Lords Sitting of 27 March 1975

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of London.

EEC: EGG IMPORTS
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that eggs produced in France can be imported into this country while eggs produced in the United Kingdom cannot be imported into France.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, there is no restriction on imports of eggs into this country from France. We export eggs for hatching to France, but no eggs for human consumption. This is because we permit the use of certain arsenical compounds in poultry feedingstuffs. The French Government have given an assurance that they will act immediately to allow free access for our eggs as soon as we stop the use of these additives in feedingstuffs for laying birds. We have sought the agreement of the industry and manufacturers to this step and hope it can be agreed and implemented quickly.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, is not this objection to the feeding methods of our chickens completely bogus, and is it not true that for many years we in this country have eaten eggs and no one has died from arsenical poisoning? Is this not a put-up job by the French fanning co-operatives?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I have no evidence to that effect.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, has the Minister read the accounts of the action atken by the farmers in Plymouth to stop French eggs coming into this country? Would it not be much better to
1288
get agreement with the French not to send any more, rather than have these unfortunate actions taking place in the ports, especially as the whole wagon was taken back again to France?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness says, and I think that we in this House might all agree that right now there are too many sections of our community taking the law into their own hands. On the question of imports, I am bound to say that when one looks at the figures one finds that there must be some undue apprehension, because the total imports in January and February of this year were 114,000 boxes, as against 173,000 boxes for a similar period last year.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, is it not a fact that we have a regulation which says that eggs may not be sold in this country if the chickens have been reared on food which has antibiotics in it, yet the French are not subject to such restrictions? As our restrictions were imposed on public health grounds, is it not right that imported eggs should be subject to similar restrictions?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, imported eggs are subject to similar restriction, but this does not restrict the importation of eggs. It is our eggs that are said to be poisonous and not the French eggs. However, I have said that there appears to be the possibility of agreement both with the poultry keepers and with the feeding-stuffs trade to have the compound eliminated from poultry feedingstuffs for laying birds.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, is it possible that the noble Lord may have been misinformed? Is it not a fact that French producers may produce eggs from food with antibiotics in it, whereas English producers are not allowed to use antibiotics; yet we import eggs from France which have been produced with food containing antibiotics?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I really think that this is a matter for discussion, and this is now taking place. There is a difference of opinion as to the adverse effect, or otherwise, of this arsenical compound. It is conceivable, as the noble Earl says, that there may be some additive in the French feedingstuffs, but if

1289
there is I am not aware of it. It is the particular additive that we are using to which the French have taken objection.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the use of antibiotics indiscriminately in producing human food is contrary to medical policy and has a health aspect about it?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I have no doubt that if antibiotics were used indiscriminately by anyone anywhere it would be ill-advised.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Her Majesty's Opposition are at last, as we waddle euphorically in the Common Market, becoming aware that there are snags which they should have looked into before they forced the legislation through this House?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, what I found particularly interesting in the 6.30 a.m. agricultural programme on the BBC this morning was the comment by M. Lardinois that if one accepts the principle of the EEC one should accept the pattern of trade which follows.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that France was a founder Member of the Common Market, and that this is one more illustration of the fact that she has not lost one jot of her nationalism or sovereignty in that period?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to realise that there is a difference between antibiotics and arsenical compounds, and that I was asking a question on antibiotics but he was replying on arsenics?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I was trying to draw the same distinction myself, but it was difficult to put it over to the noble Earl. If he tables a Question about the advisability or otherwise of using any additives in any feeding-stuffs, I will endeavour to give him an Answer. But it was not quite the Question that appeared on the Order Paper.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to realise that there really is a grave situation here which is causing great anxiety? The
1290
majority of people think that this argument about arsenic is not the real basis of the problem, and that it is purely and simply a discussion on trade?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, there is, nevertheless, a difference of view about that and we have to accept that fact. On the other hand, there is Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession which could give us an opportunity of taking action here. The possibility of action is being considered with the British Poultry Federation and the National Farmers' Union, and I hope that shortly after Easter a decision will be taken about action under this heading.

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, a Statement is being made in another place today about Business to be taken in the EEC Council of Ministers during April. With the leave of the House, I will, as usual, arrange for the Statement to be made available in the Official Report.
The Statement referred to is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community during April. The monthly forecast for April was deposited yesterday.
"At present four meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for April. Foreign Ministers will meet on 14th-15th; Finance Ministers on 21st; Energy Ministers on 24th and Agriculture Ministers on 28th–29th April.
"At the Foreign Affairs Council, Ministers will have before them a Report on the completion of the negotiations of a trade agreement with Israel. They will also have a report on the present state of the negotiations with the Maghreb. In addition there will be an initial discussion of the draft mandates for negotiation with the Mashraq. Ministers will also consider Commission proposals on raw materials; supplementary budget Nos. 1 and 2 for 1975, the former principally covering the Regional Development Fund, and the preparations for the conference on consumer/ producer relations.
"The agenda for the Finance Ministers Council has not been finalised; but Ministers are expected to discuss, among other things, the economic situation in the Community and gold.
"The agenda for the Energy Council has yet to be decided, but it could include consideration of two draft Decisions on measures to be taken in the event of oil supply difficulties; a draft Regulation on common rules

1291
for the import and export of hydrocarbons; a draft Regulation concerning support for Community projects in hydrocarbon exploration and further consideration of a draft Directive on the maintenance of minimum stocks of fuel at power stations. It is also likely that Ministers will discuss Commission proposals on energy Research and Development, as well as a draft Resolution on the fixing of a short-term objective for energy saving.
"Agriculture Ministers will give further consideration to the Commission's stocktaking of the CAP. They are also likely to deal with various health and hygiene matters concerned with the marketing of milk and poultry, measures for dealing with exotic animal diseases, and the non-member countries from which fresh meat and livestock may be imported".

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
11.10 a.m.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, on behalf of the Chairman of Committees I beg to move that the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended in the terms printed on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:—

1. Leave out Standing Order No. 216 and insert a new Standing Order No. 216.

2. After Standing Order No. 216, insert a new Standing Order No. 216A.

[The new Standing Orders are set out in the Appendix to the Third Report of the Procedure Committee, agreed to by the House on Tuesday 25th March.]— (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:
Standing Order No. 38
Leave out paragraph (4) and insert—
" (4) On all sitting days except Wednesdays, notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures and Affirmative Instruments shall have precedence over other notices and orders save the foregoing: and on such days the precedence of notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures and Affirmative Instruments may be varied if the convenience of the House so requires."
Standing Order No. 39
In paragraph (5), leave out "but may be taken at any convenient time during a sitting." and insert—
"or at the end of business before the adjournment."
Standing Order No. 67A
Insert the following new Standing Order—
Affirmative Instruments
(1) No motion for a resolution of the House to approve an affirmative instrument shall be moved until:—

(a) there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; and

(b) in the case of a hybrid instrument, the proceedings under Private Business Standing Order 216 or 216A have been terminated.

(2) In this Standing Order "affirmative instrument" means an Order in Council, departmental order, rules, regulations, scheme or other similar instrument presented to or laid in draft before the House where an affirmative resolution is required before it, or any part of it,

1293
becomes effective, or is made, or is a condition of its continuance in operation; but the expression does not include a Measure laid before the House under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 nor regulations made under the Emergency Powers Act 1920.
(3) An Order in Council that may not be made except in response to an address by the House to Her Majesty is an affirmative instrument within the meaning of this Standing Order, and a motion for an address to Her Majesty praying that an order be made is a motion to approve the order.
(4) An order, rules, regulations, scheme or instrument laid in draft before the House for the purpose of being affirmed by resolution of the House is an affirmative instrument within the meaning of this Standing Order notwithstanding that, if the draft is not approved, that instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXPORT GUARANTEES AMENDMENT BILL
11.14 a.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. During the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made two points and I should like to comment upon them since I was not able to comment adequately upon them at that time. The noble Lord asked whether there was built into the recently signed agreement with Russia a trigger mechanism, and he asked whether any information was available on the terms on which this credit is granted to Russia. I am afraid that it is difficult to deal with the question in the terms in which it was posed.
In accordance with normal procedure, the detailed provisions of this agreement regarding interest rates, length of credit and qualifying contract values, are confidential—there is, of course, commercial as well as military security—but the agreement is a framework for the subsequent
1294
placing of business up to a maximum of £950 million over the next five years. The business in question is therefore still to be negotiated and contracted. It is impossible to say how much may be placed. Framework agreements of this nature are a feature of business relations with the USSR. Other countries have similar agreements (for example, France, Italy, Japan, Germany). We also had an agreement which expired in mid-1974. The terms of the current agreement take full account of the competitive facilities available from the other countries, particularly France.
I can assure noble Lords that provision has been included in the agreement for adjustments to be made to the level of interest rates and other conditions during the course of the agreement to take account of the situation then ruling. The other point raised by the noble Lord was an interesting one concerning the ECGD's ability to take on foreign exchange liabilities. This is a very complex and technical question. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already agreed to meet the noble Lord's honourable friend to discuss this matter, and I suggest that this is the best way to deal with it. I would add, however, that ECGD do have the question of foreign exchange contracting under active consideration. It is important to realise that there are a number of separate problems within this one subject.
ECGD is already working on a scheme to improve its existing cover for contracts expressed in a foreign currency. Because ECGD's statutory limits are, like all Government Departments', expressed in sterling, all its guarantees have to have a stated maximum sterling liability. This does not mean, however, that ECGD cover is not available for contracts which are expressed in a foreign currency and which provide for payment in a foreign currency. Cover is available for such contracts, but the scope of the cover does not include protection against fluctuations in foreign exchange parities. Exporters have traditionally looked to the Forward Exchange Market for such protection. Thus, when the Department covers a contract expressed in foreign currency, the guarantee states an exchange rate for the purpose of conversion into sterling. At the moment, the exchange rate used is, in general terms, that ruling when the

