Sitting of 12 April 1967

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

EROSION PREVENTION
10.5 a.m.
Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable river boards to build erosion prevention works on river banks.
Erosion occurs in my area along the River Severn, and affects a number of my hon. Friends—
Sir Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.
Mr. Kershaw: —including my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) whom I am glad to see in his place.
The River Severn has a very strong stream and, particularly in the lower reaches, a formidable tide, culminating at its highest periods, in the well-known phenomenon of the Severn bore, a wall of water six or seven feet high moving at great speed up the river. It is a very impressive sight, and it can occasionally be dangerous.
That action of the waters and the stream of the river tends to erode rather more than usual the banks of the river which are, at any rate in my area, mostly made of soft earth and are not rocky. They are, therefore, particularly susceptible to erosion. In the past that erosion was countered by various works, and when labour was cheap the great landlords who owned a lot of territory there built groynes out into the river to prevent the action of the water on the banks. A good deal of land was won back from the river estuary in that way and added to the agricultural land available. Today the great landlords have mostly gone. Labour and materials are not cheap, and it is beyond the purse of the riparian private owners to repair those groynes under modern conditions and prices. As a result, there has been a
1114
sharply increasing loss of valuable agricultural land. One small landowner in my constituency has lost 20 acres to the river in the past few years.
There are river authorities and other bodies up and down the river which have certain powers, but I understand that the Severn river authority does not consider that its responsibility extends to carrying out works solely for the purpose of adding to, or preventing the loss of, agricultural land, although it is certain that it would carry out those works if the consequence of not doing so was to cause flooding, or in some way interfere with its purposes as a water undertaking.
Local authorities have no powers in this regard, unless they happen to be riparian owners, which I do not believe to be the case, at any rate to any important degree. I therefore suggest that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is concerned in the matter because of the loss of agricultural land.
There is a second consequence of the erosion, arising more in the estuary than in the upper reaches. The groynes which were built out into the Severn provided mooring places for fishing boats, on one side of them or the other according to the state of the tide. The Severn is a most important fishing river. The salmon, the elvers—the baby eels which come at this time of the year—and other fish are a very important source of revenue to fishermen. Fishing on the lower reaches of the Severn is very largely a commercial undertaking, not a sporting one. I therefore suggest that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is again involved because of the difficulties imposed upon fishermen through their not having the possibility of mooring their boats conveniently or anywhere near their fishing grounds.
This is a permissive Bill. It is designed only to make it possible for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to intervene where it thinks it is necessary and where it thinks that the expenditure is justified to prevent the loss of good agricultural land.
At present there is no public authority with any specific powers. The vast majority of the owners have no capability, financial or otherwise, of carrying

1115
out the necessary works. These works are now, after many years, all falling into disuse more or less at the same time and the problem will be increased sharply in the next few years. I suggest that the Bill could fill a minor but valuable purpose and that it would be in the public interest that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should have these powers.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Kershaw, Mr. David Webster, Mr. Corfield, and Sir Gerald Nabarro.

EROSION PREVENTION
Bill to enable river boards to build erosion prevention works on river banks, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 21st April and to be printed. [Bill 230.]

RATING AND VALUATION (WATER UNDERTAKINGS)
10.12 a.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move,
That the Valuation (Water Undertakings) (Scotland) (No. 1) Order 1967, dated 13th March 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.
Section 16 and Schedule 2 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1966, provide for the introduction in 1967–68 of a new system of valuing water undertakings by reference to a "norm" or national average rateable value per unit of water to replace the present system which produces unduly high rateable values for undertakings with heavy capital expenditure.
The principle of the new system, which was fully debated during the passage of the Bill, is that the rateable value of an undertaking will in future be obtained by multiplying the norm by the average daily output of water. This will have the effect of equating the rateable value of all undertakings directly with output.
The Order establishes how the norm is to be calculated; and it is the key to the operation of the new system. The Order is required by 15th April to fit in with the statutory timetable of the
1116
Assessor of Public Undertakings who, under the Act, now has the responsibility of calculating all water valuations.
The norm is to be the aggregate rateable values of all water undertakings in 1964–65 divided by the aggregate potential output of water for that year, the resulting factor being increased by 31.6 per cent. to take account of the general increase in rateable values in Scotland as a result of the 1966 revaluation.
The explanation for using 1964–65 data is that this is the latest information available to the Working Party and to the Government.
As far as the effect of revaluation is concerned, it is a reasonable proposition that the norm should reflect this, otherwise the new system would achieve too substantial a reduction in values, which is not its main purpose, and this would be unfair to other ratepayers. On the basis of the method described, the norm is £5.568 per thousand gallons of water per day—that is, the figure derived from 1964–65 valuations and output, plus an increase of 31.6 per cent.
The local authority associations were fully consulted about the "norm" method of valuation as the best alternative to the present system. Indeed this method, as I mentioned in Committee and at other stages of the Bill, is very much the brain-child of a sub-committee of the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Working Party, which included representatives of the local authority associations, the British Waterworks Association and officers of my Department.
It was only after the fullest examination of a number of alternative systems that the norm method was selected as being the fairest. The local authority associations are also fully in agreement that the means of arriving at the norm should include a factor for revaluation.
The British Waterworks Association was the only dissentient to the principles of the norm. It felt that the reduction in values which the norm system would be likely to achieve were not radical enough. That was not, however, felt by the Government to be a fair point of view, bearing in mind the interests of other ratepayers who would have to make good the deficiencies in rates no longer being paid by water undertakings.

