Lords Sitting of 17 March 1975

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

INDUSTRIAL LUNG DISEASES: BENEFITS
2.37 p.m.
Lord HALE: 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 in making their grant to the Pneumoconiosis Board of supplementary benefits for sufferers from industrial lung disease they excluded provision for those similarly incapacitated by byssinosis and asbestosis.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Balogh said in reply to a Question asked by the noble Lord on 21st November, the Government have made no such grant. The grant to the National Coal Board, recently approved by the House of Commons, relates to the need to offset the initial effect on their overall financial position resulting from their jointly negotiated pneumoconiosis scheme.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the pneumoconiosis scheme includes as industrial diseases other recognised industrial diseases? Having made very special, very important and very praiseworthy provision for miners suffering from lung disease, is my noble friend now saying that he will tell the textile industry and the asbestos industry, "You do not exercise any political power, and your people of seventy can go on dying of lung disease"? Is that really the Statement of Her Majesty's Government in answer to my Question?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there is a misunderstanding. The scheme to which I referred is the scheme which has been
490
negotiated by the National Coal Board and the unions in the coal industry. The scheme to which my noble friend referred is the National Insurance scheme. They are two quite distinct schemes.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the people who are suffering from working in old cotton mills have chest complaints just as severe as those who have worked in any other industry in the land, including mining and asbestos?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, perhaps I should make it clear that a sufferer from industrial disease has the possibility of two claims. First of all, under Common Law he has a claim for compensation against his employer. The employer is obliged by law to insure against that risk. The grant that was made to the National Coal Board was made to the Board as an employer. Secondly, the sufferer has a claim for benefit under National Insurance. At the present time, a Commission is sitting on the National Insurance aspect—the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury. The Government do not intend to carry out any restructuring of the National Insurance scheme until they have received this Report and have had an opportunity to consider it.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, has not the noble Lord unwittingly misled the House? Is it not a fact that the Royal Commission which was set up during the time when I occupied the Woolsack refers to the Common Law claims, and not at all to the insurance claims?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it is in the light of that Commission's Report that the Government will look at the National Insurance scheme. It may well be that the Commission will recommend collectivisation rather than the Common Law claim.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will not the noble Lord reconsider his answer? Is it not a fact that the insurance question is altogether outside the jurisdiction of the Royal Commission? The Royal Commission has to do with Common Law liability. Therefore, the Government cannot be justified in withholding revision of the insurance schemes for

491
industrial injuries pending the result of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability which deals with Common Law damages.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, until the Government know what the Commission will report on civil liability, they do not intend to restructure the National Insurance scheme. If there is to be a change of law in regard to civil claims, it must take into account the future liability.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend realises how disappointing is his reply. It is reminiscent of a reply which was given many years ago in the other place when we were pressing for special treatment for miners suffering from pneumoconiosis. The disease created by asbestos has the same effect upon the lungs as coal dust. I am sorry to say that this kind of reply was given many years ago by our side in the other place. Will my noble friend press the Secretary of State to have another look at asbestosis? Why should sufferers from this disease be treated differently from miners who suffer from the dreadful effect of pneumoconiosis? The effect upon the individual is exactly the same. Surely, therefore, the treatment and benefits should be the same.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the position of the Government in relation to a nationalised industry is different from their position in relation to a profit-making industry. The grant to the National Coal Board was made to the Board as an employer because of the Government's special responsibility to a nationalised industry. If there was to be any help at all to those in private employment it would have to be made under the National Insurance scheme, and restructuring of that will not take place until the Report of the Royal Commission has been received. In the meantime, as the House well knows, benefits and contributions are reviewed from time to time.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, if the Government make any grant to one employer to compensate for pulmonary diseases resulting from the conditions of their work, why is it just that they should refuse to make it to another and simply give the excuse that one is a private employer and the other is a public Board? That seems to me to be a very unjust proceeding, and I hope
492
the Government will have another look at it, particularly in regard to cotton workers.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would point out that employers are obliged to insure against this liability and therefore there is a claim against the insurer. In the case of the National Coal Board there are special circumstances in the sense that this is an industry in which there is a very high incidence of this kind of disease.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, what about cotton?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there was a backlog of 39,000 potential cases; a scheme was agreed in the industry which in the opinion of the employer would save a great deal of public money, and for that reason the Government backed it.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am sorry to be persistent about this, but is not the noble Lord really suffering from an illusion? Is it not the case that an employer is not bound to insure against this particular liability because an employer, whether private or public, is only under a liability to pay damages if he has been at fault? What the noble Lord, Lord Hale, is pressing the Government to do is to extend the benefits of absolute liability beyond the limits of the scheme which the Government have sponsored. Of course the liability of an employer may be changed by the result of the Royal Commission if they move over to a no-fault liability system. But is it not the fact that the noble Lord's answers have now, twice or three times, completely mis-stated the present legal position?
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while I am in sympathy with the Question as it has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Hale, it must not be overlooked that the NUM have been pressing the National Coal Board for a considerable period of time for better consideration in regard to the pneumoconiosis cases that have occurred in the mining industry, which carries a higher incidence rate than any other type of industry, irrespective of what my noble friends on the Privy Council Benches may say to the contrary? The

493
decision that has been arrived at by the Government in regard to these unfortunate people from the mining industry has only met a call for benefit that ought to have been granted years ago to all the people in that industry.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I should like to say two things in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I think he would admit that there has been a duty to insure as from the 1969 Act. For my part I admit that there is a no-fault issue and that is being considered by the Royal Commission.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will not the noble Lord consult with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to some of his answers because I really believe that they were to some extent misleading?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, while clearly this is a matter that will need to be looked at, that is certainly no reflection on my noble friend Lord Jacques. Perhaps I may be allowed to say to the noble and learned Lord that I thought he was a little unfair to question the answers that my noble friend has given in all good faith. The noble Lord does not need to screw up his face when I make that particular reference.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may I—
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will let me finish, this is clearly a matter that ought to be looked into and I will undertake to to that with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I hope the matter can be raised on another occasion, when a considered reply will be given.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, of course I will yield to the noble Leader as to raising this matter further on another occasion, but if he will forgive me for saying so, he really should not get so heated. I acknowledged from the first that the answers, even if inaccurate, were delivered in perfectly good faith; but it seems to me to be a matter of importance that they should not even be inaccurate, and I hope that on consideration the noble Lord will realise that his
494
rather heated interjection was not quite justified.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if anybody gets heated in your Lordships' House I leave it to your Lordships to judge whether it is the noble and learned Lord or myself. However, in the light of my undertaking that this matter, which gives serious concern to all quarters of your Lordships' House, will be looked at, we can then arrange for the matter to be raised and for a considered Answer to be given.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a rather different question on the same subject? A great many men in the Royal Dockyards suffer from asbestosis, and I should like to know whether they will be included in this review.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would say that if the Government receive repre-tations from the appropriate quarter in regard to any of the nationalised industries, they would give to them the same kind of consideration as was given to the coal industry.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it was he who introduced the question of the Pearson Commission, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who very accurately stated the position in law in relation to the Pearson Commission? Is the noble Lord further aware that, even if this very distinguished Royal Commission has been asked to look at the question of actions in tort, as I understand was stated in another place last Friday, to anyone with any knowledge of this industry it really is quite ludicrous to say that even this distinguished Commission can provide some machinery to enable a dying man of 72, supported by his union, to bring an action for tort in respect of medical conditions which were not even known at the inception of the scheduling of industrial diseases, against mills which went bankrupt many years ago?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I said that the Government preferred to look at any restructuring of the National Insurance scheme after they had received the Report of the Royal Commission. Clearly, the Report of that Commission could have some bearing on what should be provided for in the National Insurance scheme.

BUSINESS RENTS: DECONTROL
2.52 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In asking this Question, it is proper that I should disclose an indirect personal interest in the subject matter of the Question, in that I am an honorary director of a firm called Tribune Publications which has recently suffered a 500 per cent. increase in rent. This fact, however, was not the reason for asking the Question.
The Questions was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to assist small concerns, including the self-employed who, in numerous instances, may be forced out of business as a result of the decontrol of business rents provided for in the Counter-Inflation (Business Rents) (Decontrol) Order 1975 (S.I. 1975 No. 21).
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is just as controversial! No special steps are called for to assist small businesses as a result of this measure, but a wide measure of protection is available under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The effects of the decontrol of business rents have been grossly exaggerated.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as a result of this Statutory Instrument, in effect a further £250 million per annum has been released to the property market? Is he also aware that small firms, just as much as large, can find themselves with liquidity problems? The small firms are just as much entitled to the facilities of the Industry Act 1972 as are the larger industries.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first of all, the only rents affected are those caught in the 21 years of the freeze. Less than one third of the business rents have been affected. Secondly, there is wide protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954; for example, if the parties cannot agree on a renewal of lease, then the court has the power to fix the rent. Finally, rent is an allowable expense under the Prices Code.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this Question by no means exaggerates the effect of the rent increase that is now permitted? Is he further aware that it will cost Her Majesty's Government £6 million per annum in respect of their own rented properties?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Government, in their wisdom, felt the time had come when there should be greater freedom in the property market, because the freeze was having effects which were not anticipated. In particular, it was having an effect on investments through pension funds and the like.

MR. SHELEPIN: VISA APPLICATION
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice, which I understand reproduces a similar Question in another place, namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking consequent upon the application to our Embassy in Moscow for a visa to enable Mr. Shelepin to visit this country?"
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will answer this Question in the form of a Statement. This will be followed by a Statement to be repeated by my noble friend Lord Beswick on the aircraft and shipbuilding industry.

CEREMONY OF INTRODUCTION
2.55 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN Lord RAGLAN rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to place her prerogative and interest so far as they may be concerned at the disposal of the House of Lords for the purpose of the consideration of alterations in the ceremony of Introduction by a Select Committee. The noble Lord said: My Lords, there have been two other attempts in the past 11 years to alter our present Introduction ceremony. In response to

497
pressures, the Procedure Committee considered the matter in 1964, and again in 1971. Although on both occasions they decided not to recommend any change, the fact that they considered the matter at all shows that disaffection within the House with the ceremony, or at any rate with parts of it, especially since the Life Peerages Act 1958, is by no means new, although this is the first time the House as a whole has discussed it.
My Lords, I make no secret of the fact that when I set down this Motion, I was an abolitionist. I think I should still prefer our ceremony to be replaced by a simpler one, with sponsors but without robes, such as takes place in another place when a new Member enters after a by-election. But I have had so many representations from noble Lords of all shades of political opinion against such a radical change, and for retaining what pageantry we have, that I have come to the view that the best course I can suggest to your Lordships is that we should endeavour to obtain general agreement on a change in the present ceremony such as would make it more or less acceptable to everyone. That is a situation which—so far as my inquiries have revealed—is very far from being the case at the present time.
I should say straightaway that the part of the ceremony to which I take most objection—and which originally prompted me to take action—is when the new Peer with his supporters ascends the steps to the rear-most Bench and then, marshalled by the Herald they three times sit, rise and doff their hats towards the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. That scene strikes me as appearing very comic and, indeed, absurd. The whole ceremony has an ancient ancestry, but, before I go briefly into such details of its history as I think most relevant to the debate, I should describe the ceremony as it takes place at the moment, both for the Record and for the benefit of those noble Lords who, like myself before I looked it up, may not be quite sure of the significance of what we are witnessing.
My Lords, for my description of the ceremony and of its history, I am very greatly indebted to a treatise of limited offprint, written by Mr. John Sainty, at present our Reading Clerk, and Sir Anthony Wagner, Garter King of Arms. Discovering how little was known about the ceremony at the time of the delibe-
498
rations in 1964 of the Procedure Committee, they set themselves to discover what they could about the ceremony. For those of your Lordships interested in learning about the origins of the ceremony, there is a bound copy of the treatise in the Library. If I may say so, it is a model of antiquarian research. I ask leave to quote their description verbatim, but before doing so, I should say that the ceremony applies only to Peers on creation, and not to those on succession, so strictly speaking the ceremony is a recognition of a Peerage and not of a Peer. Not for about 600 years has a Peer by succession gone through the Introduction ceremony. Perhaps that is one thing your Lordships might consider changing.
However, I will now, with your Lordships' leave, read a description of the Introduction ceremony. What happens is this :
"A procession in single file forms up outside the Chamber, led by two Officers of the Order of the Garter, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, with his Black Rod in his right hand, and Garter King of Arms wearing his tabard with his silver gilt rod or sceptre of office, with its enamelled armorial head or banner in his right hand and the new peer's patent of creation in his left. Next, if they care to be present, come two hereditary Great Officers of State, the Earl Marshal with his Baton and the Lord Great Chamberlain with his White Staff. They are followed by the new peer with two existing peers of his rank as supporters or sponsors, the junior in front and the senior behind him. All carry cocked hats in their left hands and wear their parliamentary robes. The new peer carries his writ of summons in his right hand.
On reaching the Bar of the House, each in succession bows to the Cloth of Estate—that is, to the position which the sovereign, if present, would occupy. The procession then passes up the temporal side of the House, the bows being repeated as each reaches the Table and again at the Judges' Woolsacks. At the Woolsack the new peer kneels and presents his writ to the Lord Chancellor, while Garter presents his Patent. All then return to the Table where the Reading Clerk reads the Patent and Writ and the new peer takes the Oath of Allegiance and signs the Roll. The procession then moves on, each, as he crosses the Chamber on the way, stopping and bowing to the Cloth of Estate.
"Garter now conducts the peer and his supporters to the bench appropriate to their degree, where at Garter's direction they sit, put on their hats, rise and bow to the Chancellor three times, remaining uncovered after the last bow, while the Chancellor, seated on the Woolsack, returns their salutations. The procession then once more passes up the

499
temporal side of the House, bowing at the appointed places as before. The Lord Chancellor shakes hands with the new peer from the Woolsack and all pass out of the Chamber."
My Lords, this ceremony is a concoction, or to put it more elegantly a conflation, which incorporates elements from two older ceremonies, which are the investiture of Peers by the Sovereign on first creation and the placing of a Peer, whether on creation or succession, by Garter King of Arms. It is worth remarking that at one time the Clerk of the Parliaments used to collect a fee for the issuing of the Writ, and Garter's perks for his part at one time were the robes or habiliments worn by the new Peer which were changed for the Parliamentary robes before investiture. All fees were finally abolished in 1904.
In the early Middle Ages only Barons—who of course represent the only kind of Peerage which is being created at the moment—had Writs of Summons; they were considered quite different kinds of animals from Earls, and later Marquesses and Dukes, who were created by a Patent and went through a girding and investiture procedure. In time, however, Barons acquired the right to Patent and investiture. The first creation of a barony by Patent was apparently in 1387, though this did not become a regular custom until 100 years later, and the earliest surviving description of a Baron's investiture dates from 1524.
It seems clear that up to the time of the death of King Henry V in 1422—that is, about 40 years after the first creation of a Barony by Patent—the investiture and even the placing of a Peer was done by the Sovereign, sometimes in person in front of Parliament. In other words, the creating of Peers was seen as being closely connected with, if not inseparable from, the working of Parliament. But after that date, from the beginning of the reign of King Henry VI, right up to the time of James I Peerages were seen much more as being personal honours dispensed by the Sovereign, and investitures took place whenever the Sovereign had a fancy and wherever he thought it might be they could all have a pleasant party. Henry VI liked using Windsor, Richard III liked the Tower of London, and Henry VIII liked Greenwich or Hampton Court. In
500
any case, our present Introduction ceremony contains some elements of court procedure developed in those days, and that is why on advice it was considered proper to couch today's Motion in the terms in which it is before your Lordships, because, anyway theoretically, the Sovereign still retains an interest in it.
I am bound to say that reading the description of these old Introduction ceremonies I have been struck not only by the many variations but by the apparent ingenuity with which the persons concerned applied themselves to inventing variations which seemed appropriate to the Peer and to the occasion. It is since the year 1621 that we have had the present repetitively identical procedure. What seems to have happened then, in the time of James I, was this. He was not fond of Parliament. He was short of money and he was stuck for means of raising some. As your Lordships know, he invented baronetcies and sold them, and Peerages came a little dearer. It is probable, being a sensitive man, that he could not stand the Writs and Patents of these Peerages being read out in front of him, so he sent them along to be read out in front of Parliament.
Sir Francis Bacon, it is recorded, proposed in 1617 that the ceremony should be changed, describing himself as unceremonious in nature, though that did not prevent him from organising the whole panoply of works for himself when he was himself made the Earl of Verulam in 1624. As I said, the new procedure, which abolished the investiture, dates almost entirely consistently as it is from 1620–21. It was, as the authors of this little treatise I have mentioned point out, devised to meet a new situation.
What I am submitting to your Lord- ships this afternoon is that after an inter- val of 350 years or so we have also encountered a new situation. Since 1958 and the Life Peerages Act, there have been 439 creations, an average of about 24 a year, which is a considerable increase on what went before. The ceremony takes 10 or 12 minutes, and that means that the House has spent in the last 18 years at least 73 hours over introductions. One can say that that is not much considering what we spend on other things, and that anyway the House should not and must not grudge the time spent in welcoming

501
new Member. Nevertheless, I think that the ceremony should not be of such a nature that the House becomes restive during it. A shorter ceremony need not at all be less solemn to participants and spectators, and in fact it might encourage more people to watch.
The fact that Peers are necessarily created in batches, and that at certain times of the year there are many Introductions and at other times none, also aggravates the situation. But what is surely vital in any ceremony is that it should be seen to be relevant and appropriate to the times and circumstances, and should meet the approbation of everyone. I take the point that the receiving of a Peerage is frequently the crowning point in a person's career; that he or she looks forward to the ceremony and to having friends to luncheon beforehand in the Dining Room, and to watch the ceremony from the galleries. If one agrees all that and endorses it, it nevertheless remains a fact that the ceremony should not be, or appear to be, over-long and that by no means should any part of it be open to ridicule.
I return to the question of that part where a visit is paid to the Back Bench. In the first place, I suggest that it is no longer relevant. The Peer and his supporters go there because once it was the Barons' Bench and thereby we are maintaining a distinction between ranks, which is no longer made in any other of your Lordships' activities. Indeed, it is axiomatic that all Peers are equal. Secondly, for a very practical reason, it is an awkward business climbing steps in unaccustomed robes. Thirdly, no one knows why a bow is taken three times, but the authors I have already quoted hazard what seems to be the most likely guess, that "three" has the greatest antiquity, being a magic number, and they give several examples, including a Roman formula against gout which was repeated 27 times; that is, three times three times three, to make it the most efficacious. Fourthly, in my submission, the ceremony at that point looks utterly ridiculous. It seems to me that it would be advantageous to remove that part of the ceremony. Instead of that place in the ceremony, we could have, say, one concerted elegant bow and doffing from the Floor of the House. There is no lack of talent and ingenuity, I am sure, in inventing
502
pageantry and I should be delighted to offer my services as a designer.
I make one more short point before I end, and I have been a long time. I suggest that the fact that both the Writ and Patent are read out detracts somewhat from the impact of both. Both are couched in quaint language, but the language of the Patent is nevertheless beautiful, and, in its way, to my ears, musical. So perhaps the Committee will consider that point of not reading the Writ which again, I suggest, would both shorten and improve the ceremony. When I set down the Motion for debate, I had the idea of asking the House to send the matter to a Select Committee. However, I am assured that there is no need of a special Committee and that the House already has machinery very adequately capable of coping. So in the past week I have amended the Motion accordingly. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, will therefore not press his Amendment this afternoon, so that the Committee may be given the opportunity of considering all the aspects of the Introduction ceremony and reporting to the House after taking note of all that your Lordships have to say about it this afternoon. I hope that the eventual outcome of the debate will be that we shall have a ceremony that is both shorter and more dignified. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to place her prerogative and interest so far as they may be concerned at the disposal of the House of Lords for the purpose of the consideration of alterations in the ceremony of Introduction by a Select Committee.—(Lord Raglan.)
3.14 p.m.
Lord DENHAM Lord DENHAM rose to move, As an Amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after ("That") in line 1, and insert ("this House has no desire to change the ceremony of Introduction."). The noble Lord said: My Lords, we like to think that it is one of our national characteristics to feel that, if there is a job to be done, it should be done well and with the least possible distraction and fuss. And it is this, no doubt, that prompted the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, to move his Motion this afternoon. But it is also a national characteristic of ours that on occasion we like

503
to relax a little over some traditional ceremony for which slightly out-of-the-ordinary clothes, appropriate to the occasion, may be worn. We all love dressing up. You have only to see the crowds at a Cup-tie football match to realise that. If we cannot dress up ourselves, the next best thing is to watch other people doing it; and who will say that the relaxation we get from this does not give us a little more interest, a little more zest, and thereby a little more efficiency when we get down to the job in hand? Yet after three and a half centuries the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and others, would have us scrap our Introduction ceremony in its traditional form. Would they also do away with the Changing of the Guard, Trooping the Colour, the Ceremony of the Keys, all in the hope of achieving a greater sense of urgency, a puritanical atmosphere of austerity in this relentless modern world? Is there to be no colour left in life?
"Dost think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale"?
This is an emotional argument, I freely admit it, but a touch of emotion here and there is no bad thing, and there are two practical reasons for keeping the Introduction ceremony unchanged. The first is that there is not the glamour attaching to the proceedings of your Lordships' House that they have in another place. Great issues that will affect the lives of every man, woman and child in the country for years to come are not decided here. We have no sensational clashes between political personalities whose names are household words. The work we do is more reasoned, more detailed, and, on the face of it, more dull. But for all that, it is none the less important that it should be done and that it should be seen to be done. We have not got the ear of the Press, but we have got a public gallery and it is vital that it should be used, and used to the full.
What attractions have we to offer to achieve this end? We are nothing much to look at! Most of us are not very young any more. We are not very exciting to listen to, and many of us are no great orators. But we do have ceremony —colourful, dignified and valid through generations of unbroken tradition; and any public relations man in the Kingdom
504
who is worth his salt would say we were mad even to consider giving up any part of it.
The second reason is every bit as important. Your Lordships' House is unique among the Parliamentary Chambers of the world, in two ways: first, for the elasticity of our Rules of Order and the fact that having no Speaker we have to enforce what Rules there are ourselves; and, secondly, for the fact that there are no standards laid down as to how often, or for how long, we should attend. All this must seem strange to newly-created Peers, a large proportion of whom have lived for years under the discipline of the Speaker and the Party Whips in another place. The Introduction ceremony is more than a meaningless pageant. For a new Peer it is an initiation, under the guidance of his supporters, into the essential mysteries of your Lordships' House. Bowing to the Cloth of Estate signifies his allegiance; taking his hat off, three times, to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and the Lord Chancellor, with equal deference, removing his hat three times in return, illustrates the somewhat nebulous function of that Office, as the symbol, but not the enforcer, of order. The reading out loud of the Letters Patent, followed by the Writ of Summons, makes it clear to him that the giving and receiving of a Peerage is a two-way contract. From the Letters Patent he receives,
"… all the rights, privileges, pre-eminences, immunities, and advantages, to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or as they do at present use and enjoy ".
Whereas the Writ of Summons tells him what is expected from him in return; namely, in view of
"the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending (waiving all excuses) you be personally present at Our aforesaid Parliament to treat and give your counsel."
And, my Lords, the bargain is sealed by the Oath or affirmation of allegiance. Above all, taking part in the ritual ceremony on his first appearance in your Lordships' Chamber is of itself an act of conformity to the traditions of the House.
All of this the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, would have us put at risk to save time. To save how much time? The present ceremony takes about ten minutes.