1295
guarantee is issued. This means that, if a valid claim arises and sterling has mean-while depreciated against the currency of the contract, the exporter will receive from ECGD insufficient sterling to purchase the foreign currency he may need, for example, to close out a forward contract or to repay foreign borrowing. ECGD is working on a scheme to close this gap in its cover.
Another problem which has been mentioned is that the forward market does not at present extend to the long periods that are involved in most large projects. The forward market in the United Kingdom tends to be more sophisticated than in other countries and exporters can generally obtain the cover they need. I fully accept that it would often be useful and desirable for our exports to be paid for in currencies other than sterling. However, the plain fact is that it is not ECGD which is preventing this taking place. The currency used is a matter for negotiation between buyer and seller, whose interests and wishes will obviously differ. A buyer will prefer to pay in a currency which he expects to depreciate against his own currency. A seller will prefer to receive payment in a currency which he judges will move in the opposite direction. In any case, I am sure noble Lords will agree that the role of sterling as a world trading currency raises much wider and more significant issues than ECGD cover.
Although there has been no real pressure from exporters for a change in procedures on foreign currency transactions, ECGD is continuing to examine this area. I should like to emphasise that, if any noble Lords can supply any information on the problem, I know that the Department would be pleased to have it and to discuss the issues involved. In fact, the ECGD, as noble Lords know, is a Department with highly-developed commercial instincts, and since instincts need hard information on which to feed, any hard information that noble Lords can supply to the Department, either directly or through me, will be most welcome.
The Amendment which was put down in another place would not, I am afraid, have solved the problems, and would have produced difficulties instead. But I trust that as a result of the proposed meeting, further work by the ECGD and the Department's willingness to discuss
1296
the issues, a clearer picture of the problems and possible solutions will be obtained. I trust that, in the two points which I have made, I have answered the questions which the noble Lord put to me on the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
11.21 a.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. On the first point about a Russian trade agreement and the possibility of a trigger mechanism about which I asked the noble Lord, I think he has given me all the information I could reasonably have expected. On the second point, I should certainly like to be one of those who read the report of what the noble Lord has said. It has been quite a long statement and I am grateful to him for the trouble which he and the Department have so obviously taken to get this statement out.
The only comment I would make is that the Amendment which was moved in another place on the point which I raised on Second Reading would of course require legislation. The House is aware that this is a Money Bill and there is no question of amending it, and it is for that reason that I would rather not speak further. But I would thank the noble Lord for meeting me on the point which I particularly raised, which was: Was the Department prepared to carry on discussions about this matter? On this point the noble Lord has met me.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, after dealing with—
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, but I believe it is the turn of this side of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Mais, had already risen to his feet. Of course, it is for the House to decide but I suggest that that is the way we should proceed.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I did not quite hear the first part of the noble Lord's remarks. It is Third Reading and I believe there is no list of speakers.
11.23 a.m.
Lord MAIS: My Lords, I apologise to the House for rising at this stage. I had

1297
wished to be in the House for the Second Reading of this Amendment Bill, because it is rather close to my own heart. But I could not be here then and I would ask your Lordships to bear with me for a few moments now while I raise one or two matters. I associate myself with those who welcome this Amendment Bill very much indeed. For over the last 40 years I have spent much of my time on overseas projects—projects which possibly involved greater risk and unknown circumstances than other types of export—concerning heavy engineering and the construction industry. I have had some personal experience of dealing with the ECGD. They have provided a considerable service to those of us who go our ways on overseas work. But I do not feel that in the past they have had the power or the authority to give the sufficient volume of help needed. Nor do I think we have always been able to obtain help quickly or at least a sufficiently early indication of the support we were likely to receive should we embark on a project overseas. It is not always realised that heavy expenditure is incurred by companies and consultants long before a contract is commenced. Heavy expenditure is involved in feasibility studies, in sending out large teams long distances, and spending many months preparing a report on a project and deciding whether in some cases it is, in fact, even worth competing for.
On Second Reading I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—certainly Lord Kissin—referred to the need for an organisation, which I think was referred to as the Export Council. I think what was meant was that more is needed than just the existing ECGD commitment. Principally, firms needed somewhere to discuss projects and to be able to obtain guidance as to whether the Government supported an effort to get a certain major project overseas. First of all, I believe that this is very necessary but, secondly, I do not necessarily agree that it should be part of the DTI. I am speaking today because I hope that consideration will be given to expanding the ECGD's powers even beyond what is contained in this Amendment Bill, particularly with regard to early consultation with companies when proceeding overseas, so that before they
1298
incur very heavy tendering costs they can be given some assurance that they will receive assistance from the ECGD or other sources and be told approximately how much this will involve. They can then decide whether or not to proceed before incurring the heavy costs.
This will be more necessary in the future than it has been in the past, because when large organisations compete overseas they must do so out of profits. An organisation cannot spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on putting in an overseas bid without adequate reserves and adequate profits. In the years to come—indeed, the situation is upon us now—those funds will not be as readily available as they were. Therefore, the load that will fall upon the ECGD will be a good deal heavier even than it has been in the past. I hope that these points will be borne in mind.
I would once again refer to the necessity of having a form of committee within the orbit of the ECGD, composed of representatives of the financial world, the consulting engineering profession, the heavy engineering and contracting industry as well as of the Government and the ECGD. It is absolutely essential that these financial matters are considered and some commitments made at a much earlier stage than has been the custom. Tendering overseas is a bit of a gamble and the big companies today, certainly in the engineering world, are no longer quite in the position to take the risks they used to take, and, as I have said, they will require more help in the future. My Lords, I welcome this Amendment Bill very much indeed, and I would end by once again expressing my appreciation of what the ECGD have done in the past; and I hope they will do a great deal more in the future.
11.28 a.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I must first express my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Mais. I was under the impression that I had given notice of my intention to speak in the proper quarter, and I had overlooked the procedure of speakers coming from one side and then the other. As the noble Lord made a personal reference to his long familiarity with this field, perhaps with the indulgence of the House I might match it by saying that my interest also has been a