1117
The use of the norm will not give rise to any dramatic reduction in the over-all rateable value of water undertakings; indeed the levelling-off process involved will mean that some undertakings will have higher values than before. But it is estimated that the total rateable value of all water undertakings will, as a result, be reduced by about 20 per cent.
The real value of the Order lies in the fact that in future all water undertakings will be protected from the swingeing increases in rateable value arising solely on account of increased loan debt. This overcomes one unsatisfactory feature of the present system which we are replacing in the next financial year.
I commend the Order to the House.
10.16 a.m.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Minister of State has described how the Order arises from the Act. As he said, the Order determines a method whereby a norm is established. He indicated that the British Waterworks Association did not agree to the idea of a factor. It seems that this has been a Government decision. It would seem also, from what the hon. Gentleman said, that it is the result of a recommendation by a working party.
The hon. Gentleman said that the water authorities were agreeable to the inclusion of a factor, but have they been consulted about the method prescribed in the Order? If so, did they agree with the figure and with the method? There is one further point. This seems to be a very good argument for having a decimal currency as soon as possible, because we are dealing with 5·568 of a £.
Mr. James Davidson: I welcome the Order. Would the Minister of State confirm that seasonal variations in the actual volume of water coming from these undertakings are taken into account in determining the norm?
10.18 a.m.
Mr. Richard Buchanan: The cost per thousand gallons of water in England is estimated to be between 2s. 3d. and 2s. 6d. In Scotland the cost per thousand gallons is 1s. 3d. According to the British Waterworks Association under the Order the rateable content will be double that in
1118
England. The rate content in England and Wales will be 2d. per thousand gallons. In Scotland it will be 4d. Although water undertakings may be protected from the swingeing increase and although there will be normalcy in their rateable value, nevertheless 31·6 per cent. is being added to take account of the general increase in the rateable values of shops, offices and industrial premises. I believe that this should be put on the same basis as the nationalised industries and that there should be a pool. If the Minister can explain why it is different in Scotland I shall be grateful.
Dr.Mabon: I am very sorry that, because we are obliged to have the Order by 15th April, we have not had time to discuss further with the British Waterworks Association the matters referred to by my hon. Friend. There was a meeting with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and I am glad to say that my noble Friend has written to the British Waterworks Association taking up various points made, some of which have been touched upon this morning by my hon. Friend.
I hope that the Association, when it reads the letter, particularly the final paragraph, will see that there is room to look at the impact of this on individual authorities. If my hon. Friend reads Schedule 2, paragraph 24, of the Act he will see that the transitional powers are such that the Secretary of State can look into all or some of the undertakings, as he prefers. The reason for this flexibility is so that the system shall get off to a good start.
The local authority associations are in agreement with the Government on this. They do not take the same view as the British Waterworks Association about the degree to which we should reduce these rateable values. I respect the arguments of the Association which are perfectly sound from its point of view. The Government have to take into account that this is a new system. We are advancing not only into a new system of local government finance, but into a new system of water reorganisation in Scotland. In addition, we have a revaluation year to take account of.
This is an awful lot to swallow at one go, and that is why I think it wise that we should take the base line as 1964–65

1119
which is the only year for which we have up-to-date and accurate figures. We should then proceed from that taking in the revaluation figure, and then the formula as devised by the working party.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) asked me how this was arrived at. I have the report of the sub-committee to the working party, which is not available publicly, and this shows that it was agreed as an essential point of switching over from the unsatisfactory position of raising rateable value on loan debt in respect of waterworks to output. The British Waterworks Association accepts that that is a fundamentally sound way of doing things, even though it may disagree with the degree to which we are doing it in this Order.
There will be every opportunity of looking at this, if anyone is dissatisfied, either generally or from an individual point of view. The Assessor will shortly be sending out to each undertaking the figures which he has been collecting and which he will be applying in respect of this formula, if the Order is agreed. I am certain that out of that will come comments which are bound to attract the attention of the Secretary of State. He may not want to do anything generally, or very few things individually. This remains to be seen. We have to start somewhere, and it is with the Order. We have left this very small margin of only a few days because we wanted the best possible advice from all bodies.
I am only sorry that the British Waterworks Association was not able to impress its arguments on us a little earlier, although I do not blame it for that because we have been working very hard on the subject of water in this Parliament, and the Waterworks Association has done very well on a number of matters.
In answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), the average output per day is averaged over the year, so that seasonal variations are taken into account. Nothing need worry him about the peculiarities of the Aberdeenshire area, which I hope will be overcome quite soon.
Water in Scotland is much cheaper than in England. For anyone thinking
1120
of coming to Scotland for the purpose of industrial expansion it must be an encouragement to know that the cost of water to industry is, roughly speaking, half the price of that in England. This is one more attraction. Not only have we cheap water but we have plenty of fine water. We hope that this Order will help us on our way to achieving industrial expansion in Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Valuation (Water Undertakings) (Scotland) (No. 1) Order, 1967, dated 13th March 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (INVESTMENT GRANTS)
10.25 a.m.
The Minister of State to the Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move,
That the Industrial Development (Eligible Assets) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 339), dated 7th March 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.
This rather technical Order will not detain the House long. It really applies to Northern Ireland, but I do not see any Northern Ireland Members present. Its purpose is to give the Board of Trade authority to pay investment grants on assets that are leased in Northern Ireland. As the House is aware, the Industrial Development Act, 1966, as a general rule provides for investment grants to be made only for assets to be used in business in Great Britain.
Northern Ireland has long had its own system of investment incentives, and the Parliament at Stormont passed last December the Industrial Investment (General Assistance) Act (Northern Ireland), 1966, whose provisions are very similar to those in our Act. They enable the Ministry of Commerce to make grants to persons carrying on business in Northern Ireland, if the machinery or plant or computers are provided for use in Northern Ireland.
Under our Industrial Development Act, the Board of Trade may make grants to persons carrying on business in Great Britain for machinery or plant for use in Great Britain, carrying on a qualifying industrial process, and for computers for