505
The modified version, something along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, streamlined or emasculated, depending on whether you look at it from his view point or from mine, would take at least five. A saving of five minutes, perhaps ten if there are two Introductions on one day. To save time for what? If the day's business were to take ten minutes less would more Peers who have taken part in the debate sit through the bulk of the speeches, as they are enjoined to do by the Companion to Standing Orders? If the House were to rise ten minutes earlier would more Peers remain until the end, as they are similarly enjoined? How much time would it in fact save? It has been my experience that the earlier the hour the longer are the speeches. It is by no means safe to assume that if a particular debate were to start ten minutes earlier it would also finish ten minutes earlier.
My Lords, I am all for saving Parliamentary time in your Lordships' House. Over the past 14 years I have probably remained in the Palace of Westminster after the rising of the House as often as have most of your Lordships, so I have a vested interest. But if your Lordships really want to save an appreciable amount of time, and in doing so to enhance and not detract from the character of the House, the remedy is in your own hands and needs no humble Address. Purely for my own interest I have compiled a list, which I have here, of the occasions in this Parliament and the last on which those of your Lordships who have signified your intention of taking part in the debate have made speeches lasting for longer than 15 minutes. My Lords, can any noble Lord put his hand on his heart and say that he has ever made a speech in this House lasting for longer than 15 minutes which would not have been vastly improved by being at least five minutes shorter? Your Lordships are being asked to tackle the mote and to ignore the beam.
My Lords, I cannot accept that the Introduction ceremony is comic and absurd or open to ridicule. I cannot accept that because it dates only from 1621 it is a modern innovation, hardly worth preserving. I cannot accept that it is a waste of time. Furthermore, I do not believe that it is possible to make
506
any cuts in the ceremony without removing much of its point and therefore leading inevitably to its eventual abolition; and if any noble Lord in any part of this House agrees with me I would ask for his support in the Division Lobby this afternoon. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, As an Amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after ("That") in line 1, and insert ("this House has no desire to change the ceremony of Introduction.")—(Lord Denham.)
3.25 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I would go quite a long way with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, but I wish to dispute the premises on which I think his argument is based. If we are—as I think a good many of us are from time to time— somewhat disenchanted with this ancient ceremony it is, in my view, not because of the ceremony but because of its frequency. This is the point which I particularly wish to make in what I hope will be only a short speech. If we had to listen willy-nilly to the Beethoven Violin Concerto twice a week played always by the same people, we might get a little bored even with the music of that standard. But I suggest that we should not therefore say that Beethoven must be brought up to date and the Violin Concerto pruned to a large extent to fit in with modem society. We would say, "Why are we having the same music so frequently?"
What are the facts? Averages are always misleading. I think the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said—though I must confess that I lost the thread at that moment—that on average 24 new Peers had been created since the Life Peerages Act of, I think, 1958. It is not a matter of averaging.
Several Noble Lords: Twenty-four every year.
Lord PLATT: Yes, every year. The real figures—though they may not be absolutely accurate—are these. In 1974 there were 118 Sittings of this House and according to Vacher 58 new Peerages were created. A little calculation shows that there was one Introduction ceremony about every other Sitting day, or roughly two every week. In addition, of course, we accumulated a few Peers by succession which would add to the numbers

507
and there may have been one or two deaths, but roughly speaking we were introducing two new Peers a week. I think it is correct to say that in 1973 eight new Peers were created, though some may have died. In 1972 11 new Peers were created, so that the average taken over those three years would not give us much idea of the state we are in at present.
I hope your Lordships will forgive my enlarging on this a little further, but it is not irrelevant to my vote because whether or not we are disenchanted it is important to know whether it is with the ceremony itself or merely with its frequency. If this undesirable practice of creating so many Peers in one year continued I would vote strongly on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. I must explain the word "undesirable". This does not in any way refer to any single one of these 58 new Peers who, individually, I am sure—and as many already know very well—are men of distinction, culture and erudition with many varied interests and worthy members of our society. Ours is a unique society; it has its own manners and customs. Most new Peers quickly become assimilated and rapidly appreciate the warmth of feeling and the various interests of this House.
But whereas we are a society of a few hundred—because, in a way, that is all we are (last year or the year before we sat down at Question Time with an average of 262 people in the House and there are perhaps 300 or 400 regular attenders)—and could readily assimilate 10 or perhaps 20 new Members a year, 60 becomes just about impossible without being in real danger of destroying some of the atmosphere of this place. There are so many new faces, the place tends to be crowded and one cannot find a place in the car park if one arrives after about 12 o'clock. While there are many new Peers who find no difficulty in acclimatising themselves to a new society, when they arrive in bundles of 12, especially if they all come from the same prep school, they tend to club together. This is only natural— they say, "Here are people I have known for many years; the others are strangers to me "— but there is a danger of the formation of cliques which, again, is against the traditions of this House.
508
I wish to make it clear that I am not referring to any individual in any way. My real plea is that, through either the usual channels or, possibly, the unusual channels, the information should be passed to the present Prime Minister— and any future Prime Minister—that, with a society like ours, it is unwise to bring in too many Members within a limited period of time. That is my thesis, but which side I shall vote for I have not yet decided.
3.31 p.m.
Lord CUDLIPP: My Lords, I trust Chat your Lordships will bear with me, almost the newest of the new boys, while I make some modest observations on this interesting debate. All my life, like many others in this House, I have advocated change and reform, but curiously enough not on this occasion; I cannot conceive that any noble Lord or noble Baroness will consider a maiden speech in favour of the traditions of this House unduly provocative.
A tradition is no longer a tradition if it is curtailed, embellished or mutilated in any way to flatter or appease the passing fads or fancies of a hurrying, impatient age. If we tamper with our national ceremonials to the chagrin of our greatest growth industry, the tourist trade, the dilemma which arises is precisely where to draw the line. It is, I feel, a choice of all, authentically all, or nothing— of keeping the Parliamentary traditions as they are, and as they have been for centuries, or sweeping them away entirely in favour of some totally new concept. Bow once to the Lord Chancellor, or twice instead of thrice? Or not to bow at all. I am sure that no noble Lord would approve of sending the Lord Chancellor to Coventry. The bows are symbolic, and I am sure that it is not simply a matter of bowing once to the Labour Party, once to the Tories and once to the Liberals. I might mention in passing that my studies of the little red book, the Companion, indicate that a new Lord Chancellor on Introduction bows five times to the Cloth of Estate and salutes the Cloth of Estate six times, a total of 11. A new Peer bows six times to the Cloth of Estate and four times to the Lord Chancellor, a total of 10. I have heard of no complaints from the present

509
Lord Chancellor or any of his predecessors of their even more exacting obligations. Once we tamper with the ceremonial we surely disturb a whole host of ghosts. We bow to the Mace in procession as a symbol of the authority of the Sovereign. Should we, when we have truncated the introduction ceremony, save even further time by bowing only once or twice a week to the Mace? Should the House adjourn or should it go on for ever on a three-shift basis? If the House never closed, like that renowned wartime theatre, it need never be opened, and then the traditional Opening of a new Session by Her Majesty the Queen could also be dispensed with. The time-honoured phrase at the conclusion of debate, " As many are as of that opinion will say Content. To the contrary Not-Content ", could be reduced a time-saving "Yep" or "Nope".
Once we start, where do we stop? There are other spheres of national pageantry which would then rekindle our reforming zeal. Similar notions arise, of course, in the courts. There are those who wish to dispense with the majesty and panoply of the law and turn the Courts of Justice of England into some kind of Perry Mason TV tribunal, in which the law is not only an ass but appears to be so. I submit that there is no in-between course.
As a young reporter in Wales, I was always impressed by the arrival of the judges of Assize in Cardiff. They were driven to the law courts in the Lord Mayor's coach and then they walked up the steps of the law courts in stately pro-cession heralded by a fanfare of trumpets. This to me at that young age was seeing justice being done. Would I have been so impressed if the judges had arrived in a mini-car and dashed up the steps two at a time smoking cigarettes? We either have our judges wearing the traditional wig or no wig at all. We cannot give them all a military-style short back and sides or, worse still, trim or lengthen the horsehair to the fashion of the day set by the ageing Mick Jagger or the even more ageing Beatles.
Would we then be invited to revise some of our other ceremonials, like Trooping the Colour? Is the time even right for some jaunty changes in the Changing of the Guard? Should the massed bands be seditiously persuaded,
510
after a certain amount of practice at over-time rates, to Beat Retreat at the double? It would certainly save time. With respect to my noble friend Lord Raglan, I favour leaving well alone so far as the traditional ceremonial of Parliament is concerned, including the tradition of new Peers. Otherwise there is a danger that maiden speeches might be abolished at a stroke or that new Peers might be baptised en masse once a year.
3.38 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of TNCHRYE: My Lords, the privilege falls to me of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Cudlipp, on a most admirable, humourous and forceful maiden speech. It gives me particular pleasure, because he is an old friend of mine, to be able to say in this House that we look forward immensely to further contributions from him.
I rise to support wholeheartedly the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Denham, but so much has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Cudlipp, and other noble Lords that there is little need for anyone to counter by argument the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who was somewhat optimistic when he said that he was dissatisfied with the ceremony and wanted a change which would please all. No change will please all, because even if I were a minority of one I would be against any change from the present ceremony. I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House for just on 30 years, from the time when I came from another place, and I have seen many introductions and many changes. Probably the biggest change I have seen is the admirable Life Peerages Act which has reinvigorated your Lordships' House, which has given us debates when contention is introduced and which has, I believe, improved the standing and respect in the country of this assembly. But I am glad to say that during those 30 years I have seen no change in the Introduction ceremony which, as the noble Lord, Lord Cudlipp, said, is closely linked with history.
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, wishes to ignore the value of tradition and history. The noble Lord who has just spoken and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, stressed the value of pageantry and the beauty— and I say that

511
advisedly—of the present ceremony. My Lords, what does a new Peer feel? He, his family, his relations and friends must either feel that he is at the pinnacle of a distinguished career in some different walk of life or, if he has come from an-other place, must feel that it is the hall-mark of respect for success there, and that it is giving him an opportunity still further to continue in public service. Do not let us disparage history nor slip into a state of affairs in which all people will lead equal lives, and lives which are dreary and without colour or glamour.
There was a suggestion in another place some time ago that Mr. Speaker should no longer wear a wig and gown and that the Clerks at the Table in another place should no longer wear the appropriate dress for their office. It seems to me that, in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, there was a symptom of that wish that nobody should be any different from anybody else, and that if everybody cannot have something, no-body should have it. To me, that is a dreadful and dreary philosophy. Thank goodness!, we in this House do not sub-scribe to that philosophy and, as long as this House continues—which I hope will for many years—I pray that we shall keep this beautiful ceremony as it is.

MR. SHELEPIN: VISA APPLICATION
3.42 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I will, if I may, repeat the Answer given to a Private Notice Question in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. My right honourable friend was asked what action he is taking consequent upon the application to our Embassy in Moscow for a visa to enable Mr. Shelepin to visit this country. My right honourable friend answered this Question in the following terms:
"Mr. Shelepin has applied for a visa to enable him to lead a Soviet trade union delegation to this country for a short period for discussions with members of the Trades Union Congress. After careful consideration, I can find no ground on which it would be proper
512
for me to refuse this application. The power vested in me to refuse an applicant whose presence would not be conducive to the public good should be used only to safeguard national interests and not to express moral approval or disapproval of a particular person or a particular visit. I have therefore granted the application."
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am sure that the usual channels were right to stimulate me to ask an unoriginal Question in your Lordships' House in order to achieve an unoriginal Answer. I think I can say that we on this side of the House would accept the decision of the Home Secretary for the reasons he has given, but is there not perhaps a danger of another kind? It may be that people will suppose, simply because we are all anxious for comparable institutions to have cultural exchanges with one another across the Iron Curtain, that the trade union movement in the Iron Curtain countries is analogous to our own trade union movement. Should not that danger be avoided as, on the other side of the Iron Curtain, the trade union movement apparently eschews—possibly under legal sanctions—all kinds of industrial action and forms, so it would seem, a ladder of promotion to the secret police in order to achieve its highest pinnacles?
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we also accept the decision announced in this Answer? Does he not agree that, whatever may be thought of the TUC's judgment in inviting a person who is so highly controversial and who is, in any case, not a real trade unionist, it would be entirely contrary to the democratic traditions of this country to refuse a visa to a person because of the office which he holds or the regime which he represents, and that any such decision would set an extremely dangerous precedent for the future, when a Home Secretary might conceivably decide that other persons whom we would wish to see in this country were denied entry?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as my right honourable friend indicated in his reply, his decision to grant a visa in no way implies approval or disapproval of the person to whom the visa is to be granted. That is the only

513
decision which he felt it necessary to take at this moment.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: Does the noble Lord not agree that it is necessary that people of this type should be allowed to come to this country, in order to see something a little different from what they have at home? Would it not be a very good idea if Mr. Shelepin were taken round to see some of our democratic institutions, and if it were pointed out to him that the workers of this country have their own opinions, which are not necessarily those of the Government of the day? For example, and remembering history, perhaps he could be taken to see Barclay Perkins' brewery.
The noble Lord may recall that on 5th September 1850, a certain General Haynau—an Austrian police general who had been particularly brutal in Hungary —was taken to Barclay Perkins' brewery where the workers of the place, on discovering his identity, threw mud at him, chased him down the street with horsewhips and tore off his moustache. He then took refuge in a pub and asked for a brandy, but the publican refused to serve him. Does the noble Lord recall that, after certain understandable protests by the Austrian Embassy, a public meeting was called by a newspaper? I do not know its political colour, but it was called the Red Republican. The meeting was addressed by Mr. Engels and the workers of Barclay Perkins were thanked for their public spirit. Does the noble Lord not think it would be a good idea if Mr. Shelepin were told that the workers of this country have their own opinions?
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, though we can do nothing else but approve the Home Secretary's decision, those of us who have spent our lives in the trade union movement, and who have borne the heat and burden of the day in its cause, view this visit with no pleasure whatever and, indeed, with a degree of disgust?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, dealing with the first question, my right honourable friend is in no way responsible for the itinerary of Mr. Shelepin while he is in this country. That is a matter for the Trades Union Congress
514
and I am sure that they will take account of what the noble Viscount has said.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there appears to have been a misunderstanding? Surely, this is not a personal invitation? It happens that Mr. Shelepin is the leader of a party of people, who are coming as a party and not as individuals.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I follow the question of my noble friend Lord Pannell by asking whether it is not important for us that a man of this nature, who has committed such terrible crimes —and there is no denying that—should have it made clear to him—
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment in order to ask the Leader of the House whether it is in order—whatever may be our feelings about this individual—to make a statement here that he has been responsible for terrible crimes? Surely, this is something which, whatever may be the truth or the background or our preju-dice or ideas, is not in accordance with the traditions of this House.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have not had a chance to look at the Companion to the Standing Orders, but I think I should agree with the noble Lord, that it is contrary to our traditions to use language of that kind. I did not interrupt, but I was wondering how my noble friend was going to proceed. I think that we should exercise care and, as has just been recognised, this individual is coming here as part of a delegation from a country with which we are seeking to extend our connection. We must look to the end, and not to the immediate future.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, if one is not permitted in this House to refer to matters which are generally known, may I put my point in this way? Is it not important that a person of this nature who was connected with the KGB, and who performed certain actions which we would not consider highly proper— to put it in the lowest possible way— should be made aware from the Government sources, while he is here, of the fact that that kind of conduct is not desirable?
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I put it in a slightly different way? Would

515
the Government assure us that they will keep the public informed and, perfectly politely, keep their visitor informed that no institution in this country has any-thing like the powers possessed by the institution over which our guest at one time presided? I put it in this way because there have been allegations that, in some way or other, institutions here do something comparable to that over which the visitor has presided.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, a number of bodies have indicated that they propose to demon-strate peacefully if Mr. Shelepin comes to this country. If he does in fact come to this country, as we expect him to do, no doubt he will have the opportunity of seeing that people in this country have the right to demonstrate peacefully, and I should have thought that that would probably be desirable.

CEREMONY OF INTRODUCTION
3.52 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to me to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Cudlipp, on his maiden speech, forceful and traditionalist as it was. It is a remarkable tribute to the powers of your Lordships' House that almost our newest Member should now be the arch guardian of our traditions. 1 hope that the noble Lord, whose voice has been heard directly or indirectly throughout the length and breadth of this land, and even far beyond, will not now be disappointed that he might be exchanging a much larger audience for a smaller one. I should like to assure him that in his future contributions, to which we look forward with such pleasure, he will at least have an equally appreciative audience. I do not like to say that he will be exchanging quantity for quality, but we shall at least offer appreciation and we look forward to hearing him again.
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Raglan, who I think cannot be accused of trying to throw away the
516
inherited traditions of this House. Surely this is the last place where we should despise tradition? What I regard as somewhat unfair inferences have been drawn from his very modest proposal— such as that he proposes to reduce our life to an equalitarian monotony in which we should all live the same way and not have any gaiety, or any pageantry or celebrations. This is not at all the case. We all recognise that this ceremony has a very long history behind it— a long and rather complex history— and we should not like to treat that history with con-tempt. This House is not contemptuous of history; it would have been dead and abolished long ago if it had been. But we must make some moves with the times. We recognise that for each new Peer the ceremony of Introduction is a great occasion; an occasion for celebration. We welcome that, and that we should like to continue. Those of us who were the first of the Life Peers, and the first to have this experience in that capacity, appreciate that feeling especially. I personally am not particularly concerned about the time occupied, although it may get a little tedious. I know of only one other institution which is as profligate in its use of time as this one—I need hardly say that I refer to the other place, which I think runs us very close in that respect, if it does not even beat us.
It is not so much a question of the time; but it is also true, as one or two noble Lords have said, that as this ceremony is repeated and repeated noble Lords sometimes get a little tired of it. This means that when a new Peer arrives, probably the audience is composed in far too great a proportion of those who are merely his personal friends or who have had some contact with him, and he does not get the general welcome from the community as a whole that we would wish him to have, merely because their Lordships get a little tired of repeating endlessly this welcome for people whom they do not know. If we had a rather shorter ceremony, or perhaps even no ceremony at all, or something much simpler, we should all be more likely to come in, take our part, and, as we would wish, welcome our new colleagues as they arrive.