1299
long one. In another place I was a member of the Comimttee which was appointed to consider, and recommended the institution of, the whole of this exercise. That is now a very long time ago. In the interval, while in business, I made copious use of the facilities of the Department and of course in that long period it has expanded very greatly the facilities it offers. It has done so with conspicuous success, and indeed all traders must be grateful for the admirable way in which it has been administered.
In moving the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, gave a most helpful explanation with detail and clarity, and that presentation merited study and reading. It is arising out of that that I now intervene in order to put a suggestion of which I gave him personal notice. Undoubtedly, the terms of the amendment are massive and will give assistance to our traders against the competing schemes of other countries. It is regrettable that, according to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, there has been inadequate acceptance of the attempts on our part to "pilot" more uniformity between the practices of various countries. If I may deal with the terms of the amendment, I wish to refer to the opening which is given by the loans aspect. May I also say a word regarding the provision of insurance against escalation. It might be thought, in this year of rapid inflation, that if the opportunity for insurance is limited to 10 per cent. per annum after the second and succeeding years of, say, a five-year contract, this is inadequate by comparison with the rapid rate at which inflation and the erosion of the value of money is taking place.
However, the point which I wish to urge—and I have urged it before in this House—is that more use should be made of a procedure which, instead of distributing overseas aid from government to government, would permit its distribution through civilian agencies. The reason for my suggestion is that such aid would be more effectively policed. The cost would not be great, because most of our aid is given interest free; therefore, that angle would not arise. As a person who has certain misgivings about the fact that our foreign aid programme for this year has not been appreciably reduced because of the seriousness of our financial
1300
position, to borrow money at 12½ per cent. overseas and to lend it for long periods at 2 per cent., or interest-free, looks to me like pretty poor banking. It has been urged upon us, "Oh, but there is the prestige which we gain from giving money away".
Many of your Lordships will be associated with charitable foundations and will know well enough what it costs, on the percentage of total money given, to give money away. The lower you can keep that cost, the more likely it is that the giving away will be worth-while. On the question of interest, a good point was raised in this House the day before yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. His point was not answered by the Front Bench. He asked why we should lend abroad at 2 per cent. loans which often are not repaid at maturity and have to be recycled, while at the same time we charge our farmers 12½ per cent or 14½ per cent. to produce food which would appreciably reduce the balance of payments and our total financial difficulties.
The point I wish to add with regard to foreign aid—and I make it supplementary to the belief that it should be reduced—is that a great deal of it has been given away in the past unfruitfully. The problem with regard to the receipt of this aid by the emerging countries is that it was applied largely to prestige or spectacular projects which certainly could have been deferred. Today they are suffering from having incurred the high cost of servicing those loans and now wish that they had not done so. Under the economic pressures of the moment, there has been a distinct change in the thinking of the emerging countries who are, in the main, the recipients of aid; so that instead of boosting education for sociological purposes and applying aid inadequately to technological purposes, it is appropriate to turn from the former to the latter. By that I mean that instead of concentrating upon administration, teaching or the law they should turn to technical and technological projects, which would include the production of food in those countries and thus lessen the pressure which many of them feel that they are under today.
In the late 1950s and the early 1960s, in seeking the best advice they could get on agricultural production, curiously

1301
enough they turned to Israel. There they found the spectacular success of Israel where farming was carried on under difficult conditions. But now, under the pressure of the Arabs or the United Nations, they have rejected the Israeli scientists. They are now finding themselves in difficulty and are looking around for other scientific advisers. This fact emphasises the point that the giving of aid and the purposes for which it is given should be better supervised. That is why I suggest that policing, if any, through private sources would possibly, and probably, be more effective and more to the benefit of the recipient. On the question of agriculture, there are now the techniques of pesticides, insecticides and animal husbandry. The emerging countries are poor in the knowledge of these techniques and are seeking aid. I am not overlooking the high quality of the services which our various scientific missions are giving to countries overseas. It is very substantial.
If I may revert to my original plea to the noble Lord, it should be sought within the amended terms of the Bill which is now before us that more of the aid that is distributed should be distributed through civilian channels instead of from Government to Government, so that it will be better policed and will have more effective results in the recipient countries. May I conclude with a plea for a modification and change of our practices concerning the giving of overseas aid. I believe that the programme amounts to £340 million this year. This is a great deal of money, which we are borrowing at 12½ per cent., to give away at 2 per cent. or interest-free. It is plain that giving away money brings prestige to the giver. However, some people think that the effect of that prestige would be equally well rendered by the mission of a naval vessel flying the flag. That naval vessel would have the dual purpose of raising our prestige as givers and also defending our food channels in the event of another world holocaust. I approve the proposals of this Bill and certainly support the Third Reading.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, while we appreciate that it is impossible to give the terms of individual credits, may I ask the Minister two questions. First, would the Minister assure us that we are borrowing
1302
on as advantageous terms as the terms of credit that we are giving to Russia? Secondly, would the Minister say whether our terms to Russia match those of the Japanese?
11.41 a.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will reply briefly to the points raised on this Third Reading debate. I am certain that the Export Credits Guarantee Department will welcome and be grateful for the praise bestowed upon it by the noble Lord, Lord Mais, and the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, I would briefly say to the noble Lord, Lord Mais, that the points that he raised in today's debate I have heard in various quarters and I will bring them to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to ensure that they arc given proper consideration. I am not myself certain at this moment whether the funds available in the overseas project group are in fact really sufficient for financing feasibility studies abroad. Although the powers are there I do not know whether the funds are there, but I will let the noble Lord know.
As regards the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, I will ask my right honourable friend to consider whether the policing of credits to developing countries, if sent through normal commercial channels, would in fact produce the sort of monitoring and policing that one would obviously require when sums of this type are under consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, inquired about borrowing and the general background of the loan to Russia; whether the terms on which the money would be borrowed were advantageous or not, and whether we would be able to compete with the schemes possibly put in competition with us from countries like Japan. As I said in my opening remarks, this sort of information is confidential. I personally do not know the position at the present time, but I will make certain that the noble Lord is informed of the actual background to the negotiations when they begin. I cannot go further than that at the moment.
My Lords, that is all I have to add. I am grateful to noble Lords for their constructive attitude to this measure.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

DISTRICT COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
11.43 a.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Hughes): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. Perhaps I should say that if the House agrees to that Motion I propose to suggest that certain Amendments be taken en bloc. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[References are to Bill (57) as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 1]
Clause 5, page 4, line 12, leave out sub-section (4) and insert—
"(4) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient so to do in order to avoid delays in the administration of justice in any district court, he may direct the local authority concerned to appoint a person qualified to be so appointed to act as stipendiary magistrate in that court during such period as the Secretary of State thinks fit."
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This Amendment modifies somewhat a comparable provision added to the Bill by your Lordships. The earlier version provided that the Secretary of State might direct a local authority to appoint a stipendiary magistrate if he thought that this was desirable for the better administration of the courts. I argued against that Amendment largely because of the possible interpretations or misinterpretations that might be placed on the words "better administration of the courts". Such a provision, I felt then and still feel, would either be wholly unworkable or could be used to secure without Parliamentary decision the abolition of lay summary justice in Scotland.
But, as I also said in our previous consideration of this Bill, the Government have always been prepared to be flexible and we gave very careful consideration to all that your Lordships said in our earlier debate on Clause 5 to see whether an acceptable and, equally important, workable provision could be found. In
1304
particular the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in moving the original Amendment, made clear that what he really wanted was a provision which would empower the Secretary of State to say to a local authority—and here I quote what the noble Earl said—
"Unless you speed up your court procedure, unless you make your arrangements better, I will step in."—[Official Report; 19/12/74, col. 1279.]
What the new subsection (4) of Clause 5 provides is a power for the Secretary of State to direct a local authority to appoint a stipendiary magistrate where it is expendient to do so in order to avoid delays in the administration of justice. The type of situation where this power could be used would be where the justices in a district were unwilling or unable to devote sufficient time to undertake training and to man the Bench, and where it had proved difficult to find suitable and willing new justices to do the work. Clearly it is difficult if not impossible at this stage to identify all the circumstances in which such a provision might be used, and to introduce necessary flexibility the new version provides that the period of appointment may be set by the Secretary of State. This might prove useful, for example, in some circumstance where, perhaps through no fault of its own, a district court has acquired a large back-log of cases and, to avoid long delays over a lengthy period, a stipendiary magistrate can be moved in for a time to help the justices.
When he introduced the original Amendment the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, suggested that he thought it would probably never be necessary for the Secretary of State to use this power. I hope that he is right but if, by mischance, we are both wrong, then the provision in its amended form should prove thoroughly workable and no doubt the knowledge that this provision is on the Statute Book will, in itself, serve to ensure that early action is taken to make certain that it never has to be used. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Hughes.)
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for