1121
use in Great Britain and for hovercraft. Where the user purchases any of these assets, there is no problem about making a grant towards his capital expenditure. But there is also a growing practice of leasing in British industry, which was provided for under Section 4 of the Act. Under this Section, the Board of Trade may make a grant to the lessor of an asset if it is leased to a person who would have qualified for a grant if he had bought it. Where the lessee would have qualified for a higher rate of grant because he uses the asset in a development area, then that higher rate is paid to the lessor.
If this Order was not made, any assets leased to Northern Ireland would fall between the two systems. The Board of Trade could not pay the lessor, because the lessee is outside Great Britain; and the Ministry of Commerce in Belfast could not pay either, because the lessor is outside Northern Ireland; and grants towards capital expenditure cannot be paid under either Act to lessees, since they are renting their equipment.
To avoid this anomaly my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade moved an Amendment to the Industrial Development Bill, which is now Section 7(2) of the Act. This gives the Board of Trade power to make this Order, when we are satisfied that reciprocal action has been taken in Northern Ireland. At that time the Northern Ireland legislation had not yet been passed. Now that it has been passed, and the Northern Ireland Government have made an Order under which the Ministry of Commerce can make grants to lessors in Northern Ireland who hire out assets to Great Britain, we can fulfil our part of the bargain, and make this Order.
I should perhaps explain that there is a special provision in Section 4 of our Act for construction plant hire, because this plant is normally hired out for short periods. As the result of the Order, a construction plant hire firm will be able to hire out machinery or plant on which it is getting grant anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Article 1 of the Order enables the Board of Trade to make grants under Section 4, even though the asset is to be used in a business in Northern Ireland and not in Great Britain. Article 2 provides that the rate of grant should
1122
be what it would be if Northern Ireland were a development area in Great Britain; for example, if the expenditure were incurred this year or next year, the rate would be 45 per cent. for machinery or plant, and for computers which are integrated with machinery or for scientific research. On other computers, on hovercraft and construction plant on short-term hire, the rate would be 25 per cent.
Section 7 of the Industrial Development Act empowers the Board of Trade to make Orders to vary the rate of grant or to make grants for additional assets not hitherto eligible, subject to this affirmative Resolution procedure. Since assets leased to Northern Ireland were not previously eligible for grant, technically the Order provides for the addition of eligible assets, but the number of applications which will benefit from it is likely to be rather small. The Order will apply to expenditure already incurred from the beginning of the investment grant scheme in both countries, because no grants will have been paid before the Order comes into operation.
I hope that that explanation is clear, and I ask the House to approve the Order.
10.32 a.m.
Mr. F. V. Corfield: Mr. Speaker, I must apologise to you and to the right hon. Gentleman for not being here when he rose to speak. I confess, however, that I have not felt the need for people to find me useful things to do in the morning.
I appreciate fully that the principle of the Order is in line with the principle of the parent Act, and the parent Act in relation to Northern Ireland would be something of a nonsense without it. At the same time, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can tell us a little more about the way in which he sees the leasing powers working out. He will remember that, before the passing of the Act, we were concerned about how we were to administer a system by which grants were given to the lessee without necessarily knowing the length of the period during which he would be handling the equipment. That clearly makes a great deal of difference to eligibility for grant, particularly where we are concerned with development areas, of which Northern Ireland is obviously one. The

1123
equipment may be moved across the boundary of the development area, and that introduces the difficulty that different grants are payable.
We welcome the extension to Northern Ireland which, in effect, makes this United Kingdom legislation instead of Great Britain legislation, and no one on either side of the House would think it right if Northern Ireland were put under disadvantage owing to constitutional differences between the two parts of the Kingdom.
I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us how the leasing is working. I know that is a more general question, but some further information would be of great value.
10.34 a.m.
Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman will remember, we had discussions about this point during the passage of the Bill through the House. We think that the arrangements which were then discussed and laid down will work out satisfactorily. I am assured that, in dealing with the applications which have come forward, in effect we are asking for undertakings that, where the equipment is to be used in a development area, it will be in the development area for some time. The experience with applications so far received is that the leasing provisions are working satisfactorily, and we do not anticipate any great trouble here. Normally, the lease must be for a period of at least three years as laid down in the Act. If it is terminated earlier, it must be reported to the Board of Trade, when appropriate action will be taken to adjust the grant. In the case of construction plant hire, there is provision for short-term leasing, as I said.
I do not know whether there will be any teething troubles here. I am assured that the provisions laid down in the Act are working satisfactorily. For all practical purposes, Northern Ireland will be treated as a development area, and moving over the boundary there will be slightly more difficult than in Great Britain.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Industrial Development (Eligible Assets) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 339), dated 7th March, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  UNIFORM LAWS ON INTERNATIONAL SALES BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  10.36 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This is a short, technical but, nevertheless, potentially important Bill, which has been introduced to enable the United Kingdom to ratify two international Conventions relating to uniform laws on and the formation of contracts for the international sale of goods. These Conventions aim at creating uniformity in the law covering contracts for international trade, and it is hoped thereby that the legislation will remove one cause of possible misunderstanding or bad feeling between traders resulting from the differences in the legal systems of different countries.
  The United Kingdom has taken a leading rôle in the drawing up of these uniform laws, and the introduction of this legislation will be a further indication of the importance which we in this country attach to international co-operation in such matters to facilitate the expansion of world trade.
  As I made clear during the earlier stages of the Bill, the uniform laws will, under the Bill, apply only to contracts by United Kingdom traders who have adopted them expressly as the law of their contract. However, we hope that an increasing number of businessmen will adopt the laws by way of experiment so that experience can be gained of their practical operation. If they prove to be satisfactory, it is hoped that in due course they will become the laws which are generally used for the purposes of contracts in international trade.
  Since the Bill was introduced and discussed in the House and in Committee, we have had quite a lot of correspondence about it and about the uniform laws. In particular, we have been asked what publicity we shall give to the United Kingdom's ratification and to ratification by other countries. This is quite important to traders over here. In particular, we have been asked what publicity we can give to any reservations