517
We need to recognise that all pageantry teeters on a very narrow brink between the impressive and the ridiculous. My noble friend Lord Raglan feels, as I and a number of my colleagues feel— that this ceremony teeters very dangerously on that brink. There is one point where I should say that it actually falls over into the abyss of the ludicrous. Here I agree with my noble friend Lord Raglan when referring to the point at which we engage in what I like to call the "hat work". The "hat work" is not creditable to our image. We are a serious body; we are engaged, we suppose, in doing public work which we think to be of some importance. But we do not want to present an image to the world of an archaic survival engaged only in rituals which have long since lost any significance or meaning. In fact we did not know the origins of any of them— at least most of us did not— until my noble friend Lord Raglan told us about them. There-fore, my Lords, in the interests of out image and in the interests of keeping on the right side of the dangers of the ludicrous, I would support my noble friend.
3.57 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, I should like to joint the previous speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Cudlipp, on his maiden speech. As I listened to him, I felt one of three factors might be responsible for the line which he took. The first factor was that your Lordships' House had exercised with lightning rapidity its well-known powers of persuasion and traction and had brought him to understand our magic, to which my noble friend referred, within a matter of days after his entry to the House. Secondly, perhaps, that he was on the wrong Benches and should have been on this side of the House; or, thirdly, that he was pulling your Lord-ships' collective leg. Anyhow, I join with others in saying how very much I look forward to hearing him again and reading tomorrow the account of his speech, and possibly of this debate, in one or other of the organs of the British Press.
My Lords, I support the Motion and I support the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, on this matter. When we are considering the preservation of our traditions, ceremony and otherwise, we should be careful about not only what appeals to us—
518
and appeals to the emotional approach of the kind to which my noble friend Lord Denham referred— but also how it appears to people outside this House. I fear— and I have said this on more than one occasion—that we have a somewhat different view of the traditions and of the practices of this House from those who are the spectators from outside.
I can give my own view only of the ceremony in which I took part—unlike the proposer of the Motion or the mover of the Amendment—together with a large number of your Lordships during previous years. I felt ridiculous at one or two points during the ceremony, and I believe that, to those who were onlookers, I looked ridiculous. I do not think it right that your Lordships should allow part of this ceremony— however old may be the tradition— which has ceased to have the significance today which it had in the past, to provide a spectacle for those who are only too keen to denigrate, criticise and belittle the actions and work of your Lordships' House. We are not, my Lords, whatever my noble friend may say, simply a charade on a par with the Changing of the Guard, or the Horse Guards up the road. We are the second legislative Chamber of the British Parliament, and we must retain, in every way we can, not only our dignity and our traditions, but the respect which people feel for us outside.
I would go a long way with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, in amending the present procedure of Introduction. 1 would certainly keep the robes, at any rate for the Peer being Introduced, be-cause not all of us— though perhaps I speak for myself— are endowed with the personal dignity which a robe of that kind helps to enhance. Secondly, I would keep the Herald because he is a magnificent figure in any ceremonial. Your Lordships may remember the tabards of the Heralds of the Holy Roman Empire in the Hofburg in Vienna—marvellous creations, representing the history of the great Empire, the dead, stuck away in glass cases in one of the rooms of the Palace. But here the Herald is part of our living tradition and should be seen on as many occasions as possible.
Obviously it is right that the Roll should be signed. Obviously, it is essential that the Oath should be taken, but I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord

519
Raglan, said about the ceremony which follows, involving the undignified movement up the steps behind me to the obscurity of the Back-Bench here— a tradition which, as the noble Lord pointed out, no longer applies to the present time. There is no difference between the Earls' Benches and the Barons' Benches. We are all, as he said, at any rate in status and Membership of your Lordships' House, on a par.
I would suggest that the amendment might, therefore, be quite simple. The seating could take place on the Front Bench of the Cross-Benches and, perhaps, the ceremony of doffing the hat might be undertaken only by the Peer who is taking his seat, and then only once. I do not think it is necessary, unless they wish to do so, for the Peers who are sponsors to wear their robes. I do not agree with the noble Lord that it would be right to read out the Patent rather than the Writ. Historically, I think the creation of Peerage by Writ was the original, and for a very long time the only, way a Peerage was created. It is the oldest part of that tradition. The Writ, with its language and its traditional formulae, is in itself a sufficient indication to the House and to onlookers who are watching our ceremonies of the significance of the occasion. The Writ is also under the signature of Her Majesty the Queen.
I think we could produce a modified ceremony, not necessarily just to save time but one which would have more significance in the minds of people watching, including ourselves. This might, to some extent, obviate a good deal of the feeling of the ridiculous—or so it seems to me—which I always feel when I watch it, as I have done on many occasions in your Lordships' House. Certain parts of the ceremony must also appear ridiculous to onlookers.
This is not a superior kind of public school where an initiation ceremony must take place. Many of us may remember some of the ceremonies which took place when a new boy was brought into his House for the first time. We are in this House a mature, ancient, honourable and very dignified assembly, and we should make certain that the way in which we conduct ourselves, whatever may be the customs which have descended to us from
520
the past, is seen by the outsider to be in that light. I hope very strongly that your Lordships will not be carried away by the innate conservatism which exists on all sides of this Chamber and that this proposal will, at any rate, be allowed to go to the Procedure Committee for consideration. So far as I am concerned, and, I am sure, so far as the mover of this Motion is concerned, this is some-thing which we would be perfectly pre-pared to accept, whatever decision is reached. I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES
4.5 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPART-MENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, with your Lordships' permission, I repeat the Statement being made in the other place by my right honourable friend. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I will read the Statement on the Government's proposals for the public ownership of the aircraft and shipbuilding ship-repairing and marine engine industries. A Bill containing these proposals will be brought before the House shortly after Easter. I am circulating in the Official Report and have made available in the Vote Office a full statement of the Government's proposals for the ship-building industry, following discussions with many interested parties on the discussion paper which I published on 31st July 1974. I am grateful to all those who sent in comments on the discussion paper and took part in the consultations.
"Turning now to the aircraft industry, I have received a number of comments on the consultative document which I published on 15th January 1975 and I am still considering some aspects of these. I can, how-ever, now announce that the Government have decided, in the light of representations made to me, to alter the criteria governing the scope of public ownership to include companies

521
with a turnover, including that of subsidiaries, of over £7½ million instead of over £20 million in the relevant year. The effect of this will be to include Scottish Aviation Ltd.
"Next, I wish to outline the proposals for compensation which the Government intend to put before the House in the forthcoming Bill, in respect of aircraft, shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engine companies. Compensation will be determined by reference to the value of the securities of the companies to be acquired. Securities quoted on a recognised stock exchange will be valued at their aver-age price during the six months ending 28th February 1975, subject to any necessary adjustment to take account of rights or capitalisation issues. The value of unquoted securities will be determined as if they had been quoted during the same period, by agreement between the Secretary of State and a stockholders' representative or in de-fault of agreement by arbitration. No deduction will be made from the values so determined in respect of Government aid given before 28th February 1974. The value of the securities may be held to depend in part on expectations about future Government aid of a discretionary kind. Such expectations will not be taken into account in valuing for compensation unless the terms of the aid had been settled with the company by the 28th February 1974.
"There will be separate provision for debts owed by any company to be acquired to companies or persons closely associated with the company; that is, inter-company debts. These will be treated in appropriate cases as securities and valued accordingly. Genuine short-term inter-company debts will be compensated in full. An appropriate deduction will be made from the compensation if a company's assets have been dissipated in anticipation of nationalisation between 28th February 1974 and 17th March 1975. A deduction may also be made for reductions in inter-company debt after 28th February 1974. The Secretary of State will be open to receive representations from interested persons whether share-holders or other about the value to be placed on securities under the legislation
522
and in the event of arbitration may bring such representations to the attention of the arbitrator.
"Finally, I am circulating in the Official Report and have made avail-able in the Vote Office a summary of the provisions which will be in the Bill to safeguard the assets of the aircraft, shipbuilding, ship repair and marine engine companies to be taken into public ownership in the period up to vesting day. No company will be penalised as a result of action taken in the normal course of business and in good faith, and commercial contracts including those with the Government, will remain binding on the new Corporations. The Government reserve the right to strengthen these provisions in the event of serious dissipation of the assets of companies to be nationalised or the adoption of other devices to frustrate the manifest objectives of nationalisation. Any such strengthening may be retrospective in its effect.
"My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Following are the documents referred to.
"PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF SHIPBUILD-ING, SHIPREPAIR AND SLOW SPEED DIESEL MARINE ENGINE INDUSTRIES
THE SCOPE OF PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
1."The Government have decided that the objectives of public ownership will be achieved by nationalising companies incorporated in Great Britain which meet the following definitions. A list of the companies which meet each of the definitions is annexed to this statement.
i. Shipbuilding Companies
Companies which on 31st July 1974 were entitled, either alone or together with another company which was then a member of the same group of companies, to an interest in possession in a shipyard which on that date was being used for the construction of ships and in which in the period of three years ending on that date were completed ships the total tonnage of which, when aggregated with the total tonnage of ships completed in the same period in shipyards in which any other company in the same group was entitled to an interest in possession, exceeded either:—

a. 750 standard displacement tons in respect of warships, or

b. 15,000 gross tons in respect of other ships, or

c. 500 standard displacement tons in respect of warships and 10,000 gross tons in respect of other ships.

ii. Shiprepair Companies
Companies which: —

a. on 31st July 1974 were engaged in the business of repairing, refitting, converting or maintaining ships; and

b. on that date were entitled to an interest in possession in a dry-dock or graving-dock ; and

c. whose turnover for the relevant financial year when aggregated with the turn-over for the relevant financial year of all their subsidiaries or fellow subsidiaries engaged in the business referred to in sub-paragraph (a) exceeded £3·4 million. For this purpose relevant financial year in relation to a company means that one of the company's financial years, within the meaning of the Companies Act 1948, for which accounts were last laid before it in general meeting before 31st July 1974.

iii. Slow Speed Diesel Marine Engine Manufacturers
Companies which on 31st July 1974 were engaged in the business of manufacturing diesel engines:—

a. designed for use for the main propulsion of ships ; and

b. designed to deliver continuously at a crankshaft speed of less than 160 revolutions per minute, a power output greater than 4,000 horsepower as measured under the operating conditions specified in the British Standard Specifications published on 19th February 1958 under the number BS649:1958 (specification for the perfor-mance of reciprocating compression— ignition (diesel) engines, utilising liquid fuel only, for general purposes).

iv. Training Companies
A company which on 31st July 1974:—

a. was engaged in the business of training persons in any of the skills required for the repairing, refitting, conversion, maintenance and construction of ships; and

b. was a member of a group of companies of which another member fulfilled the criteria in paragraph i or ii above.

EFFECT OF PUBLIC OWNERSHIP ON COMPANIES
2. "The Bill will provide for the establishment of a public corporation, to be called British Shipbuilders, in which the shares of the companies to be nationalised will be vested. This means that the companies will be nationalised as going concerns.
ORGANISATION UNDER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
3. "The Secretary of State will appoint the Chairman and other members of the public corporation numbering between seven and twenty. After the Second Reading of the Bill it is intended to set up an Organising Committee consisting of the Chairman Designate and a nucleus of other members of the new Corporation which will work in close consultation with the Government, the manage-
524
ments and the trade unions in preparing detailed plans for vesting and for the initial organisation.
4. "It will be for the Organising Committee and the Corporation to propose the detailed structure of the organisation in close consultation with the representatives of those who work in the industry and with its customers. The Corporation will be able to adapt its organisation in response to changing conditions. At the same time the Government and Parliament must be concerned with the main features of the organisation of a big publicly owned industry. The legislation will therefore require the Corporation to submit from time to time to the Secretary of State reports on the broad structure of its organisation after full consultations with the representative organisations of those working in the industry. These reports will be laid before Parliament. The Secretary of State's approval will be necessary to implement the proposed initial organisation or any subsequent major change. The Secretary of State will also have powers to give the Corporation specific directions on the main features of its organisation. The Government feel sure that the Organising Committee and the Corporation will give full weight to the view of many on both sides of industry that individual shipyards should be given as much responsibility as is consistent with the discharge of the Corporation's functions.
5. "The headquarters of the Corporation will be in an assisted area with a tradition of shipbuilding.
INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY
6. "The Government attach great importance to developing industrial democracy in the ship-building, shiprepair and marine engine industries. The comments on the Government's discussion paper of 31st July 1974 have shown that those working in the industry have import-ant and constructive ideas on how this development can be brought about. The flexible arrangements for the organisation of British shipbuilders will provide scope for the natural and organic growth of industrial democracy taking into account the views and proposals put forward by management, workers and trade unions concerned. The Government will consider provisions in the Bill to encourage and assist this growth.
POWERS AND DUTIES
7. "The main duty of the Corporation will be to promote the efficient and economical design, development, production, sale, repair and maintenance of ships and slow speed diesel marine engines and to promote related research using the skills and talents of all those working in the industry to the full. The Corporation will also be required to have full regard to the essential needs of national defence.
8. "The Secretary of State will have power to give the Corporaton directions, to approve annually its corporate plan, its capital investment and research and development programmes and its annual budgets, to monitor

525
progress against annual budgets and to obtain information.
9. "To allow flexibility for the future, pro- vision will be made for some of the main powers and duties of the Corporation and the powers of the Secretary of State to be capable of amendment by statutory instrument subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
10 "Finance will be provided by loans on normal terms from the National Loans Fund and by public dividend capital. The Secretary of State will set a financial objective for the Corporation.
11. "The Corporation will not be restricted by its formal powers from undertaking activities which would utilise its resources (including the skills of its workers) in the national interest and allow it to take favourable opportunities to adapt efficiently to changing economic circumstances. The Corporation will therefore have wide powers to diversify its activities, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, where this does not conflict with its main duties.
12. "The Corporation will have power subject to the Secretary of State's consent to acquire by agreement shareholdings in other companies whether at home or overseas and to enter into partnerships. The Corporation will also have the necessary powers to provide technical assistance overseas.
13. "It will remain Government policy to allow shipowners to build and repair at home or abroad according to their commercial judgment."
"ANNEX
LIST OF COMPANIES MEETING THE DEFINITIONS
I. SHIPBUILDING COMPANIES

1. The Swan Hunter Group Limited's shipbuilding companies, which comprise:

Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Limited.

Smith's Dock Company Ltd.

The Goole Shipbuilding & Repairing Co. Ltd.

Clelands Shipbuilding Company Ltd. (now a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Goole Shipbuilding & Repairing Co. Ltd.).

2. Vickers Shipbuilding Group Limited.

3. Scott Lithgow Limited's shipbuilding companies, which comprise :

Lithgows Limited.

Scotts' Shipbuilding Company Limited.

Ferguson Brothers (Port Glasgow) Limited.

Scott and Sons (Bowling) Limited.

4.Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Limited (50 per cent. of the ordinary shares owned by Government).

5.Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited.

6.Vosper Thornycroft Limited.

7. Austin & Pickersgill Limited.

8. Robb Caledon Shipbuilders Limited.

9. Drypool Group Limited.

10. Brooke Marine Limited.

11. Hall Russell & Company Ltd.

12. Sunderland Shipbuilders Limited (100 per cent. Government owned).
13. Govan Shipbuilders Limited (100 per cent. Government owned).
14. Appledore Shipbuilders Limited (100 per cent. Government owned).
II. SHIPREPAIR COMPANIES
15. The Swan Hunter Group Limited's shiprepair companies, which comprise:

Swan Hunter Shiprepairers Tyne Limited.

The Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Company Ltd.

The Grangemouth Dockyard Company Limited (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Smith's Dock Company Ltd., listed above).

16. The P&O Steam Navigation Company's shiprepairing companies which have an interest in the possession of a dry dock:

R. & H. Green and Silley Weir Ltd.

Silley Cox & Company Ltd. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of R. & H. Green and Silley Weir Ltd.).

17. The Humber Graving Dock and Engineering Company Ltd.
18. North East Coast Shiprepairers Ltd. (100 per cent. Government owned).
19. The Laird Group Limited's shiprepairing companies, which comprise:

J. B. Howie Ltd., trading as C.B.S. Engineering Company.

Western Shiprepairers Limited.

20. Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited.
21.The London Graving Dock Company Ltd.
22. Scott Lithgow Drydocks Limited.
III SLOW SPEED DIESEL MARINE ENGINE MANUFACTURERS
23. Scotts' Engineering Company Limited.
24. Doxford Engines Limited (a wholly- owned subsidiary of Sunderland Shipbuilders Limited, at 12 above).
25. John G. Kincaid & Company Limited.
26. George Clark & NEM Limited.
27. Hawthorn Leslie (Engineers) Ltd.
28. Barclay, Curie & Company Limited.
IV TRAINING COMPANIES
29. Swan Hunter Training and Safety Company Limited.
30. Yarrow (Training) Limited.
31. The Scott Lithgow Training Centre Limited."
" SAFEGUARDING PROVISIONS FOR THE AIRCRAFT, SHIPBUILDING, SHIP-REPAIRING AND MARINE ENGINEER-ING INDUSTRIES
The Bill will contain provisions to establish two corporate undertakings to which the securities of companies in lists A and B respectively will be transferred on a date to be specified as the vesting date in the Bill. The effect

527
of the provision outlined in paragraph 6 below is that the securities of a company other than one in lists A or B may be transferred to the relevant Corporation and they may be transferred at a date later than the date specified in the Bill. The following provisions apply not only to companies whose securities are transferred to the relevant undertaking but also to the wholly owned subsidiaries of those companies which subsidiaries effectively come into public ownership when the securities of those holding companies are transferred to the relevant Corporation.
The "relevant date" where occurring in paragraphs 1 to 11 is 31st July 1974 for those companies in list A and 4 November 1974 for those companies in list B. The "relevant date" where occurring in paragraph 12 to 19 is 17th March 1975 for all the companies in lists A and B.
"THE CORPORATIONS' POWER TO DIS-CLAIM LEASES OR AGREEMENTS
1. The Bill will contain provision enabling the relevant Corporation within 6 months of the date of transfer of a company coming into public ownership, to direct the company to disclaim any lease or agreement made or varied on or after the relevant date by the company where it considers that the making of the agreement or its variation was not reasonably necessary for the business of that company or imprudent regard being had in either case to the circumstances at the time and, except where there is a reference to arbitration in accordance with paragraph 2 below, such disclaimer will become effective two months after the other parties to the agreement or lease have been notified of it.
2. " It will be provided that any person who is party to the lease or agreement which is subject to a disclaimer may, within two months, refer the matter to arbitration under the Bill, and the tribunal will confirm or revoke the disclaimer. If the disclaimer is confirmed, it will become effective at the date of its con- firmation by the tribunal. The tribunal will also have exclusive power to determine any claims resulting from the confirmation of any disclaimer referred to it, with respect to the period before the disclaimer becomes effective.
3. " These powers will not apply where the Secretary of State has approved in writing the making or variation of the lease or agreement, whether before or after its making or variation.
TERMINATION OF RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE SHARES OR APPOINT DIRECTORS
4. " The Bill will contain provision such that an agreement with a company coming into public ownership will, insofar as it entitles another person to acquire securities in the company or to appoint a director, cease to have effect as from the date of transfer of that company. The agreement will otherwise remain effective so that, if the agreement also pro- vides for the lending of money to the company, such money will remain repayable in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
5. " Any person who suffers loss by reason of the termination of a right to acquire shares in a company or to appoint a director will be entitled within 12 months of the date of transfer of the company to claim compensation from the relevant Corporation the amount of which will, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration. This right to compensation will not apply where the right in question is conferred by an agreement made on or after the relevant date without the approval in writing of the Secretary of State. Nor will it apply where the right in question arises from the holding of securities which vest in the relevant Corporation since the general compensation pro- visions of the Bill will apply in the case of such securities.
POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO AMEND LIST OF COMPANIES TO BE TAKEN INTO PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
6. " The Bill will contain provisions enabling the Secretary of State, up to three months after the date specified as the vesting date, to take steps to acquire the securities of a company not included in List A or List B below as though it had been originally included, if:

"(i) the company in question has acquired rights of ownership in or to the user of the whole or a substantial or essential part of a works which, on or after the relevant date, were owned or operated by a company included in List A or List B below or by a subsidiary of such a company ; or

(ii) the company in question was. on the relevant date a wholly owned subsidiary of a company included in List A or List B below but had subsequently ceased to be so

The above provisions will not apply where the Secretary of State has approved in writing, either before or after they have taken place, all the transactions resulting directly or indirectly in the changes outlined above. In addition, any company which has acquired a works in the circumstances outlined in (i) above, will be prohibited from disposing of that works after the Bill receives Royal Assent until three months after the date specified as the vesting date or until any question of the subsequent acquisition of that company has been resolved.
7. " As a corollary, the Bill will also contain provisions enabling the Secretary of State, at any time before the date specified as the vesting date, to take steps to prevent any company included in List A or List B below from coming into public ownership if that company has ceased to own or operate the whole or a substantial part of any works owned or operated by it on the relevant date or if one of its subsidiaries has ceased to own or operate the whole or a substantial part of any works owned or operated by that subsidiary on the relevant date.
8. " It will be provided that the company in question may, within one month, challenge the Secretary of State's intention on the grounds that the conditions in paragraph 6 or 7 above are not fulfilled. Where agreement is not reached between the Secretary of State and the company, the matter will be resolved by arbitration under the Bill.
THE CORPORATION'S POWER TO RECLAIM RIGHTS
9. " The Bill will contain provisions enabling the Secretary of State, up to three months after the date of transfer of a company, where he considers that it is in the public interest, to take steps to cause the transfer into public ownership of any rights of ownership in or rights in respect of the user of any works, or any invention or design whether or not subject to statutory protection which the company may have transferred or granted to any person after the relevant date and before the date of transfer of the company.
10. " It will be provided that any person whose rights are sought to be acquired under paragraph 9 above may, within one month, challenge the Secretary of State's decision. Where no agreement is reached, the question will be settled by arbitration under the Bill. The date of transfer of the rights and the compensation therefor will be agreed between the relevant Corporation and the transferor or, failing that, will be determined by arbitration. The date of transfer of the rights will in any event not be earlier than the date specified as the vesting date.
11. "These provisions will not apply where the Secretary of State has given approval in writing to the transfer or grant by the company of the rights in question, either before or after it takes place, although such approval may include conditions, including conditions empowering the relevant Corporation to reclaim the rights.
LIMITATION OF INTEREST OR DIVIDEND PAYMENTS MADE BY COMPANIES
12. "The Bill will contain provisions defining the permitted level of interest payable after the relevant date in respect of the last complete financial year before the relevant date or any subsequent period on debenture or other loans by a company coming into public ownership in respect of any period before the date of transfer as the minimum necessary for the company to meet its obligations. No payments above the permitted levels will be allowed without the prior written approval of the Secretary of State.
13. "The Bill will also provide that no dividend will be allowed to be paid after the relevant date by a company corning into public ownership in respect of any period earlier than the most recent completed financial year of the company before the relevant date.
14. "Subject to paragraph 13 above the Bill will contain provisions limiting amount of dividend which may be paid in respect of any period before the date of transfer (hereinafter referred to as a " relevant financial year ") to the smaller of the following two amounts: —

(a) the net revenue of the company for the relevant financial year as certified by the company's auditor,

and

(b) the total amount of dividends paid before 29th October 1974 in respect of the most
530
recent completed financial year of the company in respect of which a final dividend was paid before the relevant date (hereinafter referred to as "the basis financial year") as adjusted in accordance with the rules set out in subparagraph (5) below or, if no final dividend has ever been paid, such amount as the Secretary of State may determine.

For this purpose—

(1) An amount shall be deemed to have been duly certified by a Company's auditor as the amount of the net revenue of the Company for any period if the auditor has stated in writing that that amount gives a true and fair view of the net revenue for the company for the period,

(2) any payment to members in their capacity as members out of net revenue shall be treated as a payment of dividend,

(3) any payment of dividend made before 6th April 1973 shall be brought into account as the gross amount thereof, that is to say, the gross amount thereof before deduction of income tax and any such payment expressed to be made free of tax will be treated as a net amount paid after deduction of tax and will be grossed up accordingly,

(4 ) any payment of dividend made after 5th April 1973 shall be brought into account as a franked payment, that is to say, the amount brought into account shall be the dividend when aggregated with such proportion thereof as corresponds to the rate of advance corporation tax in force at the date of payment of the dividend and

(5) the total amount of the dividends paid by a company in respect of the basis financial year shall be adjusted in proportion to—

(a) the amount by which the issued share capital of the company at the end of the relevant financial year exceeds, or is less than, its issued share capital at the end of the basis financial year, and

(b)any difference in the length of the relevant financial year as compared with the length of the basis financial year.

" A company's share capital at the end of the relevant financial year shall be computed by taking its share capital at the end of the basis financial year and adjusting it—

(i) by adding the amount or the value of any consideration actually received in the period between the end of the basis financial year and the end of the relevant financial year for the issue of share capital or on the payment up of issued share capital, and

(ii) by deducting the amount or value of any money or other assets paid or trans-ferred by the company during the said period for the payment or redemption of any share capital,

and the amount of the company's share capital at the end of the basis financial year shall be what was then the amount of the company's paid-up share capital and of any share premium account or any other comparable account by whatever name called.

15. "To the rules in paragraph 14 above there are to be the following qualifications:—

(i) The rules will not apply to any payment of dividend made with the prior approval in writing of the Secretary of State or made in pursuance of an authority or recommendation contained in a resolution of the directors of the company passed on or before the relevant date, and

(ii) Dividend paid in respect of any period may, where the figure at paragraph 14(a) exceeds the figure at 14(b) to the extent of that excess include dividend on cumulative preference shares in respect of an earlier period.

16." The Bill will contain provisions such that where a Company coming into public ownership makes payment without the prior written approval of the Secretary of State, which is not allowed by the rules stated in paragraphs 13 to 15 above, following a resolution of the directors passed after the relevant date and before the date of transfer, the directors party to that resolution will be made personally liable to the relevant Corporation for the amount of the payments so disallowed. Any claim by the Corporation against a company must be made within twelve months of the date of transfer and, if not settled by agree- ment, will be settled by arbitration under the Bill, and the tribunal will make such orders against the directors of the company in respect of their liability as it thinks fit.
POWER OF THE CORPORATIONS TO SEEK COMPENSATION FOR FINAN-CIAL LOSSES
17. "The Bill will contain provisions such that, where after the relevant date and before the date of its transfer a company coming into public ownership has without the approval in writing of the Secretary of State—

(a) made any payments to its members for the purpose of reducing the share capital of the company otherwise than by the redemp-tion of any redeemable securities;

(b) redeemed any securities which the company was not under any obligation to redeem before the date of transfer or made payments in respect of the redemption of any securities which exceed the minimum payments required to satisfy the rights existing on the said day of the holders of those securities;

(c) made any other payment to the holders of its securities (in their capacity as such) out of capital moneys, or distributed assets other than money to the holders of its securities (in their capacity as such);

(d) made to the holders of any of its securities any payment by way of special dividend thereon;

(e) entered into any transaction the effect of which is that property or rights of the company are transferred or granted to any person, and the consideration for such transfer or grant is received by the holders of securities of the company or any of them (in their capacity as such); or

532

(f) being the subsidiary of another company, effected (without consideration) a transfer to that other company or a subsidiary thereof of rights of ownership in any works ;

the relevant Corporation may, within 12 months of the date of transfer of the company, make application to the Arbitration Tribunal in respect of any such transaction to determine the extent of the net loss resulting to the Corporation from the transaction. The Tribunal may make such orders against the persons responsible for the transaction or benefiting from it, including the directors of the Company, for payment by them to the Corporation of sums sufficient to enable the net loss to be made good.

18. " The approval given by the Secretary of State for the purposes of paragraph 17 above may be given subject to conditions which may include the reduction of compensation for securities transferred to the relevant Corporation and the reduction of the total amount of dividends which may be paid in accordance with the provisions set out in paragraph 13 to 15 above.
19. "Similarly, provision will be included such that, where after the relevant date and before the date of its transfer, a company coming into public ownership has, without the approval in writing of the Secretary of State—

(a) made any payment to any person without consideration or for an inadequate consideration ;

(b) sold or disposed of any of its property or rights without consideration or for an inadequate consideration ;

(c) acquired any property or rights for an excessive consideration ;

(d) entered into or varied any agreement so as to require an excessive consideration to be paid or given by the company or;

(e) entered into any other transaction of such onerous nature as to cause a loss to or impose a liability on the company substantially exceeding any benefit accruing to the company ;

and the transaction in question was not reason-ably necessary for the purposes of the company or was imprudent the relevant Corporation may, within 12 months of the date of transfer of that company, make application to the Arbitration Tribunal in respect of any such transaction to determine the extent of the net loss resulting to the Corporation from the transaction. The Tribunal may make such orders against the directors of the company and the persons who were parties to the trans-action, having regard to the extent to which those persons were respectively responsible for the transaction or benefiting from it, for the payment by them to the Corporation of sums sufficient to enable the net loss to be made good.

List A

" Appledore Shipbuilders Limited.

Austin & Pickersgill Ltd.

Brooke Marine Limited.

Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Limited.

Clelands Shipbuilding Company Ltd.

533

Drypool Group Limited.

Ferguson Brothers (Port Glasgow) Limited.

Govan Shipbuilders Limited.

Hall Russell and Company Ltd.

Lithgows Limited.

Robb Caledon Shipbuilders Limited.

Scott and Sons (Bowling) Limited.

Scotts Shipbuilding Company Limited.

Smith's Dock Company Ltd.

Sunderland Shipbuilders Limited.

Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Limited.

The Goole Shipbuilding & Repairing Co. Ltd.

Vickers Shipbuilding Group Limited.

Vosper Thornycroft Limited.

Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited.

Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited.

J. B. Howie Ltd.

North East Coast Shiprepairers Ltd.

R. & H. Green and Silley Weir Ltd.

Scott Lithgow Drydocks Limited.

Swan Hunter Shiprepairers Tyne Limited.

The Humber Graving Dock and Engineering Company Limited.

The London Graving Dock Company Limited.

The Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Company Limited.

Western Shiprepairers Limited.

Barclay, Curle and Company Limited.

George Clark and NEM Limited.

Hawthorn Leslie (Engineers) Ltd.

John G. Kincaid and Company Limited.

Scotts' Engineering Company Limited.

Swan Hunter Training and Safety Company Limited.

The Scott Lithgow Training Centre Limited.

Yarrow (Training) Limited.

List B

British Aircraft Corporation Limited.

Hawker Siddeley Aviation Limited.

Hawker Siddeley Dynamics Limited.

Scottish Aviation Limited."

4.10 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for repeating that Statement. I am bound to say that we consider this to be a bad day for the Government, because the noble Lord will know that the contents of his Statement will not be met with any enthusiasm whatsoever on this side of the House. Indeed, in the Statement, the Government have shown their determination to go ahead with the nationalisation of these two industries, an action for which they have no mandate at all. As the Statement was made this afternoon and as it is the customary courtesy to allow the Opposition Parties to have copies of Statements after 3 p.m. and before 3.30 p.m., I am bound to say that I was surprised that the first copy that I received was at five minutes to four. This had been preceded by copies of Written Answers numbering 18 pages which one was supposed to digest between 2.40 and 2.45 p.m. I hope that
534
the noble Lord will be able to provide an explanation of why this normal courtesy was not extended. I exonerate the noble Lord himself entirely, because I know that he would wish to have extended this courtesy if he could have done so.
One wonders whether the Secretary of State for Industry deliberately did not make this Statement available in order that it should be made first in Parliament by him. If that is so, perhaps the noble Lord could tell me how it was that the first intimation I got was a duplicated version of a Press release issued by the Secretary of State for Industry, saying what was going to be in the Statement. If a Press release was issued, it is an extraordinary thing that neither of the Opposition Parties had the Statement.
The Statement indicated the Government's desire to nationalise two great industries. As the noble Lord (of all people) knows, the aircraft industry is highly profitable; and this will eliminate the sources of competition. The Government asked for opinions to be given; and they were given. The only effect has been to drop the level of turnover above which a company should be nationalised. In the case of the aircraft industry, it was from £20 million to £7·5 million. I would ask the noble Lord: Why £7·5 million? What is so curious about this figure? Why not £7 million or £8 million? Is this figure supposed to pull in one particular company? In the ship-repairing industry any company with a turnover of over £3·4 million will be nationalised. Why £3·4 million? In the shipbuilding industry any company which, over three years, has produced an aggregate tonnage of over 750 tons will be nationalised. These are sweeping proposals; and I can only tell the noble Lord that we will fight them on every possible occasion.
I will content myself with questioning thus far today. There will be other occasions to seek clarification; but how on earth does the noble Lord think that this is going to help solve the economic situation with which the country is faced at the moment? Much will depend on the value of the compensation to be paid to these industries. Who will be the arbitrator? The arbitrator is mentioned in the Statement. Who is this going to be? Is he going to be the arbitrator only of the value of shares or will he also be

535
open to arbitration on other matters? The noble Lord said that the Bill will be introduced after Easter. Do I take it that the Government hope to have the Royal Assent before summer? Or has the noble Lord a date in mind? Is the Secretary of State still open to per-suasion? May companies still go to him to try to persuade him to their point of view, or is he entirely closed to further representations?
Paragraph 9 of the Statement says that the Secretary of State will be open to receiving representations from interested persons, whether shareholders or others, about the value to be placed on securities. Who are the "others" mentioned in the Statement? Who would be so interested? We are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. We do not like it one tiny bit and I do not think that the Government will be surprised that we do not like it.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, we too are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in the other place. We did not get a copy of the Statement until 3.45 or 3.50 p.m. either. There has been quite inadequate time for us to consider either the Statement itself or the extremely long Written Answer which was circulated a little earlier on. Is the noble Lord aware that we on these Benches believe that the plan of the Government to nationalise the aircraft, shipbuilding, ship-repairing and the marine engineering industries is utterly deplorable and that this will not add at all to the economic potential of the country? Indeed, we consider that at a time when so many other urgent matters require Government attention, it is a severe waste of Parliamentary time and of the effort of many talented people, that these particular industries should be taken into public ownership.
I should prefer to reserve comment for the detailed debate which no doubt will take place in the near future; but I should like to ask one question referring to the limits of £7·5 million in the case of the aircraft industry and £3·4 million in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry. Those apply to existing companies in the industry. Will the noble Lord tell us what would happen in the case of a company which falls below these limits and which subsequently
536
improves its performance so that it comes above them? Will it then be taken into public ownership or will it be left in the private sector?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I recognise the difficulties under which they made them. I am sorry about the fact that the Statement did not reach the spokesmen of the Benches opposite; but it is usual in the case of Statements which have, or could have, an immediate effect on Stock Market values that there is an extra restriction on them. It was this which led to the apparent discourtesy which was not intended.
I was asked by both the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the cut-off point in the case of the shipbuilding and the aircraft industries. The £7·5 million is a precise figure. It was there precisely because it is the figure which will bring in Scottish Aviation. Scottish Aviation is brought in as a result of representations which were made both by the men and by the management of the company. They asked whether the original decision could be reversed as a result of consultations and representations which they made; and this change was made, but it was a change made to achieve a particular objective; namely, the inclusion of Scottish Aviation.
So far as the criteria for shipbuilding is concerned, again the figures have been carefully considered and fixed in order to bring a particular category of companies into the orbit of the Bill. What one needs to avoid in this sort of case is a hybrid Bill. I think it can be shown that these figures will mean that there is no doubt about who is "in" and who is "out" and that there can be no question of arbitration. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, what would happen in a particular case where the turnover in-creased. Of course, these figures are the figures which apply at this time. Any increase (if there should be one) in expectation of, or spurred on or stimulated by, the hope of nationalisation would not affect the position so far as the takeover is concerned.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, what I meant was that if a company had a turn-over of £7·4 million and therefore was not nationalised under the Bill and if, in future years, the turnover rose to £10

537
million, would it then be taken into public ownership?
Lord BESWICK: No, my Lords. The same applies to that case. The figures are the figures as of now. Any change in the future would not affect the definition so far as the Bill is concerned.
I was asked about arbitration and what would happen in the event of disagreement as between the parties. In that case the matter will go to arbitration and the arbitrators will be a tribunal to be appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I was asked about the date of Royal Assent. Obviously, I cannot give a particular date, but the intention, and the firm belief, is that it will be within the lifetime of this present Parliament—
Lord MOLSON: Of this Parliament, my Lords?
Lord BESWICK: This Session of Parliament, my Lords; I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I was asked whether companies can still go and discuss the issues open to either the Minister or the organising committees which would be more relevant after the Second Reading. The answer is that they will be welcome to continue discussions, but of course the principle of inclusion or exclusion will not be a matter open to discussion by the organising committees, or indeed by the Minister, although I would have to add that the Bill still has to go through the two Houses of Parliament and of course one cannot exclude the possibility of Amendments.
I was asked about the meaning of "other" in paragraph 9. The noble Lord rightly pointed out that paragraph 9 said that "shareholders or other" can make representations to the Secretary of State. If he turns to paragraph 7 he will see that there could be others, including any closely associated with the company who may be owed inter-company debts, who are affected by devaluation of assets, and they can make representations. I was asked the reason for this. It is that in the case of shipbuilding there is no doubt at all that this country has not held its place in the world shipbuilding league. There have been enormous public subsidies. They have not achieved the result which we would expect, and we hope that, with the kind of strength that
538
can come from restructuring, they will benefit from the public monies that from now on will be put into the industry.
So far as the aircraft companies are concerned, again I think the argument will be deployed at length when we get the Bill; but there is a strong feeling on this side of the House that there can be improvement by restructuring. No one doubts that there can be benefits if the two big companies are brought together; and if they are brought together and there is a monopoly position in this country, then I would expect the Liberals, at any rate, to recognise that a public monopoly can be preferable to a private monopoly. As for the kind of competition that has to be met, that competition will be among the world air-craft industry. It would be wasteful if it were competition as between one British company and another.