1305
putting forward the slight modification to the Amendment which I moved, which essentially meets the point that I had in mind. My case is that, whether it is used or not, the result will be that there will be more stipendiary magistrates, and I believe that is in fact the wish of the great majority of people in Scotland. I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting the Amendment in this form.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2, 3 and 4.]
Clause 10, page 7, line 41, leave out "subject to subsection (4) below ".
Page 8, line 1, after "magistrate" insert "or judge of police".
Page 8, line 12, leave out "paragraph (b) of".
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 en bloc. These Amendments provide for greater flexibility in allocating existing justices of the peace to the new Commission area, and Amendment No. 3 puts beyond doubt the inclusion of judges of police in the category of those who become justices of the peace after 16th May. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendents Nos. 2 to 4 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5]
Clause 11, page 8, line 29, at end insert—
"(2) Each local authority may nominate up to one quarter of their members to serve as ex officio justices for their area, and any person so nominated shall hold office as ex officio justice from the date on which the local authority intimate their nomination to the Secretary of State and shall continue as such for the period during which he remains a member of the authority and continues to retain the authority's nomination.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, any person nominated to serve as an ex officio justice shall, before acting as such a justice, take the oath of allegiance and judicial oath in accordance with the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 and the Promissory Oaths Act 1871.
(4) A person renominated to serve as an ex officio justice immediately after the expiry of a previous term as such shall not require
1306
to take again the oaths mentioned in sub-section (3) above.
(5) Each local authority shall intimate to the Secretary of State the date on which a person duly nominated under subsection (2) above ceases to be a member of the authority or on which his nomination is terminated by the authority.
(6) A person duly nominated under sub-section (2) above shall not be treated as having ceased to be a member of the local authority during any period when he is standing for re-election to that authority.
(7) A person holding office as an ex officio justice by virtue of subsection (2) above shall hold office as if appointed in accordance with section 9(2) of this Act as a justice for the commission area concerned.
(8) A person holding office as an ex officio justice by virtue of subsection (2) above shall, in his capacity as a justice, not be elected under section 5(3) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959 to serve as a member of a licensing court or court of appeal and shall not attend or vote at any meeting of justices to elect members of any such court."
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
This Amendment appears somewhat extensive, but I think that we need only consider subsections (2) and (7) since the other subsections are consequential. Sub-section (2) provides that district and islands councils may nominate up to one quarter of their members as ex officio justices. As such it represents a compromise. When the Bill was initially introduced into this House it provided that local authorities could nominate up to one-third of their members as ex officio justices. Following a debate in Committee, and against my advice, the provision was removed by your Lordships. The matter was examined again in the other place and the Government, in the light of all the arguments advanced in both Houses, decided that the most reasonable compromise would be to restore the provisions on nomination but to set the proportion at one-quarter. I am aware that earlier this week this compromise was criticised in another place during the Report stage, on the grounds that the proportion should have been held at one-third. Equally, there were those who argued that the provision was not required at all.
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Lord Hughes.)
11.50 a.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this is the main point on which we on this side of the House disagree with the Government, and we regret that the other place reversed what we had proposed besides also reversing decisions taken on this part of the Bill at the Committee stage in the other place. The nominating of a proportion of the members of councils to be made justices was criticised when this was discussed in your Lordships' House, not only by Scottish Peers but also by others, including my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who pointed out the dangers of persons being elected rather than appointed to be justices, and that they could appear to be influenced in the attitude which they were adopting towards particular cases by the prospects of re-election. This was not a situation which one would wish to continue. In the reorganisation of local government, which had caused this change to be made, it was hoped that the archaic system, which many consider an anachronism, whereby in Scotland some of the magistrates are simply local councillors rather than justices of the peace, could be brought to an end.
The question of lay justices has been a problem in Scotland too. If there are to be lay justices, we believe that they should be justices of the peace and not some elected councillors. In Scotland justices of the peace have carried out their other functions, but only a very small number of them have been magistrates and have sat on the bench. As noble Lords will be aware, when we were in Office we put forward proposals which retained a number of lay courts with JPs on the bench. There was then a great deal of criticism of those proposals, not only from the legal profession more or less as a whole, but also from social workers and from bodies representing the general public. They felt that stipendiary magistrates were likely to give better justice, as they put it, than the lay courts. There was also a problem of providing qualified knowledge in the courts because those proposals contained a weakness in that some courts could be operating with-
1308
out anyone in the courtroom being legally qualified. This was because of the way in which justices of the peace would have to operate, they being people who are not available to work anything like full time.
We then put forward alternative proposals for stipendiary magistrates. These were much more welcomed in Scotland as a whole. That was the stage that had been reached when the present Government came into Office a year ago. There is a difference of opinion, not on Party lines but I think in general, as to the number of lay courts there should be in Scotland. There seemed to be a greater weight of opinion in favour of stipendiary courts than greatly to increase the very small number of justice of the peace courts which exist in Scotland.
The Government are now putting forward this proposal for local authority councillors being nominated by their colleagues and then forming a proportion of the lay justices. We regret that the Government should have decided to revive that particular point which we believe has very little support outside local government circles. In the new set-up in local government in Scotland, which is to come into effect in about seven weeks' time, there will be fewer councillors. The number of councillors will be greatly reduced because of the reduction in the numbers of councils in the new system, and those councillors will have much more responsibility than councillors in local government today. They will have plenty of other things to do without having to carry on with what I will describe as this ancient but none the less archaic system of also acting as magistrates. While we accept that there is controversy about the number of lay summary courts there should be in Scotland, we think it is retrograde for the Government and the other place to have reversed what was the opinion of your Lordships' House and also the opinion of the Committee in the other place.
11.56 a.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, it is a great pity that the Government have brought the administration of justice into controversy. I believe that this was quite unnecessary, and it would have been avoided if they had taken a little advice. The Law Society did not even see the

1309
context of the Bill until it was produced and they were not consulted by the Government at all. This is quite regrettable because it is a non-Party Bill. There is no issue of Party here and I think that omission is very sad indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is perfectly right in saying that the great body of people in Scotland would have preferred a system different from that which has been selected by the Government. This was a system specifically devised in the Middle Ages for the townships of that time. Now it has been extended all over Scotland to places where it has never been known before. I think a better argument could have been advanced. I know it is not unpopular among the members of councils, but outside that circle very few people view it with enthusiasm.
There is, I think, one error which I did not deal with because I was a bit rushed, but it is a matter which I raised previously. Clause 10(2) deals with existing magistrates. They are made magistrates as from 16th May but their appointment is not terminated, as it would be if they were made magistrates under Clause 11(5), when they cease to be members of the authority. As I read it, they are made magistrates for life. I do not think the Government or the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, intended that. I drew attention to that matter when the Bill was previously before your Lordships' House and I had hoped that when the Bill was going through the other place an amended version would be produced. But nothing has been done. No great damage has been done, but if you happen to be a magistrate or a bailee on 15th May you are in a totally different position from any bailee at any future date. It is a small matter of illogicality which of course is not fundamental, but with a little more care and attention that matter could have been avoided.
11.58 a.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, it is with some regret, and certainly with great diffidence, that I speak on this Amendment at variance with my noble friend on the Front Bench. When this matter was last in your Lordships' House, I was still in the European Parliament and I could not on that occasion support the Government, which I would have done. It may be that some of your
1310
Lordships will find it unusual, if not unique, that I should support the Government, but I do so on this occasion.
On the wider question of lay justices, throughout my professional career, which admittedly has been as a member of the Bar in England, I appeared with great pleasure before lay Benches throughout England and Wales and saw many different types of lay justices carrying out their duties and functions from a broad political spectrum. My conclusion was that in almost every case the justice which they dispensed, aided and advised by their clerks, was of a very high order. I say this because Scotland is now embarking on a new direction so far as the administration of justice in the inferior courts is concerned, and I think the anxieties which have been voiced, especially in the other place, may eventually prove to be unfounded. I say that because in many ways lay justices, because of their knowledge of local people and local conditions, are able to dispense justice which perhaps is more sympathetic to people who appear in front of them than do stipendiaries. I say that as one who has appeared before Benches of lay justices and stipendiary justices in London and the Scottish lists. Perhaps the nearest to which England ever got—and I say this in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Mais—is in the City of London courts, where the Aldermen used to sit alone.
I would ask two questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. If a local authority, as it is entitled to, nominates people in its locality, and it is discovered by one means or another that for one reason or another they are unsuited to sit as justices, what happens then? Two examples spring to mind. First of all, a person may have a very old conviction which he may have lived down, and which in every other sense of the word, should never be held against him, but would disqualify him from dispensing justice to his fellow-citizens. That is one eventuality. It may be someone who, years before, interfered with small children.
Secondly, the authorities may know that a person who, to all outward appearances, is a level-headed and responsible citizen, occupying a post on his local council, holds extreme political views which are well below surface—I care not whether those views are to the Left, to the Right or in the centre. He, too, in England