  1125
  which other countries may have. At this stage I can merely assure the House that we shall be keeping the legal and business communities in touch with developments here and in other countries. We shall be having discussions with the appropriate associations on how best we can publicise the matter so that all traders who might be involved in the application of the uniform laws will know precisely what is going on.
  I am grateful for the interest that was shown by hon. Members who took part in the earlier discussions on the Measure, for the welcome that has been given to the Bill and for the way in which it has been so considerately and speedily brought to this stage.
  10.41 a.m.
  Mr. A. H. Macdonald: Because of the procedures of this House, I have been waiting for a considerable time to speak on this Measure. The Second Reading took place in a Second Reading Committee and I did not have the privilege of being appointed to that Committee. I was, therefore, not able to speak on the Bill on that occasion. The Measure then went into Committee in the normal way—but, again, I was unfortunately not appointed to that Committee and was not able to speak on the Bill then.
  It is not until now that I have an opportunity to say something about the Measure, yet the procedures of the House mean that, at this stage, I can comment only on what is in the Bill and cannot complain about what has been left out of it. This is a pity because up to now I have been an enthusiastic supporter of reforming Parliamentary procedures. As I find myself hampered by this reform, I am not quite so enthusiastic a supporter of reform as I was before this Bill began its process through Parliament.
  A constituent of mine takes a particular interest in the Bill and has been in touch with me about it. He has naturally been expecting me to speak on his behalf in Parliament, particularly since I regard the points which he has made to me as valid ones. Up to now, I have merely been able to correspond on the subject with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has been extremely helpful—but that is not the same as my being able to stand up in Parliament and oblige
  1126
  my right hon. Friend to answer my comment publicly.
  However, within the restrictions imposed on me by the procedures governing Third Reading debates, I believe that I am able to refer to certain aspects of the matter, including a remark made in Committee—the real Committee and not the Second Reading Committee—by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen), who said:
  "For 40 years, efforts have been going on to make private international law uniform, and this is the one of the best examples of that work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 8th March, 1967; c. 5.]
  With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I would hate to see one of the worst examples.
  As its name suggests, the Bill purports to make uniform international law, yet the whole concept of the Measure seems to be that the thing is optional and to that extent it does not create a very great degree of uniformity. As returned from its Committee stage, the Bill states in Clause 1(1):
  "In this Act 'the Uniform Law on Sales' means the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods forming the Annex to the first Convention and set out, with the modification provided for by Article III of that Convention, in Schedule 1 to this Act. …"
  Article III of the Convention states:
  "By way of derogation from Article 1 of the Uniform Law, any State may, at the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification of or accession to the present Convention declare … that it will apply the Uniform Law only if each of the parties to the contract of sale has his place of business or, if he has no place of business, has habitual residence in the territory of a different Contracting State, and in consequence may insert the word 'Contracting' before the word 'States' where the latter word first occurs in paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Uniform Law".
  We have done exactly that because Schedule 1 states:
  "The present law shall apply to contracts of sale of goods entered into by parties whose places of business are in the territories of different Contracting States.…"
  Thus, at the very outset of the Bill we have restricted its operation by inserting the word "contracting"—which certainly we are entitled to do under the terms of the Convention—although this is not necessarily what other states which have ratified or will be ratifying the Convention will do. We are therefore restricting the operation of these so-called uniform laws.

  1127
  We have imposed a second measure of restriction on the extent of these laws, because the Bill states in Clause 1(3):
  "While an Order of Her Majesty in Council is in force declaring that a declaration by the United Kingdom under Article V of the First Convention (application only by choice of parties) has been made and not withdrawn the Uniform Law on Sales shall apply to a contract of sale only if it has been chosen by the parties to the contract as the law of the contract".
  That refers to Article V of the Convention, which states:
  "Any state may, at the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, … declare … that it will apply the Uniform Law only to contracts in which the parties thereto have … chosen the Law as the law of the contract".
  Once again we have indeed done what is lawful and permissible to us under the terms of the Convention, but by so doing we have restricted the operation of these laws.
  A third restriction appears in the Bill in Clause 1(5), which states:
  "If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares what States and Contracting States or what Declarations under Article II of the First Convention are for the time being in force, the Order shall, while in force, be conclusive for the purposes of paragraph 1 or, as the case may be, paragraph 5 of Article 1 … but any Order in Council under this subsection may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council".
  Once again this is a restriction because Article II of the Convention states:
  "Any contracting state may declare that it does not consider one or more non-contracting states as different States from itself for the purpose of the requirements of the Uniform Law which are referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, because such States apply to sales which in the absence of such a declaration would be governed by the Uniform Law legal rules which are the same as or closely related to its own".
  Indeed, we are going to impose this further restriction because Clause 1(5) refers to this possibility in that it refers to a declaration made under Article II of the Convention, which I have quoted.
  In these three ways these uniform laws—which I first took to be and read as being extensive uniform laws which would apply universally and which would be really uniform—have, by our voluntary action, been restricted and the extent of these uniform laws now appears very small indeed, which is a pity. I should have thought that if these were good laws
  1128
  —and my right hon. Friend has indicated that delegates from this country took a leading part in drawing them up—they should apply universally.
  The concept that the laws should be optional is peculiar. I have never heard of an optional law, although I have a dim memory from my historical reading that in the time of Charles II there was a Measure called the Occasional Conformity Act. I do not know whether that was an optional law, but, if not, this is the first law known to me which is optional in its extent. Because it is optional, I criticise it on the ground that it makes things harder, not easier, for exporters.
  I understand that at present businessmen contemplating entering into a contract with a national of a foreign country have two laws to take into account—the law of this country, and the law of the other country concerned—and that it will be for the two parties to determine which of the two shall apply according to the provisions of the two laws. Now they may or may not have to take into account the possibility of a third law applying. This increases confusion instead of bringing about uniformity.
  The combination of contracting in or contracting out as permitted under the Convention and the possibility that traders may choose whether the law shall apply creates great uncertainty, because, as we have decided to operate these uniform laws on a contracting-in basis, a trader in this country might reasonably assume that a contract entered into which does not expressly say that these laws shall apply will be a contract to which these laws shall not apply because we have not contracted in. But it may well be that the foreign national with whom he is entering into a contract is a national of a country which has adopted these laws on a contracting-out basis—that is, in that country these laws shall apply unless the contract expressly says that they shall not. Therefore, that foreign national will assume, if the contract is silent, that the law does apply. There is the possibility of uncertainty and confusion arising, and I am not clear how the trader is supposed to know.
  I wrote to the Board of Trade on this subject, and I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. He has taken pains over this matter. But I am