CEREMONY OF INTRODUCTION
4.24 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, as I was about to say when we were interrupted, it is true—I must admit it myself—that, as my noble friend Lord Alport has hinted, one or two of our procedures have begun to verge on the old-fashioned, and among such must be included the strange ritual dance, invented centuries ago, for the Introduction of a fledgling Peer. Few, perhaps, would wish to sweep it utterly into oblivion, but can anyone seriously claim that there is a reasonable place for such antics in 1975? Well, yes, of course; my noble friend Lord Denham can, and does ; and he is one whom I regard with unremitting affection and esteem. But neither of these emotions should I allow, I feel, to blind me to the fact that my noble friend is also perhaps one whose feet tend to be somewhat rooted in the past. Perhaps it was unfair and unreasonable to expect otherwise of our once and future Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, who may be supposed to have a certain vestmented interest in scarlet facecloth and gold lace. Indeed, I sympathise. None the less, I face the fact, as we all must do, that the calendar moves on.
We are not, as sage observers have remarked, living in the Middle Ages or

539
even in the age, for the matter of that, of Ioianthe or the Red Queen. I confess to a temptation, when a new Peer is seen to be shaking hands with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to cry not, "Hear, hear! " but, "Tantan-tara Tsing-boom" ; and I cherish a happy suspicion that my noble friend Lord Denham may actually be doing so under his breath. But I know that the time for such splendours, however noble and inspiring in their day, may in the end have to be laid aside. It is all import-ant nowadays to keep in touch with what is really going on in the harsh, pragmatic world about us—or rather, perhaps I should say," At this moment in time one must maintain a meaningful dialogue at the grass roots"—or perhaps it should be " with the grass roots" ; I do not know. If ever I find myself thinking that a speech containing such illiterate rubbish as that sounds more like a meaningless monologue, I try to pull myself together, recognising the wistful reactionary who lurks inside me somewhere and bidding him sternly avaunt. Empty ceremonial, as I spell it out to him, is at risk of establishing an ambivalent ambience and so of losing its charisma and ceasing to be viable. At this moment in time (to repeat that jewel of a phrase), remembering that justice must be seen to be done, and that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, we must be prepared at the end of the day to stand up and be counted, and even to allow ourselves, traumatic as the experience may be, to be dragged, kick-ing and screaming, right across the board into the year of the silly referendum! At this moment in—no, perhaps not again. In this day and age, and in the last analysis, should we not seek to streamline our procedures? Is it reason-able any longer to preserve the spectacle of distinguished ladies and gentlemen performing a stately saraband in heraldic tabard or mediaeval dressing-gown? Is it still reasonable, frequently for minutes at a time, to listen to pronouncements concerning mere motions, the waiving of excuses, and the danger of the said affairs?
To each of these last two questions, my answer is an emphatic and unhesitating, Yes. It is both reasonable and right. In the Introduction of a newly created Peer we see tradition made both audible and visible, tradition that has remained
540
unchanged for three and a half centuries; and such tradition is precious since its function is, by bringing the past into the present and carrying both present and past forward into the future, to lend both stature and coherence to a body or institution. The Introduction of a new Peer is something vastly more than an archaic survival of which the best that can be said is that there is no ill to be said. It is, like any initiation ritual, pace my noble friend Lord Alport, a threshold that can-not be passed insouciantly. Nor, I suspect, is it altogether easy for one who has passed it to feel precisely the same as he did just before. I collected something of this impression from the totally admirable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cudlipp, whom I hope we may hear frequently again in the future, and the near future at that. He, after all, is the last to have had this experience, I think, and has referred to it this after-noon.
To be a Member of the House of Lords is not quite the same as not to be a Member. I do not mean to say that it is better than not being a Member in the sense that a Member is in some ways superior to a non-Member; but I do mean that to receive a Writ of Summons as a counsellor to the Sovereign is both to receive an honour and to accept an obligation, and in each of these regards to enter into a line of honourable succession that has endured and has been unwinding for many centuries. Therefore, I say not only that the Introduction ceremony ought not to be abolished but also that it ought to be left exactly as it always has been and as it is—unchanged and unshortened in any way.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, sup-ported by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, and also by my noble friend Lord Alport, says that the procedure for installing a new Peer in his place on the Barons' Bench is undignified, not to say comical and absurd. When one sees all the hatwork and the bowing and bobbing up and down, I suppose one could say that. I suppose one could say much the same of Black Rod having the door slammed in his face by the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Commons, or of the Earl Marshall and Lord Great Chamberlain walking backwards at the State Opening of Parliament. I dare say one could say that the Royal Arms

541
are not placed with the maximum regard to seemliness and dignity upon a Door-keeper's stomach. But does it, in fact, seem necessary or sensible to say any of these things? Not to me, my Lords. There is one thing, however, that I feel to be unnecessary and wrong; namely, the custom of the King of Arms audibly telling the new Peer and his sponsors what to do. I do not believe that grown-up men and women either ought, or need, especially after careful rehearsal, to be treated like children or recruits.
In the general picture of the life of the nation as we know it and live it in this ancient and honourable House, tradition is at once the gilding of the frame and the unifying patina of age ; or, to use a totally different metaphor, it is the key to the iconography of the picture. Tradition may become atrophied, distorted or debased. In the particular manifestation of it which we are discussing this afternoon, none of these fates has befallen it. Its symbolism is as ancient as it is clear, as intelligible as it is rich. I have said, and I hope I may be forgiven for saying it, that the feet of my noble friend Lord Denham tend to be somewhat rooted in the past. So, I suspect, like those of a good many others, are mine, and they will carry me very happily to the right by the Throne if the noble Lord chooses to lead the way.
4.33 p.m.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, may I say a word or two in support of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, largely because of an intervention which I made earlier this afternoon. I come from a society which is used to ceremonial and to the taking of Oaths, but I do not believe that either Oaths or ceremonial have much use beyond their context of time and meaning. That is why I agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Alport.
When I referred to the trade union movement earlier in the day, I recalled that my own trade union, which goes back to 1780, also has the ritual of ceremonial and Oath-taking. During the time when the Combination Laws lay heavy upon it, it was then the custom for the initiate to be brought in and for the curtains to be closed to keep out prying eyes. The initiate took the Oath upon the Bible and was presented with a pistol to blow out
542
his brains if he broke the Oath. At that time, trade unionists in this country were subject to the caprice of the predecessors of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, and of the Lords of Appeal who would transport them to Botany Bay merely for the right to combine. This enshrined the historic name of Tolpuddle and other occasions. That was the Oath of the society to which I belonged, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, until the Combination Acts were repealed in 1825.
Later on, responding to the context of time and place, Charles Kingsley and Tom Hughes, who wrote Tom Brown's Schooldays, devised another form of initiation ceremony which reflected the hard working Victorianism of the engineers and told them how to be attractive to their employers. This was an Oath in its context of time and place.
I do not believe that the present ceremonial, in which I was glad to take part some months ago, has any place in our present society; it puts at a disadvantage this honourable House. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was quite right when he said that coming to this House was probably the consummation of a life of public work, or of a life in one of the learned professions; probably it is also true if one comes from the other place to this House. The best reason I have heard for the present ceremonial was given to me by a Peer who came from the other place. He believes that any legislator who comes to Parliament without submitting himself to the pitiless ordeal of an Election should suffer for it. I think there is something to be said for that point of view.
Surely there cannot be any rationality in the present Oath. I understand in the other place that a maiden speech must never be commented upon except in terms of approval. Therefore, I must desist from expressing my view about it. How-ever, it reminds me of the Chinese general who baptised his troops with a hosepipe —the conversion was so quick! Consequently, with the advent of Life Peers I want this place to be a modern assembly, standing in dignity and in its own right.
May I suggest that the present idea is not an idea which is worth pursuing. We stand for certain values and recognise that

543
this House is the greatest repository of public service in the world—with, probably, the exception of the other place— and that people in great variety are brought to this House. By their nature, they cannot be impressed with the initial ceremony that we have to go through. It could be a shorter ceremony which would be just as dignified. I think it is awe-inspiring enough to come to your Lordships' House without, I suggest, a degree of ridiculousness—I was almost going to say humiliation. It is really quite ridiculous and it should be done away with.
4.38 p.m.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, may I say one word to your Lordships' House. At the beginning of this debate the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said that he wished to produce something that would please everybody. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who said that we cannot please everybody. If one is unable to please everybody, surely one ought to shun compromise; you could call that tampering, with which nobody in the long run would be satisfied.
I disagree very much with the noble Lord opposite who has just spoken. He suggested that today this ceremony has no place in your Lordships' House. If we act on that premise, we shall scrap 90 per cent. of the way of life to which we are accustomed. Talking of tampering, I should like to give your Lordships one word of warning. Already in the last decade we have tampered with the Bible—I do not think with very good results. We have tampered with the Prayer Book, again not with very good results. We have tampered with the Church of England services, also with not very good results. Therefore, I think we should think twice before tampering with one of the oldest ceremonies in your Lordships' House.
4.39 p.m.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I think that the last speaker has indicated the views which are held by your Lordships: whether the old traditions should be maintained in full or whether, in view of the changed conditions in the world and our line of approach to the nation as a whole, we should have another look at these things. This seems to be the dividing line. Quite frankly, I feel that the
544
ceremony that takes place adds to the dignity of a new Member coming in. I feel that such a new Member must feel a sense of awe, of gratification in some way that his services in some direction have at any rate been appreciated and therefore he is put in this place fox a given purpose. What is that purpose? That purpose has not the power behind it of election to another place. Therefore, to introduce them under the present ceremony dressed in robes and all the paraphernalia, I think indicates that we are just a show place.
In view of the change that has taken place among the nation as a whole and the way this House is looked upon, and when one hears the observations of people who have been sitting in the public gallery and have seen what takes place, I personally think it would be much better if the ceremony were changed. I have had my leg pulled because in going up the steps when acting as sponsor to a new Peer I have been inclined to trip on my robe. I do not think this adds to the dignity of this House in this day and age. I rather agree with the idea put forward by my noble friend Lord Raglan that a new Peer should be introduced almost on the same lines as a Member of Parliament who has been before the electorate and who comes here with some responsibility given to him by the people he is to represent. But we have not that responsibility; we are nominated people and as such we can do—and in fact do—a useful job of work in many ways, but I do not think that walking up and down the steps and doffing our hats does any good, because no one has been able to give any indication of the meaning of doffing the hat so many times. Why does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor take his hat off in reply?
A Noble Lord: Because he is polite, my Lords!
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, if there was a meaning behind it, there would be something to be said for it, but it is just part of the pageantry that might appeal to us here and to the few people who might be in the Gallery, although even there one finds mixed views. But keeping in line with modern development, I agree with the Motion put forward by my noble friend Lord Raglan, asking the

545
Government to appoint a Select Committee to look into the introductory process and I hope it may be adopted.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Denham, will not be quite so adamant as to insist upon the Amendment and so force a vote, because I think that would rather look as though we were people who refused to face up to modern society and who wanted to keep things exactly as they are, which is not in accordance with the modern trend. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Denham, will allow the Motion to go through in order that the Government can see whether they can reach some kind of agreement on the method of Introduction.
4.45 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to support very strongly the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Denham. There have been times when I have not supported the noble Lord but I certainly do so today. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, referred to the noble Lord as one who has his feet firmly rooted in the past. What is wrong with the past? There is a strong tendency today to denigrate anything that comes from the past but there is a great deal of merit in our past as a nation, and I should be sorry to see our national pageantry go. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, said that this would not be doing away with the whole of our pageantry; it was merely attacking a very small part of it. But, my Lords, it is the first bite. One has to remember that every landslide starts with the falling of a few small stones. Since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have seen one stone fall; that is, the abolition of the ceremonial Royal Commission, which is now replaced by a simple reading out of a list of those Bills which are accepted.
Perhaps some of us do get a little tired of seeing the constant repetition of the introductory ceremonial, but I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Platt that the cause is not nearly so much the ceremony itself as the number of times we see it performed. There have been weeks when we have had as many as five Introductions, and it is not at all uncommon to have three.
My Lords, I have brought to this House many friends from outside, and without
546
exception I think I can say that every one has been absolutely fascinated by the tradition of the place, the ceremonial and the totally different atmosphere that it has from anywhere else in the country, or for that matter in the world. I should be sorry to do away with the various ceremonials that we have not only in this House but in the country. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, mentioned a few. I could name a few others. Why not do away with the normal dress uniform of the Guards, which is totally unadaptable to modern warfare?
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I should like to try to refute what the noble Lord is saying. I do not wish to abolish all ceremonial; I do not wish to destroy the Grenadier Guards. I am asking whether the House may look at this ceremony to see whether it can be modified in order to make it more dignified. I do not want to abolish it.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I accept that, and I think it is possible that it might be modified slightly, though I cannot really see the point in doing so if one is going to retain it at all. For that matter, one comes to the ceremony, for instance, of the Opening of Parliament. That is the only time when humble Back-Benchers such as myself have a chance to wear our Parliamentary robes. I should be very sorry to see that go, though I must confess that nowadays I do not make a great deal of use of it.
My Lords, the past is not a laughable thing. In this country, it is a very great thing. Looking back on our greatness as a nation, our tradition is something which should be preserved. I do not agree that it seems out of keeping with today. Perhaps one could ask your Lordships' Chamber, "Do you want to see this replaced by a concrete and glass Chamber? ". One sees them elsewhere in London, with colour-washed walls, presumably blue one side and pink the other.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that we are not discussing replacing this building with a structure of concrete and glass, or the ceremony of the Opening of Parliament, but we are discussing the Introduction ceremony of noble Lords into this House.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I quite accept that, but, as I say, that is just the first step towards doing away with all pageantry. Therefore, I think it a pity to take it away.
Lord HARVINGTON: My Lords, I had no intention of intervening in this debate, but I do so for a few moments because of what fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell. I was rather surprised to hear him speak as he did. I have made a point of trying to be here for as many Introductions as possible, since being Introduced myself a few months ago. I recollect vividly the Introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Greene, of Harrow Weald, carried out with the noble Lords, Lord Champion and Lord Popplewell, as his sponsors. Of all the Introductions I have seen—and I am someone who has had had to be Master of Ceremonies in other places—I have never seen anything done more beautifully or more perfectly than was done at the Introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Greene, by the noble Lords, Lord Popplewell and Lord Champion. So I find it extremely difficult to take what he said with the obvious seriousness with which he said it. I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, could have seen himself in a looking glass on that day, he would not have said what he did.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, may I add my felicitations to my noble friend Lord Cudlipp upon his wise and witty maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, indicated that Members of this House might become bored by seeing the ceremony—and that is possible, because they see it many times. But I entirely disagree with his view that the public outside do not like to see it, or regard it as ridiculous. Some years ago, I had the pleasure of entertaining here a distinguished citizen of the city of Chicago. It happened to be a day upon which a new Peer was introduced. Afterwards, I said to the American, "You have not anything like that, I suppose, in Chicago", and he said, " I only wish we had ".
4.55 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I will be brief because I can see that my noble friend the Leader of the House is getting anxious at the length of
548
this debate. May I say that I think we are making somewhat heavy weather of a subject which could have been disposed of in half the time, but I feel I must rise to speak, simply because I am a very new Member. Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Platt, referred to the large number of Members introduced. I was the 100th Member introduced by the present Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. Whether he is happy about that century, I do not know! As a newcomer, I feel I should reply to my noble friend Lord Popplewell who so excellently acted as one of my sponsors, when he referred to the fact that we are nominated, not elected. The fact that we are nominated imposes upon us greater responsibility than even the question of election, because we have freedom of action and freedom of speech. That in itself imposes on us greater responsibility.
So far as concerns the ceremony of the three noble Lords going up to the Back-Bench and raising their hats three times to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I must confess that after my Introduction my own ego was completely shattered by my family. I understand that when the York Herald issued the command to us and I promptly obeyed, my wife muttered to my son, "Good boy, give him a chocolate drop". I was thus reduced to the status of my four-legged and faithful friend, who does precisely that. Even so, I still think we should retain the ceremony as it is, not "mucking about" with it, because it imposes great dignity on those involved and conveys to them the serious nature of the responsibility which they are taking on. So I hope that we shall be sensible about this, and keep the ceremony. I know some of my friends disagree with me. There is one person who I strongly disagree with. I shall not reveal his name, but when I came here he said to me, "George, for God's sake, do not take this place too seriously". However, we should take this place seriously, because we have a responsibility to the country just as much as those elected in another place.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I had no intention of intervening either, but there are one or two points I must make. It is clear that those opposed to the present ceremony are not in agreement as to how it should be revised. There has

549
been talk about the doffing of the hat three times. Are noble Lords also suggesting that when Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Commons come to the Bar, they should no longer bow three times to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and that he should lake up with the Royal Commission that they should not take their hats off on that occasion? It seems to me all much the same. There are those who are basically in favour of retaining it, and those who want to change it in one form or another. I strongly urge my noble friend Lord Denham to press this Amendment. Let us hope this matter can be settled now, once and for all.
4.57 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it will not have escaped the notice of your Lordships' House that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has sat on the Woolsack, which I believe to be uncomfortable, for the full length of this debate. I think I understand the reason why. Both he and I have sat in Cabinet on seats that again are not very comfortable, dealing with matters which are obviously secret, but about which I think there is a certain amount of conjecture in the newspapers. Both he and I have had a sense of light relief in listening to this very good humoured debate.
My difficulty is that I agree both with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and with the noble Lord, Lord Denham. But, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Cudlipp on his outstanding maiden speech. It is not easy to deliver a maiden speech in your Lordships' House. It is easier to deliver one on matters of great moment, and it is more difficult to deal with a subject of this kind in such a light-hearted way, yet at the same time making clear points relevant to the decision—if we have to have a decision this afternoon. To my noble friend Lord Raglan, may I offer my congratulations. He has done something that other noble Lords have not been able to do for a very long time; that is, to get the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, the Opposition Chief Whip, off that Bench and to declare a view. We can see why there is this desire for Divisions. When I used to sit opposite, I was always seeking to avoid Divisions.
I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, who was congratulating my
550
noble friends Lord Champion and Lord Popplewell on their performance, that if he were sitting on this side of the House watching the ceremony I think he would usually give credit to the Labour Peers for their greater sense of discipline. This is nothing to do with a Chief Whip in another place. It is due to the fact that there is knowledge that my noble friend Lord Henderson gives marks, nine out of ten, eight out of ten, according to the performance, so there is a degree of competition.
My Lords, I was the instigator of this matter being taken to the Procedure Committee in 1964, when I was Government Chief Whip I did it because we were then having the first influx of Life Peers, at least in any number, and it was taking up a good deal of time. Your Lordships' House had not then got used to sitting beyond six o'clock in the evening; if we were to sit beyond six o'clock, it was the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, who used to complain, and, therefore, there was a degree of pressure. I took the matter to the Procedure Committee; I did not get much success or much change, as my noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said. I think I can understand it. The feelings were, as has been said this afternoon, that this has been a ceremony attached to your Lordships' House for very many years and, therefore, unless there is any real justification, change should not be made. I must say I had a sense of despair that your Lordships' House would ever undertake any radical change. Yet I cannot help but reflect that some three years later, on a Motion moved from this Box and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, your Lordships supported a Motion which would have removed for all time the hereditary right of sitting in your Lordships' House.
So to my noble friend Lord Raglan I would say that this House is still not without hope; it still may take change. But I suspect, from this afternoon's debate and the massed ranks I see before me, which is very strange on a matter on which there is no Whip—unless, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, the Opposition's Deputy Chief Whip, has been letting it be known that he would like support for this Amendment—that my noble friend is unlikely to have any greater success than I had in 1964. I am not against ceremony. I think much

551
of our life in this country depends upon ceremony, and it is enjoyed by a lot of people. But I wonder whether the ceremony can retain its position if it is repeated so often. This is the one question that I find it very difficult to answer.
I feel, when we have had some 20 or 25 Peers introduced since Christmas, that the ceremony loses its life and its attractiveness. On the other hand, it may be that we shall go some months without any new creations, so the new batch will start again all fresh, and everyone will be interested to see how the ceremony is proceeded with. Therefore, as I said earlier, I am rather torn between the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and the noble Lord, Lord Denham. I wonder whether this is a matter that we should solve by a Division, because a Division brings it to a conclusion; one side has won and the other side has lost. I suspect from today's debate that both sides have made considerable points.
I wonder whether, if the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, undertook to withdraw his Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, would be willing not to press his Amendment. I am trying only to be helpful. I wonder if there was something in what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said, and whether, without making a basic change in the ceremony, it could be looked at to see whether there could be some improvement, some refinement of it, genuinely bringing it into the present day life of this House, without in any way changing its historic position. My Lords, I have done my best. The look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, seems to indicate that I have not done enough. I can only try. I wonder whether this is a matter on which we should divide. I think there is a lot to be said for calling it a day—I will not say all square, but the points have been made —and in due time, when the moment is ripe, this matter can be considered again, perhaps by the Procedure Committee, without the limelight of a public debate.
Lord MOLSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House this question? Is he of the opinion—I am not asking him to give a ruling—that if my noble friend's Amendment were carried it would prevent the Procedure Committee from looking at any modification of
552
the procedure for an indefinite period of time?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, too Parliament binds another, but I should have thought a Division today with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, succeeding—which would kill the Motion of my noble friend—would mean no consideration by the Procedure Committee in this Parliament. But your Lordships' House can do what it wishes; it may vote one way today and decide that the matter should be looked at tomorrow. I should have thought a decision of this kind today would rule out any consideration in this Parliament.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, in order to help me to decide which way to see the question, I wonder whether the nobls Lord the Leader of the House could help me on the subject of the frequency of this ceremony. I feel rather strongly that there is a point here, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Platt, made. There is a simple question which we can put to the noble Lord the Leader of the House; that is, how often is this ceremony likely to occur in the near future?
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I am not sure, following what my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, whether it is for me to speak now. I understand that it is. First of all, as regards what the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said about those who wished for modification of the ceremony not being agreed among them selves as to what it should be, that is why I suggested the matter should go to a Select Committee for examination and a recommendation. Throughout the debate I have found myself agreeing exactly with the sentiments of my noble friend Lady Wootton, who described the difficulty that ceremonial frequently has in teetering between impressiveness and ludicrousness. I also agreed with the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I am glad he reminded me that the Writ is, of course, the oldest of all the Parliamentary missives, and I agree with him that it would probably be a loss if the Writ were not read out at the ceremony. I myself take great pleasure in reading my own Writ whenever it appears through the post.
There are two main points put forward in opposition to the Motion, which I should like to answer if I can. The first

553
is the argument that we should not change what has taken place for 354 years. I think that itself is a poor reason for not making a change. As I indicated at the beginning, up to 1621 there were frequent changes in the ceremony of Introduction brought about by the fact that it was of immense importance to the participants. My point is that the ceremony which was formulated in 1621 was of great relevance then, but is not quite so relevant today, for it does not agree with our custom of equality between Peers nor with the sense of a great many people in this House of what is dignified. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cudlipp on his maiden speech. I am sorry that I did not find it entirely non-controversial, but I hope that his incisiveness and his experience of life in the newspaper industry will often be at the service of your Lordships in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, did not, I believe, listen to my speech. I think he came to the House thinking that I wanted to abolish everything, right, left and centre, and then accused me of wanting to do all sorts of things which I do not. The point is that every custom has a beginning at some time and when this ceremony was brought into being it was, in its day, radical. My noble friend Lord Cudlipp said that we must not tamper with the ceremonial, but that is exactly what happened in the year 1621—they tampered with the ceremonial. Running into that is the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument. Surely the joy of this House, and why so many of your Lordships, including myself, have such a deep affection for it, is that we are entirely in charge of our own procedure. Nobody imposes things on us or gives us rulings. Erskine May and precedents do not dictate to us, and we can decide exactly what we want to do. Noble Lords need not change the Introduction ceremony, or they can change it exactly so much as they wish and no further.
Our procedure always incorporates the best of what is both modern and traditional. That is one reason why we remain a House of contemporary influence. We have never been, and I hope we never shall be, against change unless it be change for the sake of it, and surely that is not the case here. What I urge on the House is that we
554
must consider change; we must surely consider it from time to time even if that next time is 354 years hence; and if the matter goes to a Select Committee which can publish its report with its reasons, recommending change or otherwise, it is still then within your Lordships' hands, in the light of that report and perhaps in the light of what has been said in the debate, to take action or no action as your Lordships see fit. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment and that the House will agree with the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, and let the matter be considered by a Select Committee.
5.12 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cudlipp, on a maiden speech which I enjoyed very much. I enjoyed it a little more perhaps because he agreed with my Amendment rather than with the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. For reasons that filled me with horror, the noble Lord the Leader of the House suggested that your Lordships should not come to a decision this afternoon. He said that if we came to a decision this afternoon, we could discuss this subject again and again. I think that that is an extremely good reason for reaching a decision this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, suggested that your Lordships should not make up your minds this afternoon but should refer the matter to a Select Committee and then wait to see what that Committee decides and to judge whether we like its decision. But I think there is a strong possibility that the majority of your Lordships do not want, and will not ultimately accept, any alteration in the ceremony at all. If this should be the case, it would be pointless to waste the time of a Select Committee and improper to ask Her Majesty to waive her prerogative.
I will leave noble Lords with this one point about making changes. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has already questioned the authenticity of the ceremony, which was devised in 1621, because it is only an adaptation of older ceremonies. If your Lordships were to agree this year to any alteration, however slight, how much easier would it be for some noble

555
Lord in the future to seek to do away with the ceremony which could then be said to date only from 1975. I must ask your Lordships to accept my Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, the original Motion was that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to place her prerogative and interest so far as they may be concerned at the
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
disposal of the House of Lords for the purpose of the consideration of alterations in the ceremony of Introduction by a Select Committee, since when an Amendment has been moved to leave out all the words after "That" in line 1, and to insert "this House has no desire to change the ceremony of Introduction."
5.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Phillips, B.