1311
would never be appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. From perusing the Official Report of the other place, it seems to me that the only safeguard is the rota; in other words, although such a justice had been nominated by his local authority, he would never be asked to sit. That does not seem good enough. I feel that that is something which the Government must watch and must be aware of.
The other matter which I should like to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is a simple one to satisfy my own curiosity. Is it envisaged that these justices will sit singly or as a Bench? In my experience as an advocate, a Bench of magistrates is better qualified than one person sitting as a single justice. I say that as one having the honour and privilege of sitting as an honorary sheriff in my locality. I often find difficulty, because not only am I dealing with law with which I am unfamiliar, but I am also dealing with terminology which I do not understand. I would be only too glad to have two others sitting with me, as well as an excellent clerk to give me advice. If I may presume to advise the Government, I suggest strongly that, at least in the first instance, the Lord Advocate or his Department should encourage magistrates to sit as a Bench of three or possibly five, as in England.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, is the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, aware that we are not dealing with lay magistrates under this clause? We are dealing with elected magistrates. It is the elected magistrates to which I personally take exception.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am aware of what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, says. A councillor will act as a lay magistrate and is very much lay, even though he is elected.
12.5 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I had hoped that this matter might have gone through with less talk than we have had, but unfortunately we found ourselves in a position where the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, once again found it necessary to refer to the previous situation. I do not intend to embark once again on an argument between the merits of what was proposed by the previous
1312
Government and what is proposed by the present Government. I do not think any useful purpose would be served, nor do I think your Lordships would particularly welcome it this day. However, I should made one or two remarks to try to get the matter in perspective.
I would remind your Lordships that magistrates will not be eligible to sit on the Bench unless they undergo training appropriate to their experience. If they are unwilling to undergo training, or do not have time to do it, they can be transferred to the supplemental list and will not be put forward as magistrates. Again, under Clause 15, if they neglect or decline to take an appropriate part in the exercise of their judicial functions, they can be transferred to the supplemental list. Even if they are prepared to undergo training, they will not be able to sit on the Bench of the district court until their names are put on the rota by the justices' committee appointed under Clause 16. These committees will wish to maintain a high standard among justices sitting on the Bench. I must emphasise this. It will be the justices committee and not the district council who will decide which justices should sit on the Bench.
In another place, and I think earlier in this House, fears were expressed about the effect that these ex officio justices would have on the total. There will be some 4,500 normal justices, if I can use that term, and only 300 at maximum ex officio justices. At present, 90 per cent. of the lay court work is done by magistrates, and only 10 per cent. by justices. In the future, it is reasonable to suppose that these percentages will be reversed. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, echoed what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, in the Second Reading debate, when she also disagreed with what her Front Bench colleages were saying by praying in aid, as the noble Earl has just done, the way in which lay justices perform satisfactorily on this side of the Border.
I believe there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the vast majority of people in Scotland support the abolition of lay justice. Equally, I would say there is no evidence to show that the great majority of people in Scotland wish to continue lay justice, for the simple reason that nobody except those directly concerned has ever expressed any views

1313
at all about the matter, so far as I know, other than incidental letters which may appear in the newspapers and which represent a very small proportion of the population.
The noble Earl asked a question about the position of unsuitable persons who might be nominated. Of course, as he said, it is correct that the first safeguard is that the justices' committee might not put them on the rota. But there is a second safeguard, in that the Secretary of State can instruct that a person can be transferred to the supplemental list. Alternatively, the Secretary of State can have him removed from the justices' rota altogether. I think the noble Earl will not find that in the Bill; this is contained in provisions already existing, and which are not in any way altered by the provisions of the District Courts (Scotland) Bill. In fact, this has been gone into earlier so that a double safeguard is in existence. I understand there need not be any undue embarrassment if the Secretary of State decides someone has to be transferred or removed from the supplemental list. The Secretary of State does not necessarily have to say why he wants it done, so an old conviction need not necessarily be brought into the open at that time. I am afraid I have forgotten the second point of the noble Earl.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the other matter about which I asked the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was as to whether it is contemplated that justices will sit singly or as a Bench, at least initially.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, this is a matter which will be entirely for the justices themselves to decide. From talks I have had with quite a number of district councils recently, because of the number of people who will be able to sit without the necessary training followed by those who have had no experience on the Bench, it appears that it will probably be very difficult at the beginning to arrange for other than a Bench of a single magistrate. It may be that as more people with the necessary training are available they would wish to take advantage of the machinery for having a Bench of more than one. I think what has been discouraged, and probably would in fact not take place, is to have a Bench with
1314
an even number of magistrates, because, of course, there is no provision for a casting vote in the event of a tie. I understand the provision is that, if the magistrates are equally divided on what happens, the person must automatically be found not guilty.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: No.
Lord HUGHES: This is as I understood it. Anyway, it is undesirable to have an equality of magistrates for a variety of reasons, and I think it would probably be an odd number, but in the beginning it is more likely to be a single magistrate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 6]
Clause 13, page 9, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert "for a licensing division, being a division in which the solicitor does not ordinarily exercise any functions as a justice of the peace in a licensing court."
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. The provisions of Clause 13 were the subject of earlier discussion in this House and in another place. I think it has been generally accepted that the basic principles underlying this clause, which have been accepted in Scotland and in England for many years, must be maintained, not least in the district courts where legal aid will be introduced and where there will be even stronger reason for keeping a clear distinction between a solicitor justice on the Bench and solicitors who appear for the defence in these courts.
When the Government examined the comments made about this clause, both inside and outside Parliament, it appeared to us that the scope of relaxation of disqualification provided for in subsection (3) went further than some appeared to appreciate. We thought it would be a useful clarification to reword part of this provision to make it clear that the solicitor who is a justice may act as a solicitor before a licensing court in a licensing division other than the one on which he acts as a justice. The opportunity was also taken to omit the reference to a court of appeal for a licensing division, since these courts will not exist after 15th May 1975 and the words would have become superfluous. I hope that your

1315
Lordships will accept that a useful clarification has been made on a fairly technical provision of this clause. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Hughes.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, what the noble Lord has told us seems eminently reasonable, and I, for my part, would not raise any points on this. It is a technical matter, but it needs to be made perfectly clear whether or not solicitors are disqualified. May I simply add, in regard to what the noble Lord said earlier, that we took up some time on the last Amendment because we felt that this was really the main issue; we hoped that it would be helpful to him to have the main discussion on that Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 7–9]
Clause 16, page 11, line 5, leave out "that date" and insert "16th June".
Clause 19, page 13, line 27, after "person" insert "as may be prescribed ".
Clause 27, page 17, line 39, after "except" insert "section 24(1) and subsection (2) below and".
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 en bloc. All these Amendments are required for clarification and completeness. No issue of principle arises.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRICES BILL
12.14 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has two principal objects: first, to extend the financial provision for food subsidies, and, secondly, to provide for continuation of price regulation. In 1970 the Retail Price Index and the Food Price Index were level, but from mid-1970 until the beginning of 1974 the Food Price Index increased at a much greater rate than
1316
the Retail Price Index. One of the principal causes was the rise in world food prices, particularly in 1973, and also the depreciation of sterling.
Those with smaller incomes spend the greater proportion of their incomes upon food, and, no matter what the causes were for the increase in the food prices at a greater rate than prices generally, it meant that the gap in the standard of living between those with low incomes and those with high incomes greatly widened. When the present Government took Office they found that the previous Administration had already subsidised milk and butter. We, in our term of Office, have increased the subsidies on milk and butter and, in addition, we have introduced subsidies for bread, cheese, household flour and tea. The cost in the present financial year is £510 million. The effect has been that the Food Price Index has been reduced by six points as a result of the subsidies. But I may add that, because of the influence which the Prices Department has had on other prices—particularly in connection with the voluntary agreement —the effect is somewhat greater. The effect on the Retail Price Index is equal to one and a half points.
To relate the question of benefit to families, the average family of two adults and two children get a benefit of 75p per week. A pensioner couple get a benefit of 50p per week. As a consequence of the action of the Government in introducing these additional subsidies, the trend that was apparent between 1970 and early 1974 has been reversed. In 1974 the Food Price Index did not increase at a greater rate than the Retail Price Index, but, rather, at a lower rate. It is in that sense that the trend has been reversed. But I must add that in February of this year there was an indication that the Food Price Index was again rising at a somewhat greater rate, and that will have to be watched. What certainly has happened is that the gap in the standard of living, between the lower paid and the higher paid, has been somewhat reduced, whereas in the previous period of 1970 to early 1974 it had widened.
I come now to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 makes changes in the powers to pay food subsidies. By far the greatest change in Clause 1 is to increase