  1129
  bound to say that I am not entirely happy with his reply. I asked how traders were supposed to know whether foreign States had adopted the law and, if they had, whether it was on a contracting-in or contracting-out basis. My right hon. Friend's reply reads:
  "You asked what steps we will take to publicise the list of States adhering to the Convention. Orders in Council will list the contracting States and show what declarations have been made. The Orders in Council will not, however, show which States have adopted the uniform law on a contracting in basis and which have adopted it on a contracting out basis. Clearly some publicity will have to be given to this and we are considering how it might best be done."
  That is just great. But had not the Government better get a ripple on—because we have now reached the Third Reading of the Bill and presumably, therefore, it will not be long before it becomes an Act and has the force of law. Yet the Government are still merely considering what kind of publicity they will give to ensure that traders and businessmen know the exact effect of the operation of this law.
  The constituent whom I mentioned earlier has been in correspondence with the Board of Trade asking for what he called a "plain man's guide" to this subject. In my opinion, it is a very reasonable request, and I should like to endorse it and to press as strongly as I can the desirability, indeed the necessity, of making absolutely plain to traders and businessmen in this country the basis on which other countries have adopted this law, because without such information the list which the Board of Trade has undertaken to publish will be of no value.
  My right hon. Friend, in moving the Third Reading, referred to the need to do this sort of thing but, if I may respectfully say so, in rather mild and mousy terms, when he said that the business community would be kept in touch with developments. The phrase "kept in touch" suggests a degree of publicity rather more modest than I should have liked to see.
  If these laws are desirable and important, I should have thought that it was advisable that they should apply universally. I took up this point in earlier correspondence with the Board of Trade and received a rather curious reply. It was said that a lot of people might not know about these laws and, therefore, it might be rather hard that they should be
  1130
  affected by them. I can understand that argument. But I have always been under the impression that it was a principle of this country that ignorance of the law is no excuse. If that be the principle, I am not clear as to why it should not apply in this case.
  However, if it be the Government's decision that these uniform laws shall be permissive and not mandatory—I would regret that decision, but I assume that it is their decision—may I underline as strongly as I can the necessity of making absolutely clear to the business community the exact terms and conditions on which other States have adopted the Convention. I realise that a contract may be entered into in all good faith which will have different meanings and effects according to the terms on which the other States have adopted the Convention.
  It would be a great pity if what purports to be a Measure bringing uniformity into international law should create disunity and chaos. I see the real possibility of this happening unless adequate publicity is given to the point which I have mentioned.
  10.58 a.m.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: I apologise for not being here earlier, but I was consulting the Bill and the point which was raised on Second Reading and to which the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) has referred. This is the only point which worries me. Everyone in the House will applaud this move forward to a more uniform law on international sales. But there is the problem which I have in mind which could lead to all sorts of difficulties and to the main parts of the Bill creating more confusion.
  On Second Reading, the reservations of British businessmen when the Convention was originally discussed were raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State referred to the fact that there was an addition to the Convention which provided:
  "Any State may apply the uniform law only to contracts in which the parties thereto have chosen that law as the law of the contract."
  Apparently that gave a certain amount of satisfaction to businessmen in this country.
  The difficulty which I see is that which exercises the mind of the hon. Member

  1131
  for Chislehurst, namely, that misunderstandings could arise when various countries took a different view. We in this country would obviously take the view that unless it was expressly put into the contract our present laws relating to contracts for the sale of goods would apply, but a contracting party from another country, because of the way in which that country had brought in the Convention, might assume that unless it was expressly provided against the uniform law on international sales would apply.
  It is important that as much publicity as possible is given, first, to the convenience which everyone will enjoy by accepting the conditions of the Bill, and, secondly, to making it quite clear that every contracting party ought not to assume anything and indeed ought to accept the express conditions of the contract into which they enter. It is only in this way that we shall get the benefits which can accrue from a uniform law such as this. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything he can to make it as clear as possible to everyone concerned that we would like to see all our people following the terms of this Bill to make certain that there is not this misunderstanding which could arise between contracting parties in different countries even though they are all signatories to the Convention.
  11.2 a.m.
  Mr. F. V. Corfield: We all welcome the basic principle of incorporating into our domestic law internationally agreed provisions for the interpretation and enforcement of international contracts in relation to the sale of goods. I would have thought that this probably had more advantage to a country such as our own, depending as it does so much on international trade, than to some other countries.
  I am delighted that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) is growing wiser with regard to Parliamentary reform. I accept some of his reservations, though I think that some of them have been a little over-stated. It seems to me that at this stage it is almost inevitable that the use of these provisions will be optional. I do not know, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us, what proportion of the States which took part in
  1132
  this Convention have ratified it and incorporated its provisions into their domestic law. This clearly is a factor which very much affects the degree to which the provisions can be of universal application.
  I disagree with the hon. Gentleman in his criticism of the provision by which these provisions will not apply where there is a declaration that the law of two countries is so close that they can be considered for this purpose as virtually governed by the same rules of law. In our own case, for example, the law on the sale of goods is derived from the Sale of Goods Act which has always been held up to students of the law as almost a model piece of drafting. Perhaps some of us would do well, and some of the Parliamentary draftsmen would do well, to study it in greater detail when drafting some of our modern legislation. No doubt it needs a certain amount of bringing up to date, and I understand that the Law Commission is considering this, but it is not one of our less successful pieces of legislation, and an enormous amount of trade is carried on on the basis of its terms.
  I think I am right in saying that almost all our recently independent former Colonies have laws based on the Sale of Goods Act and that this is also true of the older Dominions with whom we do a great deal of trade. I would have thought that it was being somewhat dogmatic to introduce different rules for trade between countries of that sort, when on both sides they were accustomed to applying existing provisions.
  Nor am I entirely convinced of the fears of the hon. Gentleman, or of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), that by introducing a third set of provisions, in other words, the domestic laws of the two countries of the trading partners, plus this new Convention, we will necessarily make things harder rather than easier, or introduce confusion, because it seems to me that this is in a sense part of the Convention rather than part of the Bill.
  Article 3 of the Annex to the Convention says:
  "The parties to a contract of sale shall be free to exclude the application thereto of the present Law either entirely or partially. Such exclusion may be expressed or implied."