Arran, E.

Gainford, L.

Piercy, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Porritt, L.

Balniel, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Reigate, L.

Barnby, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Berkeley, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bessborough, E.

Granville of Eye, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Greenway, L.

St. Davids, V. [Teller.]

Blyton, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Helens, L.

Castle, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cathcart, E.

Guest, L.

Sandys, L.

Cawley. L.

Hanworth, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Champion, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Cholmondeley, M.

Harvington, L.

Sherfield, L.

Collison, L.

Hawke, L.

Snow, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henderson, L.

Somers, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hood, V.

Stamp, L.

Cromartie, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Ironside, L.

Strang, L.

Darwen, L.

Kilmany, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Daventry, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Davidson, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Swansea, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Tenby, V.

Eccles, V.

Long, V.

Thomas, L.

Effingham, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vickers, B.

Elles, B.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ely, Bp.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Meston, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Monck, V.

Wigoder, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wise, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Newall, L.

Young, B.

Faringdon, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ferrers, E.

Norwich, V.

Fortescue, E.

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Raglan, L. [Teller.]

Airedale. L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Reay, L.

Alport, L. [Teller.]

Elton, L.

Royle, L.

Amherst, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

Slater, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hayter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Boothby, L.

Longford, E.

Wade, L.

Brock, L.

Molson, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Brockway, L.

Pannell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Platt, L.

Cowley, E.

Popplewell, L.

On Questions, Motion, as amended, agree to.

INTERNATIONAL ROAD HAULAGE PERMIT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

CENSUS ORDER 1975
5.25 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move. That Articles 7, 8, 9(d) to (j), 10, 11, 14 and 15 of Part I, and Articles 17, 18(a)(vi), 19, 20 and 21 of Part III, of Schedule 2, and Articles 6, 8, 10(c) to (i), ll(a)(vi), 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of Schedule 4 of the draft Order in Council entitled the Census Order 1975, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are concerned this afternoon with the draft Order in Council for a mid-term Census to be taken in 1976. Your Lordships are probably aware that we have had 10 yearly Censuses of the population of Great Britain in most recent years whose date ends in 1. This will be only the second time that we shall have had a midterm Census. In 1966 we had a sample Census of 10 per cent. of the population, but the proposals in the present draft Order are for a 100 per cent. Census. The proposals for this Census have already been made public in the Government's White Paper on the 1976 Census of Population published on the 20th February. Most of what I have to say reflects what has already been said there.
The need to take Censuses more frequently than in the past arises mainly because of the enormous amounts now spent by Central and local government -now over 45 per cent. of the gross national product: to spend this properly up-to-date facts are important because of the speed with which local populations can alter: moreover, the whole structure of local government has itself changed since the last Census and so have the authorities administering the health service. These are the main reasons why information such as the Census provides needs to be as up to date as possible. Without a mid-term Census we should have to wait until 1982 or 1983 for new figures to replace those derived from the 1971 Census. Figures out of date by as much as 11 or 12 years are just inadequate as a basis for planning and policy for-
558
mulation. Because of the changes in local government and the increasing demand for statistics relating to fairly small areas, sample figures on subjects such as population and housing would not be adequate.
I should like briefly to explain the provisions of the draft Order. It prescribes the date for the Census, who has to make the returns and who they should cover. It also sets out the particulars required, some of which are the subject of the motion. The Order as a whole is subject to Negative Resolution, but the items in the motion require approval by Affirmative Resolution because they are not specifically authorised in the Census Act. I shall come on to the details of the items in a few moments.
My Lords, the date prescribed for the Census is Sunday, 16th May; we want to continue the tradition of holding Censuses on Sundays because most people are to be found at home on Sunday evenings. Recent Censuses have been held on the last Sunday in April, but in 1976 that date would be too close to Easter and the local elections in England and Wales rule out earlier dates in May.
Your Lordships will see from Article 5 of the draft Order that returns will be required from every household and from each individual in a non-private establishment—that is, hotels, hospitals, prisons and Forces establishments—or on board a vessel. As in previous censuses, the responsibility for making the return for a private household rests with the head of the household, but this time we acknowledge the possibility of there being joint heads. Individual members of households will also be able to obtain their own form to fill in if they prefer to do this rather than to give personal details to the head of the household The people to be included in the returns for private households are listed under Group I in Schedule I to the draft Order
My Lords, if I may refer to the position in England and Wales, the particulars to be stated in the returns are prescribed by Article 6 of the draft Order in conjunction with Schedules 2, 3 and 4. One of our aims is to cut down the burden on the form-filling public, and I should like to explain briefly how we propose to do this. Almost as much information is required from this Census in England

559
and Wales as in 1971. We have cut out one or two subjects, including some of the most sensitive ones, but more, has been achieved by introducing a new sampling scheme. We have divided the questions into two groups, some to be asked on all forms and others to appeal on only some of the forms. Every form will contain the basic set of items together with a number of additional questions
Your Lordships will find the basic set in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 and the additional particulars in Part 3. Schedule 3 shows how the additional questions will be spread over 10 variants of the Census form. Article 6 (5) of the Order directs the Registrar-General to make arrangements so that, as nearly as possible, each of the 10 different types of form is used for one-tenth of the returns. By spreading some of the Census questions over a number of different samples in this way, we have reduced the number of questions which each person will be asked and at the same time will obtain the information that we need in order to provide the tables of statistics, including various cross-analyses of the items.
My Lords, to come to the position so far as Scotland is concerned, in Scotland, with only about one-tenth of the population of England and Wales, the size of the Census operation, and the small populations of some local areas about which detailed information is needed, make a sampling system unsuitable. The statistics derived from a 10 per cent. sample would contain too great an element of uncertainty to be acceptable. But it would clearly be unreasonable to expect every householder in Scotland to provide the whole range of information on the topics which in England and Wales will be spread over 10 sample forms. So, if we are to reduce the burden of form-filling to an acceptable level—as we think we must—it is necessary to leave out in Scotland some of the topics on which questions will be asked in England and Wales.
This, of course, involves making a judgment—in the interest of reducing the length of the Scottish Census form—as to which topics we can reasonably dispense with in Scottish circumstances. Given the general desire and need for more statistical information, this is not an easy
560
judgment to make, as your Lordships will appreciate. The proposals for Scotland, listed in Schedule 4 to the draft Order, represent the items to which the Scottish Departments, as users of Census data, give highest priority, bearing in mind that the demands on the public in the different countries should not be seriously out of scale. As a result, the range of topics in the Scottish form will be rather smaller than the range spread over the 10 sample forms in England and Wales, but the Scottish form will cover rather more topics than any one of these ten forms. In terms of the actual detailed questions, it will be about the same length as the longest of those South of the Border, and will be shorter than its counterpart in 1971.
My Lords, there is one entirely new item which relates to England and Wales —No. 21—which is one of the items in the Motion. This relates to the journeys of school children and students to their place of education. Such journeys form a substantial proportion of the morning peak travel in many areas in England and Wales, and information about the journeys is needed to supplement information, as collected in previous Censuses, on travel to work. Apart from these items, all other particulars listed in the Schedules to the draft Order relate to matters which were included in the 1971 Census. These items are all printed in bold in the Schedules to the Order. I will take them in sequence from Schedule 2 for England and Wales, mentioning where they also appear in Schedule 4 for Scotland.
My Lords, the first item is No. 7 in Schedule 2, and is the country of birth of father and of mother; this applies only to England and Wales and does not appear in the Scottish list. The information which we shall get on parents' countries of birth, taken together with the person's own country of birth, will help us to estimate the number of people of overseas origin. We continue to need information about the areas in which the immigrant communities live, their housing and their jobs, and to compare these with the rest of the population, which the Census will enable us to do. To obtain a full picture in many areas, it is important to have parents' countries of birth, because some members of the immigrant communities were themselves born over here. The

561
Community Relations Commission has supported this question.
Item 8, which is item 6 in the Scottish schedule, relates to the presence or absence of the person in the dwelling on Census night.
When we come to compile statistics on the composition of households, which, as your Lordships will understand, is important for social policy, we need information about absent members of the household and these items in the Schedules are designed to enable us to distinguish these people. The particulars of people who are not in employment which are to be found in item 9 (item 10 in Schedule 4 for Scotland) are printed in bold type. We need these details as a source of information on the number of people available for employment and— by cross-tabulation with other items—on how many of them are married women, for example, or highly qualified people.
My Lords, item 10 (item 13 in Schedule 4 for Scotland) relates to the position in premises of vessels, and enables us to distinguish staff from guests or patients, or the crew of a ship from the passengers, not only in the statistics but also when seeing that all returns are collected. The next group of items apply only to private households and relate to the accommodation occupied. Items 11 and 14, which are 14 and 16 in Schedule 4 for Scotland, require approval by Resolution. We need the information about owner-occupied and rented accommodation, whether private, council or tied property, in order to estimate the quality of housing separately for each category, and the information on the availability of various house-hold amenities will show where needs have still to be met.
Item 15–17 in Schedule 4 for Scotland —relates to private households and concerns the number of cars and vans normally available for private use. This will indicate the relative demand for road space in different areas and the degree of dependency upon public transport. The items which follow are the ones which in England and Wales are only to be included in some of the forms. Item 17— 8 in Schedule 4 for Scotland—concerns the numbers of people who have moved house in the one-year and five-year periods preceding census day and the areas they have moved from. Informa-
562
tion on migration is a major ingredient in making population projections for local areas. Item 18–11 in Schedule 4 for Scotland—relates to people's employment. Among the various particulars listed there is one which is subject to approval by Resolution; namely, the main means of transport to work. At the end of Schedule 2 your Lordships will see that in the case of journeys to school and college we need to seek your approval not only for asking for the means of transport but also for the school or college address and the address from which the student or school child usually starts the journey, the latter because so many students live away from home in term-time.
The two remaining items in bold-type relate to educational qualifications. Item 19, mainly school-leaving qualifications, appears only in Schedule 2 for England and Wales; item 20 relating to higher qualifications obtained after reaching the age of 18 has a counterpart in the Scottish list at No. 12. We need the information which the Census statistics can provide on qualified people, and their distribution among industries and occupations in particular, for use in formulating policies on education and industrial recruitment and deployment. In the case of the higher qualifications, we need the details such as the names of the awarding institutions in order correctly to classify the multifarious qualifications.
I come to the question of the inclusion of these items requiring Affirmative Resolution in a compulsory national Census, since some of your Lordships may be wondering why we should not shorten the Census itself by using voluntary surveys to cover these topics. First, the Schedule to the Census Act which defines which matters may be included without approval by Resolution and which may not, was drawn up in 1920 to meet the needs of that time. Governments' requirements for information have changed considerably since then and the lists in the draft Order have been drawn up to meet the demands of today. Our predecessors of 1920 wisely provided for the inclusion of additional matters subject to Affirmative Resolution. It will be clear to your Lordships that many of the items in the Motion are closely related to those which do not need approval by Resolution, and to exclude some items in

563
our list would severely curtail the useful-ness of this Census.
If we were to employ voluntary surveys for the collection of the information with which the Motion is concerned, we should either have to link the survey responses directly to the Census responses or else repeat many of the Census questions in the survey questionnaire so that the required cross-analyses of the various topics could be made. One way of linking the survey to the Census might be to have a voluntary section of the Census form, but this could cause great confusion and probably lead to a poor response to both the voluntary and compulsory parts of the form. Indeed, the disadvantage of a voluntary survey is that some people opt out and there can then be no assurance that those who take part are representative of those who opt out. This is why a response rate even up to 80 per cent. in voluntary surveys on subjects such as those for which we are seeking approval in the draft Order would be inadequate.
But there are subjects for which voluntary surveys are more appropriate than compulsory censuses, either because they are sensitive and people should be able to refuse to answer or because they apply only to a minority of the population and it would be wasteful to ask everyone about them. We plan to carry out several sample surveys on a voluntary basis following the Census, using the Census to provide a sampling frame. They are of two kinds : the first group is designed to extend the information provided by the Census and the second are conducted for the purpose of validating the Census itself. The first group covers subjects that are considered unsuitable for a compulsory Census or that involve only a minority of the populations; there are; four such voluntary surveys planned at the moment and details of these are given in the White Paper. If any further voluntary surveys linked to the Census are planned, they will be announced to the House in good time. The voluntary follow-up surveys to validate the Census would continue the recent practice of making sample checks on the quality of the information collected in the Census and on the completeness of coverage of households and dwellings.
My Lords, I wish to emphasise that strict confidentiality will apply to the voluntary sample surveys as it does to the Census, and your Lordships may wish to explain the safeguards that apply to the information given in the Census. First and foremost, the House has our firm assurance that no information about identifiable individuals or households will be disclosed by the Census organisation to any other Department or anyone else outside the organisation. I am using the terms "Census organisation" to mean the two Government offices conducting the Census; namely, the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys and the General Register Office for Scotland and the people whom they employ specially for the Census such as the local enumerators. The Census Act, 1920, provides for penalties, including imprisonment for up to two years, for people employed in taking a Census who divulge information from the Census unlawfuly, and the staff of the Census offices will be subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1911. So far as possible, enumerators will not be allocated to enumeration districts in which they live or work, in order to reduce the chance of their knowing, or being known by, someone whom they have to enumerate.
The normal method of returning the Census forms will be direct to the enumerator—this has the advantages that the enumerator can help the public with any queries and can also check the forms for completeness on the spot—but envelopes will be available in which households who wish to bypass the enumerator can seal their completed returns so that they will not be seen by him. In exceptional circumstances it will also be possible for people to return their forms to a Census office by post.
I can also assure the House that every care will be taken to ensure that there is no disclosure of information about identifiable people indirectly in the statistics which are produced from the Census. These various arrangements to safeguard the confidentiality of the Census information are described in more detail in the recent White Paper. The security of the Census was the subject of two indepen-dent reports made after the 1971 Census at the invitation of the previous Govern-ment and published in a White Paper in

565
1973. We have carefully and sympathetically considered the recommendations in those Reports and where appropriate have implemented them. I hope, therefore, that I am able to satisfy your Lordships that the confidentiality of the Census will continue to be maintained in the tradition of the Census offices.
The main results from the proposed Census will, we expect, be produced with-in a period of three years of Census day —I am referring here to the main programme of tables, because the Census offices will continue to meet requests for additional analyses after that time. This will represent an improvement by comparison with the last Census which has been under some criticism in your Lordships' House and elsewhere because of the time taken to produce some of the results. On that point, I must say that a far greater volume of material has already been produced from the 1971 Census than from any of its predecessors. Your Lordships will wish to know that we are doing all we can to have the remaining Reports for publication ready for laying before the House by the middle of the present year. We are taking a number of steps to speed the production of results from the next Census. In particular, we shall be recruiting a larger clerical staff to code the information for input to the computer. In England and Wales we shall decentralise this operation so that the necessary numbers of people can be recruited; and we shall be enhancing the computer capacity to deal with the Census data, by installing a larger computer in the Office' of Population Censuses and Surveys, and by carrying out some of the work on the Scottish data on a separate installation in Scotland.
I should like to say something about the cost. Despite these increases in resources, we do not expect the cost in real terms of the 1976 Census to be significantly different from the last one. A total of £21 million at 1974 prices is estimated for the whole of Great Britain —£17½ million for England and Wales, and £3½ million for Scotland.
My Lords, that brings me to the end of my description of the proposals for the next Census. It is an operation which needs to command the confidence and inspire the co-operation of the public. The
566
need for the information must be clearly demonstrated and the arrangements to protect its confidentiality must be effective. I hope that what I have said will have reassured your Lordships on these important points and I commend the draft Order to the House—
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether the penalties in the new Order are the same as in the Census for 1971? I may have missed what the noble Lord said about penalties, because I was a few minutes late in coming in, when the noble Lord was speaking.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my recollection is that the penalties are the same. I think I said that the penalties could incur a term of up to two years imprisonment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I did not quite understand whether that was a penalty for disclosing confidential information, or a penalty for refusing to answer a specific question on the Census form. That was the aspect of the penalties in which I was interested; that is, the penal-ties for non-compliance with a request for information.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I was referring to penalties for disclosure. I understand that the penalties in respect of people not completing the form are as before. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Articles 7, 8, 9(d) to (j), 10, 11, 14 and 15 of Part I, and Articles 17, 18(a)(vi), 19, 20 and 21 of Part III, of Schedule 2, and Articles 6, 8, 10(c) to (i), l1(a)(vi), 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of Schedule 3 of the draft Order in Council entitled the Census Order 1975, be approved.—[Lord Wells-Pestell.]
5.55 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his explanation of this Census order. This is, indeed, a technical and complex subject; not only the subject matter in itself, but the Parliamentary procedures which go with it, and we are very grateful for the clarity of the noble Lord's explanation. We on this side of the House are glad to welcome the Order in general terms. It is a proposal to have