1317
the limit of food subsidies from £700 million to £1,200 million. As I have already indicated, the cost in the present financial year is £510 million. It is estimated that the cost in 1975/76 will be £550 million. So that would make a total to date of £1,060 million. By increasing the limit to £1,200 million we have left an adequate working reserve. In the long term, we hope to begin running down the programme of food subsidies, but what is quite clear at the moment is that food subsidies will certainly be necessary in the years 1976/77. We therefore provide in subsection (3) that a further £500 million can be added to the total amount provided for subsidies by Order, but this Order cannot be made before 1st April 1976. For technical reasons, the subsidies on milk and butter were limited to one year, and the second object of Clause 1 is to provide for these subsidies for a further year. In addition, in sub-section (2) we provide that the milk and butter subsidies can be continued for a further year, making a second year, if that is necessary, and that can be done by Order. The third object of Clause 1 is of relatively minor importance in the context of the United Kingdom but is rather important to those of our fellow citizens who live on the Isle of Skye, the Isle of Harris and the Isle of Lewis. It so happens that the producers in those areas do not benefit from the guarantee arrangements and, in order to give power to the Secretary of State to give the milk subsidy on the islands concerned, it has been necessary to make slight alterations in the wording of the original 1974 Act, and this Bill does that.
Clause 2 seeks to make four changes in reference to price regulation and the display of prices. One of the principal objections of the retail trade to price regulation has been the number of notices that they have had to display. As a result of discussions with the trade, considerable changes have been made to meet the wishes of the trade, but there was one thing we could not do without having the power to do it, and that was to authorise some of the notices not to be displayed but to be available on production. The first of the objects of Clause 2 is to enable the Secretary of State to make Orders not just that prices shall be displayed but that they shall be
1318
available for information on request. This will considerably ease the burden and it will mean that only the most important notices will be displayed. The others can be in the form of a typed list which can be produced at the request of the customer.
The second object of Clause 2 is in connection with enforcement. One of the difficulties of enforcing regulations which are concerned with the control of gross margins is that it is necessary to have available information which can be checked by the enforcement authorities. It is our intention to simplify the information which is needed for this purpose, and we also seek by Clause 2(1)(b) to require retailers to have that simplified information available for the enforcement officer, and this goes some way to meet the points raised by the enforcement authorities. The third object, which is provided for in subsections (2) and (3), is to give the Secretary of State power to allow a particular trader in very unusual circumstances to charge more than the maximum price. It is felt that this power should be available where the Secretary of State is satisfied that it would be just to allow that concession, and these subsections will give the Secretary of State that power.
The final object of Clause 2 is dealt with in subsection (1)(c). The price regulation powers cease at the end of this month but they can be extended by Order for a further year. These powers are absolutely necessary to ensure that the subsidies do, in fact, reach the consumer. No time limit has been put on the food subsidies and it is felt that there should be no time limit on the corresponding price regulation, which is necessary for the purpose of ensuring that the subsidies reach the consumer. The price regulation powers have not been used in relation to non-subsidised foods. Instead, we have the voluntary agreement and as long as we have that agreement the powers in regard to non-subsidised foods will be reserve powers, but we feel that they are necessary as reserve powers.
I suggest that the division between the Parties on his issue—that is, the issue of food subsidies—is not so absolute as it is sometimes said to be. The evidence for that is that when we took Office we found that milk and butter were already

1319
being subsidised. Further evidence is that the Conservative Party in their Manifesto at the October Election said that for the time being at least the food subsidies would have to be continued. We on our side do not see the food subsidies as a permanent feature of our economy. We see them as an expenditure which, in due course, will have to be phased out— phased out, perhaps, when the economic circumstances are a little different from what they are today and when alternative methods of protecting the lowly paid are available. I therefore suggest that there is not all that difference between the Parties on this issue and it is in that spirit that I move the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Jacques.)
12.28 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, the views of the Liberal Party on food subsidies are quite well known and were made clear in your Lordships' House when the Prices Act 1974 was going through. We believe that these large indiscriminate subsidies involve a massive misdirection of resources because a very small proportion of them go to help those who are really in need. That was the view I expressed last June, and I am bound to say that I have not heard anything said, either by the Minister today or by the Secretary of State in another place, which has made me change my mind, not because I hold this view dogmatically but because no answer has really been given to the fundamental argument.
Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, the Government themselves recognise that this is not really the best way to deal with the problem. He repeated, almost in the same words, the words which the Secretary of State used in another place on Second Reading when she said:
"It still remains our intention eventually to run down the programme"—
and then she hade this quite sensible remark:
"but the timing of any running down of the food subsidy programme must be related closely to the introduction of appropriate social benefits".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/75, col. 636.]
That is very much what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said today.
1320
One must ask whether there was not an opportunity when the Social Security Act was going through this House for some of these benefits to be conferred on the less well-to-do with the possibility of thus reducing the bill for food subsidies. I seem to remember that a number of suggestions were made of extending benefits to various classes of people who are certainly among those less privileged, and they were turned down by the Government on the ground, which we cannot argue here, that there was not enough money. But if we are going to spend £500 million. £600 million or £700 million on food subsidies, it should surely be possible to meet some of these suggestions and to make a corresponding reduction in the food subsidies. Of course we recognise, my Lords, that subsidies are a help to those at the lower end of the incomes scale. The argument is not that they are not a help, but that they arc just the same help to other people, who can perfectly well afford to pay the market price for their food, and as a result much more of the taxpayers' money is spent with much less effect in the place where we want it to have effect.
I was interested in the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, mentioned, and I should like to ask him whether, in winding up, he could explain a little further. He said that it was estimated that a family of two, with two children, were benefiting to the extent of 75p and a family of two without children to the extent of 50p. He mentioned that that latter family were pensioners, but I take it that this applies equally to any other family of two without children. I assume that the figure is arrived at—the noble Lord may like to intervene—by taking the total consumption and dividing it by the number of people in the country, and perhaps assuming that children eat half as much as grown-ups, which would account for the fact that the family with two children gets 75p the other people get 50p.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. Research has been done not only in relation to the size of family and their usage of the subsidised foods, but also in regard to the different kinds of families. While it is true that in the case of a pensioner couple there would be a saving of 50p a week because of their usage of subsidised

1321
foods, it is not necessarily true of a couple who are much better off. I can give an example. A pensioner couple would be more likely to eat the cheaper foods which are subsidised, whereas a couple who were much better off might eat those foods which are not subsidised. The higher-priced foods are not subsidised. That applies not merely to, say, blue cheese, but also to bread, tea and other things, so that the 50p is specifically in the case of a pensioner couple.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The couple who are less well-to-do who are rash enough, perhaps, to eat bread rather than cake, and so on, in fact eat more and therefore their saving is more than 50p a week. At any rate, I think the noble Lord has explained how it was worked out. It must be a very complicated calculation, if you consider the eating habits of all the different people.
I still come back to the point that the majority of people in this country, I am happy to say—we are all happy to say— are not in the category of the very badly off, and therefore they will be taking far more of these subsidies into their mouths than those whom we really want to benefit.
I was interested in what the noble Lord said about the Government's long-term end because, as already explained, they have said that they want to get rid of the subsidies when they can introduce other suitable measures to help. I accept—I do not think any of us would fail to accept—that as the situation is now one must go on. The great difficulty about food subsidies is that once you have them they are very difficult to get rid of, and the longer you have them I am sure the more difficult it is to get rid of them. I certainly agree that they must be extended through next year, and to that extent the Bill is a necessary one. I know that my friends in another place voted against the Second Reading, but that is possibly what is called a tactical vote. They were wanting to nail their colours firmly to the mast—that they are opposed to food subsidies.
My Lords, so far as the minor effects of this Bill are concerned, of course we welcome the extension of the milk subsidy to the Scottish Islands, which some-
1322
how got left out. We welcome the changes in the provision for notices in shops. I think that during the discussion on last year's Act, attention was called to the burdens that the notices provision might lay on small shops, and I am very glad that those are being eased.
I think I must also welcome—because I believe in a measure of flexibility—the flexibility that is being offered to the Secretary of State apparently to waive the maximum price orders in regard to particular suppliers. I do not know whether the noble Lord in winding up can tell us the kind of circumstances in which this power would be exercised. It seems to me to put an extraordinarily difficult responsibility on the Secretary of State, to discover that a particular supplier, a particular shop, should be entitled to sell at above the maximum price, and it would be interesting to know the circumstances in which the Minister feels this might happen. Finally, my Lords, I also welcome the extension of the price regulation powers. That is obviously absolutely necessary. I regard the price regulation powers in the original Prices Act as much more important, and certainly much more beneficial, than the subsidies.
Finally, my Lords, I just wonder how far the Government's policy has been influenced by its effect—which, indeed, the noble Lord mentioned—on the Retail Price Index and the Food Price Index. I think some light was thrown on that by a remark made in another place by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 21st March during the debate on the general resolution about inflation. The Financial Secretary had been asked about cutting food subsidies, and his reply was:
"I will tell him what happens when food subsidies are cut. They may be cut, of course, but the offset is an immediate increase in the cost of living. That, as we have discussed in another context, leads immediately, quite properly, to wage claims from trade unions, which are responsible for maintaining the standard of living for their members and their families." —[Official Report, 21/3/75, col. 2121.]
In the present state of the country, of course we want to do everything possible to prevent excessive wage claims, and I think this is a perfectly respectable argument; but, if that is the argument for imposing food subsidies, the Government should come clean about it. I think it is

