and of this House. Lord Harcourt himself, in 1812, under this noble roof said:
1000
"The children of the public schools in Britain are 5 inches taller than the children of the slum schools in Britain."
Through our Beveridge Report we attacked the giants of ignorance, disease, squalor and idleness. We are making a new generation of people, and because of the watchfulness of men like the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Hale, improvements in overcoming diseases like pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and asbestosis can still be expected.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness V1CKERS: My Lords, I am very glad to be able to join in this debate and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for putting down this Unstarred Question today. As I understand the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has to go very soon, may I thank him for his wisdom and for all the work he has done in the past years for people suffering from these various diseases. I am interested in asbestosis, and I have been for a number of years, the reason being that I come from Plymouth, which has a large dockyard, and we had a considerable number of people suffering from the disease.
I was very pleased when the Asbestosis Regulations of 1969 were introduced, because if they were used sufficiently we would not have half the trouble. For example, there should be proper exhaust ventilation. In a great many places where people work there is no proper ventilation, protective equipment, cleanliness of premises and plant and, very important, accommodation for cleaning the protective equipment. It makes a lot of difference if it can be kept as well as it should be. The final point is that no young people under 18 are allowed to go to work in such places. I suggest that protection is the best means of controlling a disease. I was interested when the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Admiralty were approached to make a survey among their workers. I do not have the details, but perhaps it is too soon. I hope that they will continue on work which will be an asset to anybody doing research.
Unlike the textile industry which we discussed earlier, this is a modern industry, because it dates only from 1870. We get very different types of the rock from which the asbestos is made, some from Canada, some from Russia—I believe about 4 million tons—and some from

1001
Rhodesia. I think the worst type, the one that creates the most physical difficulties, is that which comes from South Africa and is known as the blue crocidalite. In the 1950s, it was known that to inhale asbestos dust could lead to pulmonary thrombosis and carcinoma of the lung. One of the difficulties about asbestosis is that a person can go on working, and show it only 20 to 40 years later. The dust counts have been kept for some time at the Devonport Dockyard and also at Turner Brothers factory in Rochdale. They contributed in 1968 to some surveys. I should like to emphasise that if only all the 1969 Regulations were adhered to conditions would be very much better. The workers can be affected by several different types—chrysolite, amorite, and two others which are not much used at the present time.
One can get an idea when people are suffering from asbestosis, because they very often get clubbing of the fingers, persistent rales, radiological changes and reduced transfer factor. Dockyard workers exposed to asbestos have had pleural abnormalities of 28 per cent. in men continuously exposed, and only 1·9 per cent. in those little exposed. Attention should be drawn to the fact that it is extremely dangerous and very unwise to smoke if you are having anything to do with asbestos, because it seems to have a double irritation for the lungs; first the dust and then the smoke seem to make people very ill. There is more research needed here.
It affects not just the people in dockyards and shipping. Other people affected are laggers, sprayers, mattress makers, car brakelining workers, weavers, slab and pipe makers, and carding and spinning workers. In quite a number of industries they will be able to use fibre glass in future and this will be an asset, especially if precautions are taken to see that no new disease is caused by the use of fibre glass. In the Guardian in November 1971 there was an article which drew attention to the total ban on spraying asbestos in New York, Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia, but I regret to say that it is still widely used in Britain. It is thought that even the dust from the linings of car brakes can be dangerous. The Admiralty has recently stopped spraying limpet asbestos and it is now
1002
deleted from the Royal Navy specifications, and is being replaced by mineral fibre marine board with no asbestos at all. But it will still be necessary to protect people who are breaking up ships, where the different boilers, pipes and so on are still lagged, and in some ships there are a considerable number.
To give an example of somebody suffering from asbestosis, in 1970 a Mr. Smith, not a dockyard worker, was awarded £86,000 with six other men. He had very bad damage to his body. He said that his fingers and ankles swelled. He could not control his hands, he dropped things he was carrying, he coughed a lot in the morning, sometimes became dizzy, and suffered loss of weight. He was awarded £16,000. He was only 46 but he looked very much older. He had quite a long time to live with this trouble, because unless you have carcinoma, which invariably kills fairly quickly, you live for a long time with this type of dust in your body but having all these unpleasant effects.