  1133
  It seems to me that with that provision in the law the first thing the contracting parties must do is to advert to the provisions of the Articles before deciding to what extent their contract is to be governed by them. Whether or not the country is a contracting in country, or a contracting out one, this is the first thing that will have to be done. I do not profess to know enough about it to say whether this is a disadvantage in the provisions of the Convention, but I do not see what Her Majesty's Government can do about it, because they must be concerned with relating domestic law to the international Convention, and not to something which we think would be a better international Convention. I think it unlikely that anybody will adopt these provisions as the basis of any contract without both sides being clear what provisions are being adopted and what are not.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman is on sounder ground in wishing that the Convention had included some arrangement by which all countries would either be contracting-in or contracting-out. But there again, without having read the evidence, I cannot, even in my most extreme party mood, blame the Government for that. I think that, as in every other form of international Convention, this is a matter of give and take. We must accept what has been agreed, and I have no doubt that as progress is made in seeing how these provisions work the various parties to the Convention will have ideas by which it can be improved, and if the difficulties which arise are common difficulties and cut right across international frontiers, no doubt there will not be a great deal of difficulty in reaching agreement on the points which have given rise to those difficulties.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman has a strong point in saying that business people will want to be kept up to date on what countries have incorporated these provisions into their domestic law with or without variations. But, subject to that, I hope that this will be a useful addition to the basis of international contracts for the sale of goods which, as I said, seems to be of great importance to this country. No doubt as time goes on the right hon. Gentleman will be able to come back and tell us whether his hon. Friend's fears are justified or not.
  11.9 a.m.
  Mr. Darling: I do not know whether I have to seek permission to answer the points which have been raised. I am rather stale on Third Reading procedure, but I know that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) will shortly help us to have a Third Reading debate on another important Bill.
  I do not know whether it is in order to do so, but I would like to put on record that I disagree profoundly with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) about the Second Reading procedure. I think that it is an excellent idea, and I am only sorry that other activities prevented my hon. Friend from taking part in the debates from which he appears to have been excluded.
  The main issue which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) have raised is, I should imagine, a problem which arises in all international discussions. To what extent we can get agreement is a matter of give and take, and in the case of contracting-in or contracting-out it would have been better if the Conventions had come down in favour of one or the other. I would have thought that contracting-out would have been the better arrangement, but the discussions which led up to the Conventions and then to the Bill have been going on for about 40 years, during which time opinions have changed about the need for international laws and contracts, and even for international co-operation.
  The British business community a short time ago reached a point at which it was in favour of doing something, although it still has some general reservations. It was largely on our business community's initiative that the contracting-in arrangement was put forward—or, at least, strongly supported. We shall have to see how this arrangement works out. These are called uniform laws. The word "law" in this context seems to have a rather less severe meaning than is generally attached to it in this country. Law or not, the whole operation is optional.
  This is the only way we can proceed towards uniformity in international law. It is a developing process. My hon. Friend said that he hoped that the uniform laws would be universal. We have

  1135
  no authority to lay down laws for other countries. We can only proceed on a measure of agreement, and I hope that in the not too distant future uniform laws will become generally accepted.
  I have said that we cannot impose the law on our business community, let alone the business communities of other countries. We must therefore retain the optional character of these laws. But in developing towards international agreement on contracts nobody can be absolutely certain that these Conventions and the rules that arise from them will prove to be entirely satisfactory. Much experience will be needed before we can be sure that the rules are satisfactory.
  My hon. Friend has overlooked one important point. The Conventions, and therefore the rules, may prove to be unsatisfactory in certain respects; we do not know. Provision has therefore been made in the Conventions themselves to allow for changes, and these changes can be made only at further international conferences. Unless we ratify the Conventions we can take no further part in the proceedings. If, therefore, we really want international agreement in contractual law it is essential for us to ratify the Conventions and put the laws into operation in this country in the optional way that we are doing, thereby being able to play our part in moulding future contractual arrangements and law.
  I have answered the point about contracting-in and contracting-out—briefly, I agree. We must make it clear to our traders that on occasions when they make arrangements for their contracts to be governed by the uniform laws that arise out of the Bill they must make certain that the country of the party with whom they are dealing has similar arrangements—in other words, contracting-in arrangements. If it does not, this fact must be made clear in the contract drawn up between the two parties. The fact that one party is in a contracting-in country and the other in a contracting-out country must be made clear to both parties.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst referred to what he called a further weakness, in that the law will not apply between States having similar legal systems to ours. This situation arises because, generally speaking, our trading arrangements have been governed by the
  1136
  Sale of Goods Act, which is now 80 years old. It is a very good piece of legislation, drawn up not by Parliament but by a county court judge to codify the law. So good has it been as a codification of common law that it has been taken as the basis of contractual law in, I believe, all the countries that we used to call Dominions and which are now members of the Commonwealth, and also in the United States of America.
  There is no point in having a different system of international contractual law where Great Britain is trading with countries who have the same system of law as we have. This reservation is made so that if the contracting parties agree they will not need to adopt the uniform laws laid down in the Conventions. In practice it is very unlikely, at any rate for the time being, that they will adopt the uniform laws system, because, in effect, they already have uniform law as a result of basing their contractual arrangements on our Sale of Goods Act.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South asked how many countries had ratified the Conventions. When this Measure gets on to the Statute Book we shall be the first country to ratify the Conventions and make them part of our law. There are good reasons why we should proceed quickly. First, it gives us an opportunity to influence further developments of international law in this respect.
  Secondly, whether or not we enter the Common Market our traders will have closer contacts with European countries. We hope that there will be much more trade between the United Kingdom and European countries—and the European countries that we have in mind on occasions like this are mainly countries in the Common Market which base their trading arrangements on an entirely different system of law. It is therefore desirable to come to some kind of agreement quickly.
  We are taking the lead in this matter, and this gives us a little time carefully to work out the kind of publicity that must be given to the new arrangements, so that our traders are in no doubt about where they stand under the law of contract. We can proceed to work out with the business community and the lawyers the best way to give