1323
also worth pointing out that it is not, in fact, reducing the cost of living: it is reducing only the cost of living index and concealing the fact that the cost of living has gone up. I am not sure that, in the long run, that would be a very satisfactory thing to do. I hope that, when he replies, the noble Lord can tell us a little more about the Government's long-term views, and about when they feel it would be possible to introduce measures which will enable these food subsidies to be reduced. This would be of great interest to your Lordships. We on these Benches believe that a credit income tax system, above everything else, would enable really badly-off people to be assured of enough money to live on. If this were introduced successfully, it would make the continuation of food subsidies —with this waste of money in subsidising the food of rich people—unnecessary.
12.40 p.m.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, in political circles old age pensioners are always supposed to be paupers. I feel very poor at times, but I am not a pauper. Out of the 8 million or so old age pensioners, there are millions who have other pensions and savings, and other means. The pauper image is a completely false one, advanced for political purposes from public platforms. The alternative to food subsidies is some sort of direct help to those who are worst off. From the public expenditure point of view the great advantage of the latter methods is that they are taxable. The increase in the old age pension brings in a great deal of income tax; and so does the children's allowance from those people who are above the poverty line. For that reason, that is the cheapest way of providing help to the worst off.
Government calculations never seem to show the tax credit on the opposite side to the pay-out debit. I do not know whether the Treasury ever do such calculations, but they never seem to appear in public, with the result that the nation's balance in the matter is completely obscured. I believe that the cost of living —and mind you, my Lords, it is not only food; it is services and everything else —figures in every place where people are gathered together. To some extent, it is a fact that the males have, over the years, succeeded very thoroughly in swindling the females of the nation. On
1324
the whole, men are a little quicker at arithmetic than women, and I have little doubt that there are millions of house-wives in this country who have never received the increase in their housekeeping money that they should have done because their husbands have been able to pull the wool over their eyes. That I have known ever since the war.
What we should set on foot is a campaign for Women's Lib to demand women's proper share of the enormous wages which are being paid out today. One reads in the records about official wage figures. We are told that the basic wages of "so-and-so" have gone up to, say, £32·60, or some such figure, and we probably find that that man is bringing home £75. He is living in a council cottage, has no expenses of education, and is having to keep merely his car and his family. The net result of all that is that the housewife does not get enough money for the food, and so she grumbles like anything. The torrents of beer now being consumed in this country have never been exceeded in history; to say nothing of tobacco, or of the fact that although petrol is now extremely expensive, consumption has hardly declined at all—or so I understand from the news this morning. That I suggest would be one of the best moves to combat the general grumbling about the cost of living and the wage demands.
I am perfectly sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is quite right about the Retail Price Index. The Treasury has had that gambit in view ever since, and during, the war. I well remember certain articles that I will not mention, and certain politicians whose names I will not mention either, which used heavily to subsidise certain things that were more or less unavailable in order to keep the price index down. That happened in the latter days of the war, and shortly afterwards. Unfortunately I am afraid that we cannot get rid of subsidies at the moment; we cannot do that "at a stroke". But I hope that in due course they will be replaced by benefits in income tax, or otherwise, to the worst off—
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I comment on the noble Lord's statement that it is a fact that women are

1325
dunces at arithmetic and that that makes them accept wages from their husbands which they know are very often not the same amount of wages as are received at the source of employment. That is absolutely untrue. It is true that there are many women who do not receive the proper amount or the proper share of housekeeping money which they should fairly receive. But this is simply due to brutal male domination that has taken place over the years. I hope that the new Bill dealing with sex discrimination will bring this matter out in full force, and that women will now claim what they should claim for their housekeeping, which means wages for the work they do as well as money for the food they produce for their dominating husbands.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I did not accuse women of being dunces at arithmetic. I can only suggest that their brutal husbands have so brutalised their minds that they are not so sharp at arithmetic.
12.46 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the principal effect of this Bill is to increase the power of the Government to spend money on subsidising tea, sugar, bread, milk and butter. The present ceiling is £700 million, and it is proposed to raise it to £1,200 million, up to 31st March 1976, and to £1,700 million from 1st April 1976. That is to say there is an increase in the total sum of nearly two and a half times. This is not a blank cheque, but it is a very big cheque indeed. I am glad that the noble Lord said that those who benefit from it will now include the residents in the Hebrides, and I think they have borne their deprivations long enough. I welcome this expansion—
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, they have not borne it at all, because we have been paying it out of a special account, and the payments were approved by the House of Commons. All we are doing now is confirming it.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that this difficulty was circumvented, although one is always suspicious of Governmental circumventions. I must follow the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on his point, in that we find
1326
the subsidisation of absolutely everybody —rich and poor alike—has something Gilbertian about it. According to figures produced by the honourable Member for Eastbourne, the Under-Secretary of State in another place, I see from Hansard for 19th November, 1974 that 52 per cent. of the subsidies will be received by households with an income of over £50 a week, and that is 52 per cent. of the population. Only 33 per cent. will go to households with incomes of under £40 a week, and that is 32 per cent. of the population of the country.
There is a close parallel between the percentages and obviously, whatever the figures that are advanced, there is an indiscriminate spreading of money which we regard as both expensive and ineffective. This is in spite of the elaborate and sophistical calculations of the Secretary of State in another place who was at pains to get us to disbelieve the evidence which is so plainly before us.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has made observations which it is impossible not to allude to, if only to say that the revelations about his system of housekeeping allowances will lead to the suppression of the circulation of Hansard in the near future in a number of houses that I can think of. I am sure that he speaks only for himself in regard to the quickness of wit between men and women in arithmetic. Perhaps I am unusual in this, but I ususally find that ladies get there quicker.
My Lords, it is alleged by noble Lords opposite that the money for these subsidies is taken from direct taxation, and that therefore the apparent unfairness of subsidising a loaf of bread—making toast for the breakfast table of a millionaire—is available to all. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a number of occasions, has led us to believe otherwise, notably in a television broadcast on the 26th September, when he clearly implied the contrary, saying on that occasion:
" I had to increase, in my opinion, excise duties in order to find the money to subsidise basic foodstuffs."
If noble Lords opposite think that poor people do not have recourse to excisable commodities to help them face the cold blast of economic reality, then they deceive themselves.

1327
The extra £1,000 million is an additional strain, in our view, also upon the Government borrowing requirement, which seems to leap up and down with every quarterly Budget we receive. It is a wasteful and inefficient way of helping those who need help, and its wastefulness and inefficiency restrict the level of help that can be given to those who genuinely need it. There is the added and, in inflationary terms, horrifying, danger that subsidies will be used to pay for wage increases in the food industries themselves. If the bakers get a rise and recoup themselves out of price increases instantly off-set by subsidies, we shall be moving from a spiral to a whirligig.
At this point one wonders whether a new philosophy of government has been evolved. Then one recognises all too clearly the principles of Juvenal, because the principle was enunciated in the Roman Empire that the only things that interest the people are panum et circences—bread and circuses. We have here the provision of ample bread, subsidised by the State, exactly as Juvenal recommended, and in the present gyrations of the Cabinet over our entry into Europe, we have the entertainment as well. My only other allusion to this system of subsidised wages out of price increases offset by subsidy is that I notice that we subsidise tea and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is not here to applaud the improved position for those working in Sri Lanca.
My Lords, we think this is a bad system and the longer it goes on the harder it will be to get out of. The cost is bound to escalate with inflation and, unless the system is terminated gradually over a period of a year or so in the immediate future, the step-up in prices at the end of the system will be sudden and deeply resented by the consumers. The Secretary of State in another place said, and the noble Lord opposite confirmed, the Government's intention to terminate this in the indefinite future. My view is that the future in this case should not be indefinite, but definite.
My Lords, I turn now briefly to Clause 2 where we are in greater accord. We come to the main administrative provisions of the Bill. These have been, to some extent, mitigated in another place,
1328
and for that mitigation we are grateful. The provisions include for regulations requiring retailers to keep records of as yet unspecified detail and as yet unspecified complexity to enable the Secretary of State to ascertain whether the orders she gives are being adhered to. Noble Lords will remember that, when the principal Act was passed, I spoke on behalf of the small shopkeeper. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, generously acceded —and I hope he will be able to take on board, at this point, my acknowledgment of this—to our representations; and small shopkeepers were excluded from some regulations. In another place, on this occasion my honourable friends sought to have this exclusion placed in this Bill, but inadvertently they drew it too wide and the Amendment they sought to carry would have excluded such shopkeepers from the need to observe the National Maximum Prices as well as from the tedious and difficult precisions designed to facilitate the control of chain stores and supermarkets. This we have no intention of doing.
However, I feel sure that the noble Lord, whose experience in this field and whose sympathetic understanding of the needs of the small man we welcome, will not be put out to know that I have drafted an Amendment to Clause 2 which will have the effect of enacting the concessions which he made by other means in the 1974 Bill. We do not like the subsidy system, but we will not seek to reverse the money provisions of this Bill. We like the village shops for a number of reasons which I shall not now adduce, and we shall seek to protect them from being caught up in the machinery designed to control stores into which their own shops—and the bedrooms over, and the parlour at the back—could fit many times over. I conclude by wishing my noble friends on all sides of the House a Happy Easter, and I recommend that they buy their Easter Eggs in the small shop whose door goes "Ping!" when they go in.
12.55 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I thank both Opposition Parties for their not unkind reception of this Bill. I shall reply briefly to the points raised. First, there was some question about the extent to which the subsidised foods were used