Since 1931, Parliament has recognised asbestosis as an industrial disease, and although a very long time has elapsed people still die from it. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said, few people take this disease seriously enough. I should like to quote from a factory inspector now retired. I wish to pay respect to her because although she is now working in prisons she did everything possible in factory work. Perhaps I should mention that during the war I was welfare officer for the Ministry of Supply for a period in Royal Ordnance factories, so I met many of these inspectors, and sometimes caused a little trouble, I regret to say, unintentionally. She said:
"The tendency is not to prosecute unless sure to win, but if some of the senior inspectorate thought something was going wrong they had hysterics ".
She went on to say that if this is the attitude, no wonder it takes so long to put matters right.
I realise that factory inspectors are very busy people. However, reading an account by two jouralists named Peter Gilman and Anthony Wolf, who investigated this danger from asbestos, they also quote from the Chief Inspector in 1970:
"The Inspectorate never aimed at and has never achieved rigorous enforcement of the Act, such as a Teutonic country might achieve."

1003
In the Annual Report it said:
"The inspector is fully aware that there is a problem, the management's, the workers', as well as his own. The management has to run a successful business in a competitive world and must constantly experiment with new processes and materials."
I naturally agree with that, but if only more precautions were taken we might eliminate a great deal of disease today.
I should like to pay tribute, too, to a certain Commander Harris of the Devonport Dockyard. He has been working very hard on this heavy dust and visiting dusty places. Anybody who now goes on the ships or works in places where there is dust is dressed like a spaceman with a complete suit from head to toe and trailing airlines. Others, not in such danger, wear rubber or nylon overalls and respirators. As Lord Davies said, regrettably people continue to die. It was 64 in 1955, and has gone up to 107 in 1970, which is the latest figure I could get. So I think that we are fortunate to have this debate today, because it shows that there is a need for action. This Cmnd. Paper No. 5443 should be studied very carefully.
At an engineers' conference in 1971, someone was asked whether it was possible to say that any concentration of asbestos fibres in the air was safe. The reply was, "I certainly cannot get any of our medical advisers to make that statement. I wish I could." There has been more study over the last 10 years, but it has also been proved that there are small, perhaps minute, amounts of asbestos fibres in the lungs of a great many city dwellers, particularly I gather, in London and Glasgow. Regrettably, too, cases of asbestosis are still rising. In 1965, there were 82 of a certain kind, and in 1970 there were 153; in 1965, there were 64 deaths, and in 1970 there were 107. It is unfortunate that with all our medical knowledge these numbers should be going up. To finish I should like to quote Sir Thomas Legge, who wrote:
"Unless and until the employer has done everything, the workman can do next to nothing to protect himself."
I hope that this debate, short though it is—and for a moment I thought that I was back in the House of Commons, because all the speakers seem to be ex-Members—will prove helpful. If we can
1004
use more fibre glass, and do away with spraying, as they have done in certain towns in America, and see that the regulations are carried out, then we have a chance in the next few years of really improving the health of these workers.
8.42 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, my intervention will be only a postscript to this debate. I want to acknowledge that part of my reason for taking part in the debate, but only a part as I shall show, is my appreciation of my noble friend Lord Hale who initiated it. I was in another place with him. Inevitably he should speak in this textile debate, because of his identification with the workers of Oldham whom he represented. Again, he was speaking tonight on behalf of a minority of the population, because he understands the suffering which they have experienced. My noble friend has throughout his whole period in Parliament spoken for minorities so often ignored in political controversy, whose deprivations and sufferings were acute. I think of his championship of the blind in a similar way, and perhaps subjectively I participate in the debate because of my appreciation of that fact.
However, it is not only for that reason. For many years I was the representative in another place not only of Eton, where this problem did not arise very largely, but also of Slough. Slough was known as "South Wales in England" because during the unemployment of the 1930s, with the development of the first trading estate at Slough, Welsh unemployed miners poured into the town. I do not think I was ever more moved at my political surgeries on Saturday mornings than by exminers and their wives—often by their wives alone, because the miners themselves were too ill—who came to me and described the effects of pneumoconiosis.