  1137
  publicity to this matter. I agree about the absolute need for good and careful publicity, and we shall keep this matter under active consideration. We will be in contact with the business communities concerned, and I do not think that we shall fail on that score.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  ST. TERESA'S MATERNITY HOSPITAL, WIMBLEDON
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  11.20 a.m.
  Sir Cyril Black: I am glad to have the opportunity of raising today the question of the future of St. Teresa's Maternity Hospital, which is situated in my constituency of Wimbledon. I am fortunate that the matter has come up at this stage today, because we have a little more time than is normally available for such an Adjournment debate which will enable more to be said than would ordinarily be possible in a debate of this kind.
  For 20 years past the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board has had a contract with St. Teresa's Maternity Hospital whereby the Board pays for 40 beds which are thereby made available for National Health Service patients. Recently the Board has given notice to bring that contractual arrangement to an end at the end of the present calendar year. This has caused the greatest possible concern and indignation in the area which is served by this greatly esteemed and much loved hospital.
  The proposal for the termination of this contract arises from the fact that there is to be a new maternity wing at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, which is a branch of Westminster Hospital, and in that new wing at Roehampton Hospital, which I understand is to open in January next, there will be 50 maternity beds. It is claimed by the Board and by the Minister that those 50 beds, which is a net addition of only 10 beds in the area, will make it possible for all mothers who can reasonably expect to have their babies in hospital in the area to be accommodated in the
  1138
  maternity beds that will then be available.
  In 25 years of public life in my constituency, I cannot recall any matter that has arisen which has produced the same intensity of feeling and widespread indignation as has been aroused by this proposal for the withdrawal of National Health support from St. Teresa's Hospital. On a recent Sunday afternoon, a meeting was arranged in the Wimbledon Theatre at which this matter was discussed. Most hon. Members are familiar with the difficulties today of attracting large public audiences at any time in any circumstances. Most hon. Members with any experience of organising meetings will know that a Sunday afternoon is generally the least propitious time for such an exercise. On this occasion, about 2,000 people were present at the meeting in the Wimbledon Theatre. They unanimously expressed their indignation and concern at this proposal of the Hospital Board.
  A committee which has been organised to undertake the protection of the interests of this hospital has organised a petition for which signatures have been gathered in the area. I am told that up to the present 45,000 signatures have been attracted in what is, after all, a comparatively limited area.
  My colleagues in adjoining constituencies whose constituents are also affected by this decision have, along with me, received scores, and in some cases hundreds, of letters from indignant constituents. Lobbying of Members of the House, of the Hospital Board, and of the Ministry, has been undertaken on a scale that must be almost unprecedented. Such has been the interest in what ordinarily might be regarded as only a local matter that not only the local Press but the national Press and T.V. have devoted a very large amount of time to reporting on this particular matter. Virtually without exception the action of the Regional Hospital Board and the Minister has come under severe condemnation.
  If they are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are several of my colleagues from adjoining constituencies who want to say something about this matter on behalf of their constituents. I think that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), whose Division is also much concerned, has

  1139
  expressed at any rate a degree of sympathy with what we are seeking to do. I am only sorry that he is not able apparently to be with us this morning to add his plea to those which my fellow Members and I wish to address to the Parliamentary Secretary.
  I want to say a few words about some of the sources from which protests have come. The Wandsworth Borough Council, through its Health Committee—I probably do not need to remind hon. Members that this is a Socialist-controlled local authority—has passed a resolution condemning the action of the Board and the support given to that action by the Minister.
  The Merton Borough Council, at its Health Committee, recently passed the following resolution:
  "That the Minister of Health be informed that the Council considers that there is already a local shortage of beds for maternity cases in the Borough.
  That it is understood that this view is fully shared by the Local Medical Committee.
  That the withdrawal of National Health Service support from St. Teresa's Hospital can only further aggravate the local shortage of maternity beds.
  And that accordingly the Minister be asked to reconsider his support of the decision of the Regional Hospital Board to terminate on 1st January, 1968, the Board's present contractual arrangements with St. Teresa's for the provision of National Health Service maternity beds, and to arrange for the maternity service presently provided at the Hospital to be continued at least until the end of 1969."
  I would like to pray in aid a useful statement on this matter from a source which will, I am sure, not be called into question by any hon. Member opposite. It is a resolution passed by the Merton and District Trades Council which says:
  "In spite of the intention to build a 50-bed maternity unit at Roehampton, we strongly urge the Minister of Health to reconsider his decision to discontinue sending National Health patients to St. Teresa's Maternity Hospital, Wimbledon.
  We feel that, in view of the fine record of service this Hospital has rendered over the past 25 years, also the fact that the new unit at Roehampton will not satisfy the demand on the maternity service, the Minister of Health should continue supporting St. Teresa's and inform the management promptly."
  The Regional Hospital Board and the Minister have found no support in the
  1140
  area affected by the decision which has been taken. I am certain that I am not over-stating the case when I say that if a referendum could be taken locally on the continuation of National Health support for this hospital it would be carried in favour of continued support by at least 10 to 1.
  There are three questions to which we must seek the answer in reaching the right conclusion on the facts of this case. I shall mention them and discuss them in turn. The first is: Is St. Teresa's efficient and satisfactory as a maternity hospital? The answer is, "Yes", and there is no doubt about it.
  In a Press statement which was issued by the Regional Board it was stated:
  "Over the years, St. Teresa's has provided a very satisfactory maternity service for those patients admitted there."
  In this House, and in letters, the Minister has expressed his agreement with that view. One of the great things to be claimed in favour of the hospital is that it has virtually never been short of nursing staff, which is a great advantage and a very exceptional state of affairs is an age when there is such a chronic shortage of nursing staff in many hospitals throughout the country.
  Most of the nursing is undertaken by the nuns who run the hospital, and no one can speak too highly of the devoted service of these dedicated women. It is interesting to note that over a period of about 20 years there have been 19,000 confinements in the hospital, and not one single mother has been lost. I am advised that there is only one other hospital in the country with a comparable record, and, perhaps fittingly, it is the Churchill Hospital at Oxford. At the beginning of the period with which I am dealing, 20 years ago, I am advised that about one mother was lost per 1,000 confinements.
  There has been a tremendous and welcome improvement in the figures over 20 years, and the national average is now about one mother lost per 3,500 confinements. At a rough estimate, if the average figure for the loss of mothers per 1,000 confinements for the country as a whole had applied in the case of St. Teresa's over the past 20 years, there would have been about 10 mothers lost on the 19,000 confinements. It is a remarkable fact that not one mother has been