1329
by families of different sizes and different incomes. We have full information on this because of the National Food Survey. We can go so far as to tell you that since the subsidies were introduced the pensioners are using more of the subsidised foods; that is to say, their proportion in relation to other families is not greater but they have increased their consumption of subsidised foods since subsidies were introduced.
I now come to the general question raised every time we talk about subsidies. Why subsidise everybody for the purpose of helping a few? The noble Viscount. Lord Simon, said that we should have taken the opportunity in the Social Security Act of giving specific relief and gradually dropping subsidies. I would point out that there must be two conditions and not one. He assumed only one: that the right kind of facility must be there. I would add to that: when economic circumstances were suitable—and 1 do not think the economic circumstances are yet suitable—to drop the subsidies.
My Lords, we have forgotten some of the reasons why the subsidy programme was introduced. Your Lordships will remember that, when we took Office, there were threshold payments and we were determined to reduce the need for increases in wages. Consequently, there was at least one occasion when, as a result of subsidies, threshold payments were not made. I would point out that when there are any wage negotiations the most important element raised by the trade unions is the rise in the cost of living. It is clear that, if we can keep down the cost of living, we shall have some influence on the level of wages. That is also one of the reasons for introducing subsidies. As far as the better off are concerned, they pay not merely for their own subsidies but also for the subsidies of the less well-off. Finally, as far as this point is concerned, we have a means of helping the less well-off without a means test and we also have the absolute guarantee that there is a 100 per cent. take up and no question of there being a good many people who could benefit having pride and not benefiting. While the subsidy system may have some disadvantages I am afraid that in the comments made by the Opposition they have over-looked the advantages.
1330
My Lords, I was asked a question on the higher prices that might be allowed by the Secretary of State in specific cases. This has arisen primarily in connection with bread. Some of the small bakers have very high costs and in order to allow them to charge a higher price, where they were also retailers, some amendment to the Bread Order was necessary; but it was a cumbersome procedure. The effect of the Amendment which the Bill will make will be to avoid this cumbersome procedure. It could be done, but only in that cumbersome way. So far as phasing out is concerned, I would refer your Lordships to the White Paper on public expenditure (Cmnd. 5879). Your Lord-ships will find there that we gave an estimated figure for subsidies from 1974– 75 to 1978–79, not merely in money but in real terms in terms of 1974 prices, so that there is some guide to the Government's intention.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, may I ask whether the dates that he has just given imply an actual commitment to the expenditure of this money until 1979, and, therefore, a further call on Government funds and another amending Act, or is this a hypothetical exercise?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the estimates in regard to the subsidies are in exactly the same position as the estimates in regard to any other public expenditure. They are not a commitment; they are merely a tendency to look ahead at a given point of time. But long before the final year there will be changes, and it is my opinion that by the time we get to 1978/79 we shall not be spending that amount of money on subsidies. It is an estimate as at the present time.
Lord ELTON: Will it be less or more?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think that we shall be spending less. I want now to deal with the question of inflation which was raised. I shall make only two comments. First, I repeat what I said a little earlier, that the cost of living is perhaps the most important element in wage negotiations. If by subsidies or any other means we can keep down the cost of living we shall be tending to keep down the level of wages. In that sense, food subsidies are not inflationary but are anti inflationary.

1331
To deal with the question of food subsidies resulting in Budget deficit, whether Budget deficit is inflationary depends on how it is financed. For example, if a Budget deficit is financed by borrowing money which would have been available to other people, then by borrowing that money one is taking some demand out of the economy. That compensates for the demand which is being put into the economy through the Budget deficit. I believe that that is generally accepted. However, if the Budget deficit is financed entirely in the form of new money, that means that one is putting demand into the economy without taking any demand out. I am pleased to say that, if one takes the wider definition of M3—not to be confused with the motorway—one finds that the increase in the supply of new money in 1974 was at less than half the rate of 1973. The Opposition should not tease us about inflation: they should be grateful that what we inherited is being handled so well.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRICES ACT 1974 (CONTINUATION OF SECTION 2) ORDER 1975
1.4 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to move, That the Draft Prices Act 1974 (Continuation of Section 2) Order 1975, laid before the House on 4th March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the timing of the present Order, which means that it has come immediately after the Second Reading of the Prices Bill, I feel that I can be really brief. The House is aware that Section 2 enables the Secretary of State to regulate by Order the prices and margins of subsidised foods, fresh foods and, at the retail level, other articles which are an essential part of the regular expenditure of low-income households. The House is also aware that this power is necessary to ensure that the subsidies reach the consumer and that the power has been treated merely as a reserve power. The House is further aware that the Prices Bill would extend these powers indefinitely. Finally, the House is aware that the powers which we have at present expire on 31st March 1975, but can be extended for a further year. The purpose
1332
of this Order is to extend the powers at least until the Prices Bill becomes law, so that there is no gap during which public expenditure on subsidised foods is not being safeguarded.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
1.7 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I do not think the House will consider it necessary for me to make a speech at this stage. Despite difficulties of timing and printing, the Bill has been well discussed and we now send it to another place very much larger than we received it and, I believe, better than we received it. My Lord, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Hughes.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure are others, for providing a breathing space on this Bill between the Report stage and the Third Reading. There might have been Amendments still to be made on one or two points, and also consequential Amendments from the Government and from this side. There are two reasons for this, the first of which is the length of the Government Amendments which were received at very short notice, largely owing to the difficulties of printing and distribution in recent days, so that the time available for noble Lords and persons outside the House who were affected to consider the Government's Amendments was very short. Here I echo the feeling behind the remarks of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde at Report stage, about the very short notice and the difficulty of getting copies of the Amendment. The second reason is that we have had a chance to iron out anomalies in the later clauses of the Bill affecting private sector housing. I shall now, like the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, say only a few words.
In Scotland, the principle of balancing housing revenue accounts is to be continued, and this we of course welcome. Our concern has been whether this principle will be applied everywhere in Scotland. We have also been concerned at

1333
the lack of anything in the Bill to ensure that it is, but I know that many of the new local government councils which will come into operation and start their functions in a few weeks' time will apply the principle of balancing housing revenue accounts, which is being continued in the Bill. I very much hope that they all will. So I shall leave that point, which was the main controversial issue between us in that respect.
My Lords, I recognise that the lengthy additions at a very late stage by the Government, to which the noble Lord has referred, could be useful. Although we had little time to examine them in detail, I hope that when they go to the other place the Members there, whose concern it is, will understand when they see pages arriving as the Message from your Lordships' House that, on the whole, they are useful, if minor, additions to the Bill. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, as I did in respect of the last Bill—the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill—for his courtesy in replying to the points which we on this side of the House raised, and also for his stamina in the long sessions which we had at various stages of the Bill when he, on his own, had to deal with all the points and very often to field messages on technical matters. We are grateful to him for the way in which he has handled it.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I thank him very much. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROYAL ASSENT
1.11 p.m.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord St. Helens): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Export Guarantees Amendment Act,

District Courts (Scotland) Act.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may we on these Benches, few though we may be, send our very best wishes for a happy Easter and a relaxing holiday to those noble Lords in all parts of the House, few though they be at this time. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.