At that time it was difficult to get even elementary justice for those who suffered in that way. Had they served long enough in the pits? Was their disease really due to dust in the mines, or to bronchitis which occurred through different causes? The struggle which one had then to secure something for those exminers! They had come through the 1930s, they had come from a mining industry where wages were hardly at an existence level, and had come from mines which, compared with today, were almost inhuman

1005
in their working conditions. They had gone through all that, and yet one had to fight case after case. One had to prove whether they had been 19 years in the pit or 20 years, with medical certificates showing how far their disease was due to dust, or due to the social conditions and wretched housing in which they lived. I am glad to have lived until today when their position is so much better. I join with my noble friend Lord Hale in paying tribute not only to this Government—but very largely to this Government—but also to preceding Governments which have contributed to the improvement of their conditions.
My noble friend Lord Hale has asked today that what has been achieved for the miners should be extended to the cotton industry and to those who are working, as the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has reminded us, with asbestos at the dockyards. I will not pretend to have any knowledge at all of Plymouth and its dockyard and asbestosis, but I have a little knowledge of the cotton industry. For many years I lived in Lancashire and went into its mills, and heard the noise and felt the heat and the dust, and I am not surprised that under those conditions industrial diseases should have arisen. The number is not so large as that among the exminers, but it is one of the attributes of my noble friend Lord Hale that he is not concerned so much about the numbers who suffer as about the degree of suffering which occurs.
I listened ignorantly, and, perhaps for that reason, I was more interested in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. She spoke, as I have heard her do in another place, with detailed information and with constructive ideas. But even if the number is smaller in that industry, it is perfectly clear that the conditions of work mean that those who are engaged in it also suffer from this lung disease. She urged that prevention is better even than aid, and of course it is.
In the mining industry, we have seen how conditions have been improved. I think that the same is probably largely true in the cotton industry. The noble Baroness made a plea for preventive measures in that industry and that would be the biggest contribution. But we
1006
must not forget the mines, where the number is dwindling because conditions are better, when we are trying to help the comparatively small numbers in the cotton and asbestos industries. And while we seek prevention we must not forget the conditions of those who are the heirs of failure in the past. I would say this to my noble friend Lord Jacques, who is to reply. Can it possibly be said that what has been done for the miners shall not be done for the cotton and asbestos workers?
As I have listened to this debate my mind has been cast back to earlier years. I wrote the biography of Fred Jowett, parttime worker in the cotton mills at 10 years of age, rising to become a Cabinet Minister. I consulted some of my colleagues in order to try to remember the name of the disease in the woollen industry, the suffering from which he sought to remove. Whenever there was a death from it there was a Question by him in the House of Commons. He was so persistent that that disease, by preventive measures as well as by action on behalf of those who suffered from it at the time, has now disappeared.
I conclude by telling my noble friend Lord Hale that he has made many contributions towards progress in Lancashire, Oldham and Africa, where I have been with him. But by initiating this debate tonight he can be perfectly sure that whatever the reply of the Government, depending upon the present financial conditions, his plea that those who suffer from these industrial diseases in the cotton and asbestos industries will surely ensure they have their needs met. By this plea tonight he will have done something, as he has so often done before, to lift the suffering from those who are the victims and to prevent that suffering arising in the future.
8.57 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I shall not take more than a few moments. I would not have risen but for the fact that my noble friend Lord Jacques cannot catch the train that he planned. The purpose of my rising is that I am passionately interested in the subject of industrial lung diseases. Perhaps more than anyone present in the House tonight, I have lived all my life

1007
among men who have long been concerned with these conditions. My own father died, choking to death, from the dust he inhaled at the colliery. I myself worked for almost 20 years underground, so it will be realised that I have lived with this pneumoconiosis problem practically all my life.
But my real purpose in rising is to congratulate my noble friend Lord Hale on focusing attention not only on pneumoconiosis but on byssinosis and asbestosis. We all know that my noble friend has this streak of human sympathy and kindliness to those who are the victims of industrial disease. He showed this in another place and has continued to show it here. I not only appreciate his efforts but congratulate him on his interest in those who are the victims of industrial diseases.