567
a mid-term Census which has the support of all the local authority associations; and it is not difficult to see why. The Census has been taken every 10 years since 1801 —with the exception of 1941—and it started with a simple head count, but; now, of course, it is an essential tool in the economic, social and educational planning processes of this country. Because; of the complexity of our society, it is essential to review the purpose of the Census from time to time. This Census is welcome, in that it is to be, as I under-stand it, a full Census and not a sample Census, such as that taken in 1966.
In that Census, I understand, only a 10 per cent. sample was taken and, owing to faults in the sampling framework, there were a number of errors which soon became apparent, particularly in urban areas. The Census proposed is therefore a vital tool in regional and local planning, particularly in the new rolling structure plans now well under way in all first-tier authorities. Equally, the Census is needed because the results of the 1971 Census, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred, are coming out so slowly, so that some local authorities, considering their structure plans, must still use data derived from the 1961 Cen-sus. The difficulties and the inaccuracies derived from using data now at least 14 years out of date must be evident to any-one, and I believe that the Greater London Council has already experienced difficulty over its planning because it has not had the up-to-date information. I am therefore pleased, as I asked a Question on this matter in December, to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, agrees with me on how important it is for local authorities to have this up-to-date information readily available.
My Lords, the need is vital, but the proposed Census will be of real use only if the results are produced quickly. What local authorities, for example, will want to be assured of is that the undertakings given in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the White Paper are really watertight. Para-graph 31 of the White Paper says that the aim of the Government is to pro-duce the results within three years, and this has been repeated this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. This is a long time, because fewer questions
568
are being asked. It is all the more disappointing as both the White Paper, and the noble Lord, referred to the new processing offices and the new and more powerful computer. But can we be sure of the effectiveness of the new computer? If I may quote from Hansard and the Question that I asked on this subject, I was told at column 4 of 2nd December:
"There have been computer problems, in regard to which the Government are not alone."
My Lords, I am not a computer expert, but this statement has an ominously familiar ring about it, and what we need to know is whether the computer now installed will be subject to lengthy problems of what I think is called " running in"? I should like to ask specifically: when is the computer to be installed? I should also like to ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can give an undertaking that it will be working effectively as soon as the Census results are available. I am glad to hear the assurances that he has given; but I am certain that he will agree with me that the whole value of the Census is in get-ting out the results, and it is very un-fortunate that some of the results of the 1971 Census will be available only in mid-1975.
I should like to know also what the Government are to do about all the organisations which were asked to have last-minute information extracted from the Census. This, too, I believe was a cause of delay in the publication of the 1971 results. So that although we on this side of the House welcome the pro-posed Census, we do so provided that the results can be produced to the time-table proposed; otherwise, I believe that the whole Census will be to a large extent wasted and, at the same time, will be a terrible waste of public money. I am glad to note what the noble Lord said about the cost of the Census. It is approximately what was forecast in the article in The Times of 2nd December on the need for a five-year Census. I suppose one must be gratified that the cost will be no greater than the 1971 Census, even at 1974 prices and even taking into account that fewer questions are to be asked.
My Lords, turning now to more detailed points, there are a number of questions I should like to ask. I found

569
the accompanying White Paper to the Order very helpful, particularly about the reasons for the questions to be asked. No explanation seems to have been given for leaving out a number of questions and, in particular, the questions listed in paragraph 8 of the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, hinted that these were left out because they were the most controversial. If this is the reason, although it is not stated in the White Paper, it is a very real reason for omitting them. The fact of the questions being left out will affect the comparability of the 1976 Census with the 1971 Census; and this in turn will affect basic planning decisions. Planning is both a short-term and a long-term process, and long-term trends are important. It seemed to me unfortunate that the question listed as Occupation one year ago "has been dropped in view of the current employment situation. Turning to questions on housing, I wonder why any question of leaseholds has been omitted. This was a subject debated in this House as recently as last July, and a question on this subject would monitor this declining sector of the market. It would be interesting if, as is suggested, the Community Land Bill included provisions about selling land on long leases for house building.
It is with hesitation that I raise any question about the Welsh and Gaelic languages. I was surprised to see that on the questions on Scotland concerning the Gaelic language the speakers were not to be asked if they can read or write the language, but simply if they can speak it. On the other hand, the Welsh are to be asked if they read or write Welsh, as they were asked in 1971. I should have thought that the whole issue of languages was to what extent they were living and used languages, and therefore it is essential to know how many people not only speak it but read and write it and what development there is in the language itself.
My Lords, there is also the question of a voluntary Census. I was interested to hear the explanation for the various questions that are going to be posed in the voluntary Census. This seemed to work on a very good principle of collecting a great deal of information which would take a great deal of time if it were included in the whole of the Census form.
570
A question of enormous importance is that of migration within Great Britain. As I understand it, the voluntary Census is to supplement questions being asked in the main Census as to why people move. What is equally important is why they do not move. This gives you the balance of population between town and country, a subject of great interest not only to geographers, social scientists and to demographers, but one that will give a great deal of information about the problems of inner cities and of development and developing areas. I should be interested to know why it has been decided not to ask the question as to why people do not move from places as well as why they do. It would be interesting to know whether the population is becoming more static, having moved about a great deal and, if so, why it is. On the other hand, paragraph 22 of the White Paper specifically states that further voluntary surveys could be carried out. It would be interesting to know whether, as a result of this, the Government might consider a voluntary survey simply on this subject.
In such a detailed matter as this there are many questions that one could ask. The final question is on the employment sector. I wonder why the Government had not considered a question about the employment of children. This is an important social issue and one which affects social and educational policy. I should like to conclude with two general observations. I think that there must be good and effective publicity about this Census and its purpose. There are to be ten different types of Census form to be completed by a different 10 per cent. of the population. Although there will be what is called a hard core of questions, people will inevitably wonder why some are being asked one lot of questions and some are being asked another, and whether there is any significance in the difference in the questions being asked. I trust that when the leaflets are delivered to households setting this out, they will set out the reasons for it; other-wise people will be justifiably concerned as to what they are being asked to fill in.
The second general question concerns the issue of confidentiality. I do not intend to pursue this at any length this afternoon, not because I think it is not important; on the contrary, I think it is

571
exceedingly important. I think it is almost a subject for debate in itself. Over these matters I was glad to have the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that the Government have considered the results of the complaints of the 1971 Census and have done their best to act upon them. I appreciate very much that in these matters we must weigh in the balance the value of the Census and the data it can give us against the inevitable intrusion into the privacy of the individual.
I am aware of the criticisms arising from the last Census, and I hope that the assurances we have heard from the Government this afternoon will be fulfilled as far as possible, and that the Government will tell the House before the Census takes place if they are going to act on the suggestion of the Royal Statistical Society that there should be a standing review body to handle complaints about the Census. It seems to me that this is a very good suggestion and one which I think everybody would be glad to follow. It would mean satisfaction to those who felt that the questions were perhaps insensitively put or that perhaps there was too great an intrusion, and that perhaps the kind of criticisms made last time could be brought before an impartial body. I hope that the Government will consider this matter seriously before the Census takes place. It seems to me that they have time to do so.
My Lords, I end as I began, by saying that we on this side of the House welcome the 1975 Census Order and hope that the information gained will be speedily processed so that the vital decisions necessary in our complex society can be made on the most up-to-date of information.
6.10 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I cannot altogether share the enthusiasm of the noble Baroness for the Census. I cannot altogether agree with her that the need is vital and that this Census is an essential tool until that has been demonstrated. I will agree with her that the value of the Census has to be weighed against the inevitable intrusion into privacy which it involves. I think that the fundamental objection to any Census is as was stated by my honourable friend Mr. Alan Beith,
572
in a letter to The Times on 25th February. He said:
"It constitutes an extensive and detailed social survey but it retains the legal sanctions against non-completion that are appropriate only in a population count."
Nobody, so far as I am aware, objects to filling in Form A of the Electoral Register, which asks only for the names and addresses of the adult members of a household and, in the case of those reaching their majority during the period for which the Electoral Register will be in force, for the dates of birth of those individuals. But it is when the questionnaire is expanded to include material about the personal backgrounds of house-hold members that resistance begins. And the more information is demanded the more resistance there is, together with the higher number of refusals and, of course, false answers. One could take the purist line and say that no compulsion should be exercised beyond the basic details of name, sex, marital status and age, and that all the remaining questions should be answered at the voluntary discretion of the householder. That suggestion has already been mentioned.
That was evidently the view of my honourable friend in his letter to The Times, and it is perfectly logical; but I suggest there is an intermediate stage between that position and the complete acceptance of the proposals in this Order that I detected in the speech of the noble Baroness. One could say that all the questions about premises—which are obviously not of a personal nature—are clearly harmless and that the questions specifically laid down by the provisions of the 1920 Census Act have been sanctioned by long custom and practice, but that the remaining information could be ascertained by other and voluntary means. With respect to my honourable friend, I think it would be likely to give rise to confusion if some questions were voluntary and others compulsory, and the extent of non-completion of the voluntary questions would probably make the statistics resulting from the Census highly inaccurate. Neither those who opted out nor those who agreed to answer all the questions would necessarily be a true cross-section of the public as a whole.
Mr. Joseph Hanlon, writing in New Scientist on 27th February, proposed a two-part questionnaire, the second part

573
of which would not contain the name and address of the respondent. If the two parts were to remain permanently separated, it would mean that statistics were no longer available for particular areas, because answers in the second half of the form would never be correlated to names and addresses in the first part. For example, it would not be possible to say how many dwellings in a given local authority area did not have a fixed bath or shower. A compromise might be to give each part of the questionnaire a code number and allow the householder to return each part separately so that they would be "married up" only after being input to the computer. At that stage the data is filed by reference to the Ordnance Survey grid within 100 metre squares, and not by reference to individual names. So the problem of confidentiality would be greatly reduced, though not altogether eliminated.
The two halves of the form, having been processed, would then be filed separately if it was still thought desirable to retain them for historical purposes for 100 years, as has been done so far. It would be interesting to know how much use is made by historians of the material from the early nineteenth century Censuses which is now available to them. If the two halves of the form are processed and then stored in different places, neither the enumerators nor the clerks in charge of data entry would see both of them, and it would double the hurdle a snooper must surmount before gaining access to information about a particular individual. There is always the possibility that an extremist Government itself might wish to use such material; and this has been canvassed. In my view, even if the previous records had been destroyed such a regime would have the power to reconstruct them so that destruction of the records would not be any adequate safe-guard against that eventuality.
What is the purpose of a Census? According to the White Paper:
"Census statistics are needed by Government departments and local authorities for planning and developing their policies and for monitoring the effects of those policies. They are also needed to inform Parliament and the general public and for industry and research."
Those objects, of course, are entirely legitimate in themselves,
574
but we have to ask three questions: The first is: is the information used to an extent that justifies the cost of collecting it and the obligations imposed on citizens to provide it? Secondly, could the same information have been gathered by other means? Thirdly, what are the safeguards against unauthorised disclosure?
On the first point it will be obvious, as the noble Baroness mentioned, that the longer it takes to produce the information the less useful it will be. There are still quite a few analyses from the 1971 census remaining to be published. The main reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the delay is the vast in-crease in the quantity and detail of the results which are demanded. It is per-haps in the light of these circumstances that five subjects on which questions were asked in 1971 are being omitted altogether in 1976. But the noble Baroness will remember how, when we were dealing with rents legislation last summer, we had no information about the number of privately rented furnished properties, and we were arguing about the problem in a vacuum. This was a very good illustration of the uselessness of taking censuses and then not providing the information to Parliament when required. It is far too late for the 10-year tables to have been published after that legislation had gone through your Lordships' House and another place. No doubt many years will pass before we have another opportunity of amending that legislation, if it were thought desirable to do so in the light of figures ultimately produced.
I want now to consider in particular the use that might be made of the information provided in connection with Questions 7 and 17, dealing with parents' country of birth and usual residence one year and five years previously. Professor Sir Claus Moser, writing in Social Trends 1972, discussed the collection of statistics about "immigrants" in some detail. He distinguished between the strict use of the word in its meaning of a person who has moved into this country from abroad during the period under consideration, and its extension to groups whose family origins are overseas. He says:
"Where discussion is of a group which, in principle, it is required to characterise in terms of race or colour, descriptions such as 'New

575
Commonwealth ethnic origin' are used and statistically defined … "
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he remarked that we continued to need the information about immigrant communities, really meant communities which included people of "new Commonwealth ethnic origin", because he was talking about the parental bithplace question and was including in his remarks persons born in this country to parents from overseas.
From the Census we know, for instance, how many persons resident in the London Borough of Haringey in 1971 has a father, a mother or both parents who were born in Cyprus. But where does that lead? It means we are supposed to view these people as "problems", creating burdens in the area because of their ancestry, as Sir Claus makes clear later in his article, because he writes about:
"… selective social expenditure policies, like the Urban Programme and grants under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 (both of which were influenced by immigrant problems) … ".
The incessant coupling with the word "immigrant" of the word "problem" fosters and encourages the racism which these well-meaning policies are intended to counter. The more one accepts this principle of channelling money into areas with high concentrations of people of "new Commonwealth ethnic origin" the more difficult it will become to contain racism. The anti-immigrant natives will surely point out that even fairly liberal Governments and local authorities view immigrants as problems. But it does not satisfy me when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, tells us that the Community Relations Commission has agreed to Question 7. I have had representations from the Standing Council of Asian Organisations in the United Kingdom, from the leaders of the Cypriot community, from the Joint Council of Welfare of Immigrants and from the National Council for Civil Liberties. With great respect to the CRC, I believe the organisations I have mentioned are more closely in touch with grass-roots opinion among the immigrant communities.
If the Census statistics were used as a yardstick for distribution of age to local authorities, I suggest they would be quite
576
inadequate. In the 1971 Census persons not born in the United Kingdom were asked to give the year of first entry into the country. Without approving of that question, one could see the point of it. A person from a non-English speaking country who had been here for several years would be less likely to have language difficulties than someone only recently arrived. But that question has been dropped in the 1976 Census, not-withstanding the assertion of the Minister who replied to the debate on the 1970 Census Order in another place, that the information was indispensable. The reason why this "indispensable" question has been omitted this time may well be that given in relation to Question 7 by Mr. John Blake, writing in New Society of 16th March 1972. He said:
"The possibility of error is, of course, likely to be much greater for some questions than others. For example, there can be few people who will now rely on the information given about parents' place of birth, the question being so closely related to recent legislation establishing patriality as a basis for immigration control."
The sensitivity of information about date of entry was obviously even greater than that of parents' birth place, since the former is omitted while the latter is now retained. But this is retained for only England and Wales, and if it is indispensable to know about parental birth place of the residents of Liverpool, why is it not also indispensable to know the parental birth place of residents of Glasgow? It is also of great interest to note that in the test Census conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in 1974 to evaluate the 1 in 10 technique which is now being used for Part II questions, parental birth place was omitted altogether. I would further observe that not one of our partners in the EEC has a parental birth place question in its Census, and it must be for consideration at some point in the future that we should harmonise the questions asked in our Census with those of our partners in the EEC.
Even if one could be certain that correct answers were given in the overwhelming majority of cases, the statistics would, I suggest, be an unsatisfactory yardstick for any purpose one can imagine. The population of newly arrived immigrants in a given area can change very considerably between one Census and the next. For

577
example, since 1971 this country has received refugees from Uganda and more recently from Cyprus, and quite naturally these immigrants tend to settle in areas where they find others of their former compatriots. It may well be desirable to have prompt information about children arriving from overseas so that educational provision can be made for them by the local education authorities well in advance—as did not happen in the case of the Ugandans and Cypriots. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants have suggested that when entry certificates are applied for on behalf of dependants overseas, details of the ages and numbers of the children should be taken and passed on to the local education authorities concerned. No one is likely to object to this procedure if it is clearly explained to them, since it is obviously for the benefit of the children. Once the dependants have arrived and are placed in schools, then it is for the head teacher concerned to evaluate their needs, and this can be done only with real children and not with statistics.
To take an example from another field, consider the Runnymede Trust Report on Race and Council Housing in London. That report shows that at the time of the 1971 Census persons with both parents born in the new Commonwealth (abbreviated to BPBNC) were less likely to obtain a council house and, when they did so, it was likely to be in older properties on high density estates. These conclusions could have been arrived at from casual observation, although of course we should not have had the exact percent-ages. But as the report itself admits, since 1971 about another 200,000 households have been rehoused in London. So if the argument is that accuracy is essential, it would be much better to conduct a special survey for this purpose alone.
However, that raises the question of what purpose one is to put the information to once it has been collected. The Census gives no information about the ethnic origin of persons who are on the waiting lists of local authorities, so it is impossible to say whether any bias exists in selection procedures. As the report puts it:
"Without proper monitoring of allocation practices it is not possible to say how far uneven distributions are the consequence of discrimination of of other factors."
578
In other words, the need is for local authorities to examine their own pro-cedures rather than for analyses to be made of the situation as it was four years ago. Until 1971 Islington's policy was not to rehouse furnished tenants from clearance areas, for instance. This, the Report says,
"must have limited quite severely the access of BPBNC to council housing during the 1960s"
It would be useful to know of any other rules operated by the Greater London Council or the boroughs which might indirectly discriminate in this way. I hope that the Runnymede Trust might look into this question. The presentation of statistics from a four year old Census is not likely to result in the amendment of any such discriminatory rules that exist.
When the last Census Order was debated in another place, I argued that neither the parental birth place nor date of first entry to the United Kingdom were relevant to the social or civil condition of the population, and that those questions—only one of which now remains—were therefore ultra vires, falling outside the limitations which were specified in the 1920 Act. The Minister who replied to the debate said that because the Order had gone to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, and they had had nothing to say on the matter, I must be wrong. That was as far as he went, so my argument has never been refuted in public. It is necessary, I suggest, to consider what limits, if any, are placed on the information which may be legitimately collected by (he phrase in the 1920 Act,
"Any other matters with respect to which it is desirable to obtain statistical information with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population."
The assertion of the Government appears to be that under this provision the State is given a blanket power to ask any question it pleases so long as the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments does not kick up a fuss.
The trouble is that, with the vast increase in delegated legislation over recent years, the Select Committee may not have time to scrutinise every Order coming before them with the care that is needed, and inevitably some things that ought to have been stopped will slip through without being noticed. I think

579
that in the case of a Census the issues involved are so delicate that we should not treat them just in the same way as any other Order which is not concerned with matters that touch the liberty of the individual. In my view, there should be a special Select Committee to consider the desirability of all questions proposed under the discretionary provisions of the 1920 Act, and the task would be not only to make certain that the questions are within the scope of the Act but to receive evidence from Government Departments, local authorities, universities and any other users, who are always demanding more information, to see whether compliance with their demand is really in the interests of the people.
Apart from this, we must consider what additional safeguards are needed to make sure that whatever information is collected is not misused. I must emphasise here that it is not a question of the extent and magnitude of breaches of security that actually occur, but of the feeling of respondents about the likelihood that they may occur. It is not only Ministers in the Home Office or even the experts in the Royal Statistical Society who need to be satisfied with the arrangements for confidentiality, but the millions of house-holders who are going to be made to complete the form. In spite of all the publicity that was given to the 1971 Census, according to surveys which were described in the White Paper, Security of the Census of Population, 27 per cent. of those who were interviewed believed that anyone working for the Government was allowed to see the forms, and 45 per cent. thought that
"there is a risk that information could fall into the hands of the wrong people".
Partly, these fears can be dealt with by improved public relations, as the Government themselves have recognised and as the noble Baroness has mentioned this afternoon. Having at first rejected the RSS recommendation that a White Paper should be published in advance of the Order, very sensibly the Government changed their mind and have now done so. This may at least help to remove some of the fundamental misunderstandings that evidently still existed after 1971.
Having cleared those matters out of the way, as one may hope, there are still some important grounds for anxiety to
580
which the Government appear to be in-sensitive, and I shall mention just three. The official attitude on the related proposals made by the RSS and the British Computer Society for independent monitoring of security arrangements and the handling of complaints on a continuous basis instead of ex post facto, as was done last time, is still that it would be premature to make any decisions on these matters independently from the general conclusions which the Government will reach on the recommendations of the Younger Committee on Privacy. As the memorandum published this morning by the National Council for Civil Liberties rightly says, it is disgraceful to use that excuse when the Younger Report was published as long ago as July 1972 and Ministers are regularly fobbing off questioners with the assurance that a Statement will be forthcoming in the near future, the most recent occasion being when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, put a question to the Government on 27th January and received an apology from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who admitted that a Statement on the Younger Report had been half promised before Christmas and that now he was only hoping to produce one before Easter.
It is very difficult for us to argue this case this afternoon when we still have no knowledge of the Government's official attitude to the Younger Report. In the meanwhile, the Government pointed out in the Security White Paper that because the Registrars General in England, Wales and Scotland, carry out their duties under the directions of Secretaries of State, com-plaints can be dealt with already through Parliamentary Questions and, ultimately, through the Ombudsman. It will be appreciated, however, that Members of Parliament have to deal with Census com-plaints among literally hundreds of other matters which are brought to them by their constituents and would never be able to see the patterns that might emerge if all complaints were dealt with by a single body which also had the resources to monitor the effectiveness of the detailed procedures which have been mentioned by the noble Lord for ensuring confidentiality.
Secondly, there is the use made of Census data by the Social Survey Division of OPCS and also of ad hoc tabulations