I believe we shall have a further opportunity in the not too distant future of making longer speeches on this subject when the Coal Industry Bill comes before us, because Clause I of that measure deals with the question of what the Government have done for the miners with pneumoconiosis. I may repeat myself on a future occasion, but I want to say that all sides of the mining industry—the union, the Coal Board and the men in the coalfields—deeply appreciate what this Government have done, apart from the Industrial Injuries Act because benefit in that sphere will continue. This is something which I would describe as damages at Common Law. I will leave it at that, because I might have an opportunity of saying more later. I wanted only to thank my noble friend Lord Hale for focusing attention on industrial lung diseases.
9 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I wish to add my thanks and tribute to those of others to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for bringing this subject before us tonight, but I also rise spontaneously in support of my noble friend Lady Vickers, who made suggestions which were both valuable and practicable from her long experience in this sphere. Her suggestion, which commends itself very much to this side of the House and I hope to the Government, is for the reinforcement of the regulations and for the reinforcement of both the Factory Inspectorate and, a
1008
body which has not been mentioned so far, the Alkaline Inspectorate, a well-respected body which was established nearly 100 years ago. In this connection, I am in the debt of the noble Baroness, Lady White, who arranged for an extremely interesting film to be shown in your Lordships' Committee Rooms some months ago entitled The Right to Know, a film largely concerned with asbestosis. The concluding argument of the film urged the powers that be—Government, Factory Inspectorate, Alkaline Inspectorate and all responsible for the health conditions in industrial circumstances—to enforce the regulations.
It is true to say that conditions vary from one place of work to another, but I commend to the Government what has been commended already, Cmnd. 5443, and I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for the tributes they paid to my right honourable friend Sir Keith Joseph, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services in the last Conservative Government. I had the honour to serve in his Department for a brief period and it was clearly his view that the establishment of that Committee of Inquiry should lead to practical measures. It so happens that it falls to the present Government to bring about legislation and we hope that this will be both speedy and effective.
9.2 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, all noble Lords appreciate the feeling that my noble friend Lord Hale and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, have for their former constituents, something which we all admire. I regret that I cannot give my noble friend the kind of promise which he would like me to give him, but I assure him that I will direct the attention of my right honourable friend not only to the debate but, in particular, to what he said in asking his Question. The Government's Coal Industry Bill was given a Third Reading in another place on 10th April and is due for Second Reading in this House on 8th May. As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield said, Clause 1 provides for the grant of a sum not exceeding £100 million as the Government's contribution towards the National Coal Board's compensation scheme. The Government have no plans

1009
to provide a similar grant to other industries where the circumstances, in the opinion of the Government, are different from those with which the coal industry is faced.
All sufferers from the occupational lung diseases to which my noble friend refers in his Question are able to apply for benefit under the State scheme of National Insurance. Under the State scheme, benefits are paid to 41,000 sufferers from pneumoconiosis, 3,300 sufferers from byssinosis and 800 sufferers from asbestosis. In each case they receive a disablement benefit according to the degree of disablement. This is paid in addition to sickness, invalidity or retirement pension. If the sufferer is unable to follow his regular employment or some equivalent standard of employment, he is entitled to a special hardship allowance. This benefit is paid irrespective of blameworthiness.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I venture to correct my noble friend. The pension is not paid according to the degree of disablement in the case of byssinosis. The sufferer has to establish a minimum degree of byssinosis before he gets it, despite the Minority Report of that Committee by Mr. P. R. A. Jaques, who recommended that pensions should be paid even for 1 per cent. byssinosis, simply because if a man has got the disease he has got it to start with, and it will get worse. I think that at the moment my noble friend will find that no payment is payable for less than a 20 per cent. disablement.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, my information is that if the sufferer can show that he is unable to follow his regular employment or some employment of a similar standard, then he is entitled to the special hardship allowance. As I was saying, this is paid irrespective of blameworthiness; it does not preclude a claim for damages against the employer and the amount of benefit which is paid is not reduced because of any damages. The amounts of the payments are frequently reviewed and the last increase was at the beginning of this month.
I come to the entirely separate question of civil liability for damages. Where it can be shown that the condition of the worker is wholly or in part the fault of
1010
the employer, or any other person, then that is a civil claim for damages against that person. Under the present law, that liability has to be insured and even before compulsory insurance, which dated from 1969, it was certainly the practice of the larger employers to insure. I must, however, add that as a general rule, one-half of the National Insurance benefits which are received by the sufferer are taken into account in assessing any damages.
Regarding the coal industry, following changes in the law arising out of court decisions, particularly those relating to time limits, there were 3,500 outstanding claims for damages against the National Coal Board and it was estimated that there were 39,000 probable claims. The union and the employer negotiated a scheme which in their opinion would save the industry money. It certainly would save tremendous legal expense on the part of both the unions and the employer. In addition to any economy there might be, there was—perhaps more importantly —the absence of delay which such a scheme would give. Consequently, they were encouraged by the Government to enter into negotiations to try to settle this matter in a way which would minimise expense and, at the same time, minimise delay.
The cost of dealing with the backlog of cases is estimated to be £125 million. Because of the financial position of the industry and its importance to the national economy, the Government have undertaken to grant a sum not exceeding £100 million for the purpose of meeting this liability under the scheme. If there are other industries where the circumstances are similar, the initiative must come from the unions and the employers —that is where the initiative came from in the case of the coal industry. But beyond that I cannot, in the present economic circumstances, promise that there will be any money forthcoming from the Government.
My Lords, we have to bear in mind that at the moment a Royal Commission is sitting considering civil liability and compensation for personal injury. It is perfectly true that this Commission has a wideranging inquiry. It is concerned with the whole field of civil liability and compensation for personal injury, but among the questions which it will be

1011
considering is the "no fault" liability of the employer, and it is expected that it will make recommendations. If it makes recommendations in regard to the "no fault" liability of the employer and those recommendations are to be implemented, then it could make radical changes to the Common Law. The Government therefore contemplate that when the Report is received they will find it necessary to review the whole question of benefits under the State scheme and damages which can be expected from the employer. They feel that in the meantime any reconsideration of the State scheme would be unwise, and that that should be deferred until we have the Report of the Royal Commission on civil liability.
So far as the future is concerned, the Government rely very heavily on the Health and Safety at Work Act. The main provisions of this Act came into operation only on the first of this month. It is the intention of the Government, having got this Statute through Parliament, to use it in the way in which it was intended by Parliament to be used: that is to say, something which is not merely on the Statute Book, but which is backed by enforcement administration. In the meantime, extremely useful work is being done by the Joint Standing Committee on health and safety in the cotton industry. In particular, its 1974 Report, in addition to setting hygiene standards for cotton dust, made recommendations for reducing airborne dust levels and called for further research.
At the moment the inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive are very deeply involved in checking cotton factories to see how far the recommendations of the Joint Committee are being carried out, and with a view to enforcing those recommendations. In addition, the Government have, since the 1974 Report of the Joint Standing Committee, financed further research as recommended by that Committee, and that research is being done by the Shirley Institute.
So far as the cotton industry is concerned, the Government are indebted to the employers and the trade unions for the co-operation they have given. We believe that the combined efforts of the Health and Safety at Work Executive, the employers and the trade unions can
1012
make a significant contribution to the reduction of the incidence of byssinosis, and we hope that with the attention that what has been said in this debate may get, we may further safeguard the future, as well as do something for looking after the legacy of those who are at present suffering for past neglect.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I remind him that he has not said much about asbestosis. Is there to be continual research on that? Secondly, what happens to people who develop the symptoms 20 or 30 years afterwards? How are they going to contact the employers and so on? Do they just go to court and try to get the money that way. It is going to be difficult.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have tried to emphasise that there are two distinct issues so far as benefits are concerned. The noble Baroness will admit that this Government and past Governments are not just ignoring the whole thing. They are providing State benefits under the National Insurance Scheme. That is one part. So far as damages against the employer are concerned, there are difficulties. That is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, set up this Committee. It will, among other things, be considering the liability of employers in cases of accidents and disease arising from work.
Lord HALE: My Lords, may I interrupt to put a question which I put before and to which I understood I was going to get a reply? After all this talk about action for tort, has the noble Lord's research department been able to find a single successful action for damages for tort arising out of coal miners' pneumoconiosis or cotton workers' byssinosis in the whole history of industrial diseases? I conceded that there was one in asbestosis, but that was rather a special case. Has there ever been a successful action for tort in the courts?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, my information is that there has been, but not in the case of byssinosis. I will make inquiries and write to the noble Lord.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past nine o'clock.