581
by outside customers. The RSS say that it is doubtful whether follow-up services of the kind which have been mentioned are permitted. They are not alluded to in the 1920 Act; it is only since 1970 that the social survey has been combined with the Registrar General's Department to form the OPCS. On that principle, there is nothing to prevent the OPCS from being still further expanded by merging it with some other office of Government and then transmitting information to that office without breaching the letter of the law. It is unsatisfactory that other subjects which are not covered in the White Paper may be dealt with, using the Census as a sampling frame in the way that the noble Lord has described, without any Statement being made to Parliament, while we still have an opportunity of questioning it, as we do this afternoon. If the noble Lord says later that additional voluntary surveys will be conducted using the Census as a sampling frame, we shall have no opportunity of voting against that, because the Affirmative Resolution procedure is the last instance that we have of dealing with the matter.
On the sale of tabulations to third parties, the assurance that all information will be arranged in a way that avoids disclosing anything about individuals, whether directly or by comparison with other information, is of course welcomed. Yet according to Mr. Hanlon in the New Scientist article which I have quoted already, he says that,
" it is easy to buy data which tells a surprising amount about an individual."
This point has already been raised by the Royal Statistical Society which suggested that it could be checked by the review body. In reply, the Government said that, first, the general guidelines on confidentiality apply to unpublished equally as they do to published tabulations, and the noble Lord has repeated that this afternoon; secondly, where a tabulation refers to small numbers, random adjustments are deliberately made, virtually eliminating the possibility of indirect disclosure; thirdly, a record of all the ad hoc tabulations and the names and addresses of their recipients would be made available for public inspection. But who is to verify the effectiveness of these safeguards? Obviously, they ought to be audited by professional statisticians who are com-
582
pletely independent of the Government, as the RSS has proposed.
Lastly, there is the matter of the choice of enumerators. In the book The Invasion of Privacy by Tony Smythe and Donald Madgwick, it is shown that enumerators sometimes cover the street that they themselves live in and that among the types of official employed as enumerators were income tax inspectors and rating officers. Indeed, the Security White Paper says that as many as 29 per cent. of the enumerators were local government officers of one kind or another. The RSS proposed that no enumerator should operate within five miles of his home or place of work. However, the Government said that this would affect recruitment, add £1½ million to the cost and decrease efficiency, because the enumerators would be operating in unfamiliar surroundings. While I accept those arguments, may I suggest as a compromise that no enumerators should cover either the enumeration district in which he lives or works—the noble Lord has already given an assurance on that point—or the districts immediately adjoining it. That would give some necessary precision to the undertaking, which is also contained in the White Paper, that
"extra care will … be taken to reduce the chance of overlap between an enumerator's personal or business contacts and his enumeration area."
Turning to the conditions of eligibility to be an enumerator, the National Council for Civil Liberties rightly demands that tax inspectors, policemen, immigration officers, salesmen and some kind of local government officials should be ruled out. I think the sensible approach would be to give priority to the unemployed and, after that, to housewives, and only then to consider people who already have jobs of their own—but not the kind of sensitive jobs which the NCC mentioned.
My Lords, I apologise for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time, but the value of the Census depends on the extent of the co-operation it secures from the public at large. If satisfactory assurances cannot be given upon the matters which I have raised, then the quality of the information will be downgraded, and to that extent the planning which is based upon it will be less effective. In 1970, the Government ignored the friendly advice

583
which I ventured to offer. The result was that in that Census more people refused than in any previous Census, and wide-spread resentment and hostility was caused. This evening it would be only a gesture if I were to divide the House against this Order. However, in the absence of any signs of fresh thinking on the part of the Government, I shall be tempted to do so.
6.39 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Baroness has had to leave the Chamber for a moment or two. In her absence, perhaps I may attempt to deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but I cannot give him a comprehensive reply to all the points he has raised this evening. I am aware of his attitude with regard to a number of them, because he has made his opinions clear in the past. I can say only that I prefer to read at leisure what he has said, and I am sure that the Department will do so, also. I do not think that I can go much further than that tonight.
The noble Lord appears to have made a valid criticism of some of the workings of the Census. I am not suggesting for one moment that they are new criticisms. However, they are matters which we need to look at in detail and I do not presume to give an off-the-cuff reply this evening. In the last analysis, whatever we may feel about a Census of the kind we have in this country every 10 years, the purpose of a comprehensive Census is ultimately to serve the community in the best possible way, to find out how it is living, and the various things which impinge upon the community as a whole, which we hope will result in some kind of good Government which will give them a better and a fuller life.
To do this, as I see the situation, we obviously have to get as much information in those fields as the Government, rightly or wrongly, feel is essential in order to meet the needs of the people and I think every possible precaution is taken to safeguard that information. So far as I know, there is no evidence at all that there has been any serious breach of confidentiality—or any serious leak if a breach has taken place—or even that there has been a disclosure that should not have been made. When that kind of
584
guarantee is given—and so far as past Censuses are concerned I think one can say there has been no evidence at all of any malpractice—we should want to look at what the noble Lord has said to see whether anything can be done with regard to a future Census. He is in a position, as noble Lords in this House always are, to seek to improve upon an Act of Parliament or to amend it, and it may well be that the time has come when we ought to do this.
The noble Lord referred to people whose parents were born abroad and whose children or dependants in this country are regarded as problems. This may be so, but the attitude of some local authorities does not stem from the Census. It stems from the fact that the community recognises them as being a different group and tends often to feel that they are responsible for certain types of behaviour or that they are inadequate. I do not see what else the Department could have done in addition to consulting the Community Relations Commission on the steps that we have taken in respect of questions in the Census. I presume that the CRC does not commend itself to the noble Lord, but I should have thought it would have been difficult to think of any other source to go to in order to see whether what the Department proposes to do is in itself correct.
The noble Lord raised the question of the parental background of those filling in the forms as not applying to Scotland. That was something I had noticed myself and wondered why it applied to England and Wales and not to Scotland, and the reply I was given (and it may not meet the noble Lord's query) is that it was not considered necessary to apply it to Scot-land because the numbers of people involved are of no great significance, and since therefore one wants to keep the Census down to a minimum number of questions, unless it is a matter of great significance there is really no point in including it.
Referring now to the enumerators, I live in an area where, if one did not have somebody who was fairly remote from that area all sorts of things could happen, and I can only say that very considerable care is exercised in the choice of enumerators and where they go. Again I know of no evidence where there has been any

585
abuse by them; they are under the very severe penalty of up to two years' imprisonment. Of course some others who are engaged in the Census, as I said in my earlier speech to your Lordships, come under the Official Secrets Act.
The noble Lord asked whether historians are making use of the Census records from the earliest times. My understanding of the situation is that the Public Record Office report that Census forms of the late 19th century are the most consulted type of record open to public inspection. If there is any information about the type of user—and I cannot answer that now—perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to write to him on that particular matter.
The noble Lord also suggested a two-part Census form, one part being without the name and address. I should have thought that the name and address were necessary to check that each person had completed the Census form, and I would not think that the form could have any validity at all without that kind of information.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, what I suggested was that each half of the form should have a code number, which might even be machine readable, which would enable the two halves to be married up once they got into the computer. If the person had simply sent in the top part which contained a name and address and marital status and the ages of the occupants of the house and he had not filled in the second part, that would be discovered once it got into the computer and a reminder could be sent to him. It would be impossible for the second half not to be returned without that omission becoming evident once the two halves of the form were correlated with each other in the computer.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think the Government would have to examine whether this is going to make the task of compiling an adequate Census easier or more difficult. I do not know the answer to that, but again I would remind the noble Lord that in the absence of any evidence that there has been a breakdown in the confidentiality I could not at this stage be convinced that such
586
a move was absolutely necessary. The proposed procedure seems likely to cause confusion, and it does not seem that it would inspire confidentiality if we were to adopt the procedure that the noble Lord has in mind. This is something that I should like to look at again, to see whether it would serve any useful purpose.
The noble Lord referred to what I said some months ago about the remaining parts of the previous Census. I should like to take this opportunity of repeating what I said then; namely, that the most essential matter is available and has been available for some considerable time. With respect, I would suggest that the more important things have gone out and they did at least go out much earlier than on the occasion of any previous Census. I think one must also bear in mind that the demand for the material which has been compiled is three times greater than in any previous Census. I accept that this does not completely excuse the fact that there are still parts of that Census which are not yet avail-able, but we hope they will be available in the fairly near future.
The noble Lord raised the question of the parents' countries of birth being in the Census Act. The view of the Government is that this information is an indicator of local immigrant communities for which it is desirable to have statistics on the social conditions. I would not have thought that was in any way detrimental to them. The questions on the local placement of the enumerator I have already dealt with, and I think the only points I have yet to deal with are—
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but on the subject of the local placement of the enumerator what the noble Lord said in his speech was that as far as possible an attempt would be made to ensure that the local enumerator did not operate within the district where he either lived or worked. I was suggesting that that should be extended so that he would not work in any district contiguous to that in which he either lived or worked. The noble Lord might care to think of removing from his undertaking the phrase "as far as possible", and make it an absolute condition.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I was attempting to say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the difficulties of this situation are not altogether un-known. What I am saying is that so far as is humanly possible, every step is taken to see that an enumerator is not likely to be known in the area or district in which he is going to work. It may well be that one could lay down that he must not live within a certain distance of the area, but in these days, when people travel so much, he might go into an area where, although he lives a certain number of miles away from it, he could meet people he knows. The only way to deal with this is in the way it is being done at present; that is, as far as is humanly possible to see that people who are given a particular district have no connection in any way with that district. I should like to read in detail and more carefully, and in an entirely different atmosphere, what the noble Lord has said, to see whether any of his suggestions can be taken into account, not perhaps in this Census, but in the future.
My Lords, I should like now to deal with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am sorry I have to do so in her absence, but I am sure she will understand. The noble Baroness asked whether we can be sure that the returns will be available at the time we say they will be. I suppose if I am honest about it I cannot give that assurance, but can only say this. It is the intention of the Government that the results of the Census and the information stemming from it will be available with-in three years. This depends on a number of factors. I explained that we are adding to the computerisation of these matters. The noble Baroness asked me when the computer to which I made reference would be installed. The answer is, in the next few months. I cannot give any undertaking on whether it will work efficiently. It seems to me that the more computers are brought in, the greater the risk sometimes of breakdown, but so far as is humanly possible, it is our intention that the results shall be known within a period of three years.
My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me to give the reasons why the matter relating to leaseholds was omitted from the form. My understanding is that leaseholds were not included because,
588
rightly or wrongly, they were not thought to be of sufficient importance. I am sure it will not satisfy the noble Baroness, but I hope she will accept my assurance that the matter was considered. The noble Baroness also asked why we are not concerned with the question of why people did not move. There are two factors here. The first one is that one wants to keep the questions down to a minimum. We want to get information that can be of considerable importance. It is much more important to know when people move, and why they move. Moving within one year and moving within five years is provided for in the Census. It is more important to have the information for the two periods, and to know the reasons why people move rather than perhaps to have to burden the majority of the community—and I think it is the majority of the community —who are remaining static. I use the word "majority" in a percentage way.
My Lords, I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who raised the question of the standing review body. This is a matter to which I understand the Government are giving active consideration. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Health has asked for information on this matter, but that is all I know at this stage. The noble Baroness also asked whether there was any significance in the differences between the questions that people will be asked. The answer is "No". The different types of form will be issued randomly by the enumerators. There are ten forms. This will mean that we shall have ten dif-ferent forms, and they will be repeated. But in that sense the forms will be given out randomly, not to selected people.
Another question from the noble Baroness was why the question "Occupation one year ago" has been dropped. Again, there has been no demand from the Departments concerned, and because of this it has not been included in this particular Census. The Social Survey on Migration may investigate the reasons. I said earlier that we were not concerned to find out why people did not move; but on the other hand, it may emerge, although not specifically provided for. The noble Baroness also asked, "Why not ask Gaelic-speakers if they can read and write Gaelic?". The question was extended to reading and writing in 1971.

589
There was some lack of compatibility in the results compared with 1961, due in part possibly to the extended question. The Government hope to resolve this by reverting in 1976 to the 1961 question. In the mid-term Census, also, we wished to restrict the number of questions. Mainly for that reason the matter has not been included this time.
I cannot think of anything else that the noble Baroness asked. I dealt with one or two matters before she was able to return to the Chamber. Perhaps one of these days she will see these in Hansard. If for any reason I have missed any of her points—and I say this also to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury —I hope that either or both will not hesitate to write and tell me so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) ORDER 1975
6.58 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts) rose to move, That the Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1975, laid before the House on 26th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to make a brief statement of introduction and explanation, in order to clarify why today's Order under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act is necessary. The Act itself gives effect in the United Kingdom to all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions embodied in Community Treaties. But these Community rights and obligations do not apply and cannot be applied under the Act unless they arise under Community Treaties, as defined in Section 1 of the Act. Any agreements entered into by the United Kingdom after 22nd January 1972—the date of the Treaty of Accession—cannot be regarded as Community Treaties unless they are designated as such by means of the special procedure provided under Section 1(3) of the Act.
As I explained when introducing the last similar Order, in fact most designations relate not to EEC or Euratom treaties but to European Coal and Steel Community treaties dealing with ques-
590
tions of commercial policy. This is because the control of commercial policy in relation to the ECSC remains with the member-States rather than with the Community institutions, as in the case of the EEC. When the member-States of the ECSC take measures of commercial policy in the ECSC context, they act not by decision of the Council but by separate multilateral treaty among themselves. These treaties are usually described as decisions of the representatives of the member-States of the ECSC meeting in Council. It is, therefore, usually necessary to designate a treaty of this kind to bring it within the European Communities Act definition of a Community Treaty while it is not necessary to designate the equivalent EEC instrument.
The draft of the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1975 was laid before Parliament on 26th February. Four treaties are listed in its Schedule, and a text of each is avail-able to the House either as a Command Paper or in the Official Journal of the European Communities. The first two relate to decisions of the representatives of the member-States of the ECSC, and the House will recall the characteristics of ECSC decisions to which I have already referred. Both are decisions taken annually relating to the supervision of imports of certain products originating in Austria and Sweden respectively.
The third treaty listed is an agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the member-States of the EEC, on the one hand, and the Lebanese Republic, on the other hand. This also is an annual renewal, and relates to an agreement on Trade and Technical Co-operation. The last treaty on the Schedule is the European University Institute Convention, which the original six member-States signed in 19th April 1972, and which entered into force for them on 1st February 1975. The United Kingdom deposited its Instrument of Accession to this Convention on 24th February 1975, and it will take effect for us on the date on which the High Council of the University Institute determine the adaptations which will need to be made to the provisions of the Convention, to take account of the accession of the three new members. These adaptations in draft are shown at pages 28 to 30 of Cmnd. 5876.
Today's draft Order follows the precedent of the draft Order which I introduced to the House in 1974, and the earlier orders introduced in 1972–73. All the treaties listed in the Schedule to the Order are treaties entered into by the United Kingdom since 22nd January 1972, since Accession, and it is in the interests of the United Kingdom that they be established as Community Treaties. None in any way conflicts with our renegotiation objectives. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1975, laid before the House on 26th February, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
7.5 p.m.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, I think that the whole House must be extremely grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the contents of this Order in such detail and in his usual lucid fashion. This Order is, of course, very technical, but I still have a few questions on it to put to him and in relation to the Schedule. I gather that the exchange of letters as printed in the Official Journal of the European Communities extend the agree-ment between the Lebanon and the European Communities on trade and technical co-operation only until 1st July 1975. I would be grateful to the noble Lord if he could tell me what is to happen after that date. For example, is there to be a non-preferential trade agreement between the Community and the Lebanon, or is there to be another Order brought in to renew the agreement? Furthermore, the Exchange of Letters does not give any details as to what is involved in the agreement. Thus, I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could fill in a little more substance on this point. For example, what is the volume of trade involved and what exactly is meant by "technical co-operation"?
I am very glad to see that this country has acceded to the Convention setting up the European University Institution. Its aims as set out in Chapter 1, Article 2(1) of Cmnd. 5876 are very laudable and worth while. I do not want to appear to be too nitpicking, but what is exactly meant by "Europe"? Does it mean the EEC, or does it refer to Western Europe or Eastern Europe, and, for that matter,
592
does it include part of Russia? I think that this is just one example of where sometimes the Community could tighten up on its own drafting.
Page 28 of the Command Paper refers to the draft decision to alter the Convention to take account of the accession to the Community by Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Could the noble Lord say whether this is the approved and final text, or is it to be altered? Are the figures laid out in Article 1(1) and Article 1(2) the final figures, or are those figures in respect of weighted voting and financial contributions alterable? I know that it is very difficult for the noble Lord to give firm financial figures in relation to future Government expenditure—because they are influenced so much by inflation and other factors—but it would be helpful to the House if he could give some idea as to what 21·16 per cent. means in money terms, and what our contribution will be to the Institute as a body, apart from any contribution in grants to students who might attend it.
7.8 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Earl has asked, as usual, if I may say so without presumption, the right questions. I noticed he has not raised any question of the ECSC treaties involved, and, if I may say so, quite rightly; these are common form and do not raise any new questions. On the exchange of letters between the countries of the EEC and the Lebanon, I think the answer to his first question, as to what happens after we have renewed the annual Order, what happens after July 1975, is that we shall need to renew at least for another year. But the new preferential agreement will, when it is in force—and I can give no date for that tonight—make it unnecessary to designate the renewal. Designation is necessary only for the trade provisions, which will in any case be superseded at a future date by the 1972 Agreement. The new preferential Agreement of 1972, will, of course, concern only trade. The old Agreement will still need to be renewed annually to cover the technical co-operation aspects of it; this will be helpful in determining policy and practice in regard to technical co-operation.
Regarding the points the noble Earl raised about the content of the provisions

593
of the Agreement, I will telescope the trade part of it by saying that the Republic of the Lebanon and the Community simply agree to give each other Most Favoured Nation treatment. One could go into this and discuss it at length, but I think that is the answer which the noble Earl seeks. On technical co-operation, this may cover sending experts, specialists and teaching staff to public bodies and to educational and research establishments in the Lebanon. It may cover technical training of Lebanese nationals in industrial and commercial undertakings in the member States of the Community, including this country, to develop Lebanese production capacity and to expand Lebanese exports. It is expected that the trade provisions of this Agreement will be superseded by a new preferential Agreement negotiated, as I said, in 1972. I am sorry I can give no indication of the date when this Agreement will be in force.
The second point which the noble Lord raised about the Exchange of Letters with the Lebanon related, I think, to the total turnover of trade. I am advised that for 1974 the figure was £88 million. I shall not attempt to engage in speculation—if that is the right word in this connection —on the outcome of trade in the next few years, especially as we all hope for more stable and assured conditions obtaining in that area, but on these figures for 1974 it is a substantial proposition. I believe that covers the' points raised by the noble Earl about the exchange of letters about the Lebanon. If I have missed his point in any way, perhaps the noble Earl will remind me. He came to what I regard as perhaps the most important of these four Orders in that it is more unique, if that is the right expression, than the other three—that relating to the accession of this country to the European University Institute. The noble Earl made a number of points which I will do my best to answer. He asked whether the draft decision of the High Council, which is attached to the Convention, has been agreed. The position is that it has been agreed and will be adopted in this form. He also asked about the figure of 21·16 per cent. which
594
is given in one of the schedules as the contribution by this country to the operation of the Institute. He asked what that meant in cash terms. The provision in the Department's estimate for 1975–76 is £326,221. This detail is somewhat hopeful. I give it as I have been advised. Provision for the four following years should not exceed £500,000 at 1974 survey prices. As the noble Earl helpfully suggested, these are estimates and it may well be that they will have to be modified in the light of the situation.
In addition, the noble Earl asked what would be the cost of supporting United Kingdom students at this Institute, which is of course a postgraduate institution. I can answer him in this way. Provision has been made for £76,000 in 1976–77, the hope being that some students at least will be registered in October 1976. In the following year, 1977–78, there is pro-vision for £124,000 and in the year after that, 1978–79, for £145,000. These sums are at 1974 survey prices and are based on a notional support cost per student, all of them postgraduate, of £1,600 a year.
The noble Earl's final point was one with which I have personal, as well as ministerial, sympathy; that is, the question of drafting. I agree that Article 2(1) is rather loosely drafted in that the term "Europe" is pre-empted for this purpose. I am advised that initially the Institute will be confined to the nine member States of the EEC, but the annexe (which is page 26, Part IIc) provides for possible amendment to allow for other European countries to participate. In that context, the use of the words is perfectly clear so far as Europe extends geo-graphically. We can take it that "Europe", as quoted in the Article, means Europe of the Nine but the potential, and the possibility, of extending the attractions and services of this Institute to other countries in Europe exist, by decision of the Member States. Those are the points which the noble Earl raised and I hope that I have gone some way to satisfy his exceptional and admirable curiosity.
On Question, Motion agreed to.