  1141
  lost during the period. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary can give us the statistics at Westminster Hospital, which will be in charge of Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, but my understanding, and I will be glad to be corrected, is that at Westminster Hospital, over five years, there have been 2,500 confinements and three mothers have been lost.
  There could be no question that St. Teresa's is eminently efficient and satisfactory. The second question is: is there any saving of public money effected by giving up National Health Service beds at St. Teresa's? If it could be argued that there was a substantial gain in public expenditure by the new arrangements, that would be an argument to be weighed against the arguments in favour of continuing the present arrangements. The answer to the question must be that there is no public saving, quite the reverse.
  In reply to recent Questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and myself, the Minister admitted—we had some difficulty in extracting the information from him—that the cost per bed per day at St. Teresa's to the Regional Hospital Board was £4 12s. 11d. He said that the cost per bed per day at Roehampton was £6. One has experience of estimates with regard to future expenditure, and they have usually proved to be on the low side. If we accept the figure of £6 per bed, there must be some very good reason, of which I am unaware, for giving up a satisfactory service costing the Exchequer £4 12s. 11d. and substituting for it a service which at present is of unproved merit, and which is estimated to cost £6 per bed per day.
  Mr. Anthony Royle: Ideological reasons.
  Sir C. Black: The Minister was not very fair or forthcoming in dealing with this matter in the short exchange that some of us had with him on 13th March. He tried to use a financial computation with which most people are entirely unfamiliar when applied to the Hospital Service. He tried to build up a case for saying that the cost of maternity beds ought to be based on the cost per case and not the cost per day or per week. All the statistical information that I have
  1142
  been able to find with reference to the costing of hospital service is always calculated on the cost per bed per day or week. It is difficult to see any other method of presenting reliable or relevant statistics.
  The Minister said on 13th March that the cost per case at St. Teresa's was £57 4s. 8d. compared with £49 8s. 10d. in the case of the South-West Metropolitan hospitals providing full medical and surgical services. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who asked if the figures were based upon a stay of equal duration, the Minister replied:
  "No, Sir. The average length of stay at St. Teresa's is 12 days, compared with nine days in the other hospitals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 26.]
  I do not claim to be a statistician, but I would have thought that it was a fundamental statistical rule that where one makes comparisons one compares like with like. If one does not do so the comparison has no use or relevance. All that the Minister is saying in his effort to show that there is no additional public cost involved in his proposals is that he will make up what he will lose by the extra charge per bed per day at Roehampton by hustling out the patients more quickly following the confinement than has been the case at St. Teresa's.
  As that fact becomes to be understood by prospective mothers it will arouse an increasing dislike for the Minister's decision and repugnance for the manner in which he proposes to save money at the cost of the interest and the well-being of those who go into hospital. No case can be made, on any proper examination of the figures, to lead one other than to the conclusion that a more economical method of providing maternity beds is being given up and that a more expensive method is being substituted for it.
  My third question is this. If 40 National Health Service beds at St. Teresa's are replaced by 50 beds at Roehampton, will there be a sufficiency of maternity beds in the area? The Minister's answer is "Yes", but the answer of everybody connected with the hospital and medical service in the area is an emphatic "No", as I shall show. At St. Teresa's and other maternity hospitals in the area patients are, in normal cases,

  1143
  being sent home after six or seven days, which, in the view of most authorities, is too short an average period after a confinement. Such is the pressure on beds that some mothers are being hustled out of maternity beds 48 hours following confinement.
  As recently as June of last year the St. Helier Hospital Group sent a circular to doctors practising in the area informing them that certain categories of cases would no longer necessarily get beds in the area. One such category specifically mentioned is that of a first confinement when the mother is between 18 and 25 years of age. Speaking as a layman, that would seem to be the kind of case that should have a very high priority for a maternity bed. This is certainly the view of competent medical men with whom I have discussed the matter.
  In support of the proposition that the substitution of 50 beds at Roehampton for 40 at St. Teresa's will still leave a considerable shortage of beds in the area, I cite a letter from the Maternity Liaison Committee of the St. Helier Hospital Group, which stated that even when a new unit was opened in January at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, the Group would still be under considerable pressure for beds. Dr. Doody, Medical Officer of Health for the London Borough of Merton, who is a member of the Maternity Liaison Committee, has said that he is concerned about any maternity unit in his area being closed to National Health patients. The question of the Roehampton Unit did not matter, Dr. Doody has pointed out, because
  "Some hospitals in the area have to send patients home after 48 hours. This will still be so when the new unit is opened. This is permitted, indeed encouraged, by the Ministry of Health, but I believe the practice is bad. Maternity patients should be kept in at least eight days and, ideally, ten."
  I have said enough to make it clear that all informed local opinion—and these people have, after all, long experience of working in the maternity service in the area—is persuaded that even with the addition of 50 new beds at Roehampton, there is still a need for the 40 beds at St. Teresa's if the reasonable requirements of mothers in the district are to be adequately served.
  I must comment on the Minister's alternative proposal for the use of these
  1144
  beds at St. Teresa's if he ceases to pay for them under contract for maternity cases. The right hon. Gentleman has made a proposal to the St. Teresa's Management Committee that the Regional Board would be willing to negotiate a contract for these beds for geriatric cases, something that seems to me and others with whom I have discussed the matter as an entirely unacceptable proposal and one which I do not believe the Management Committee would contemplate in any circumstances.
  There are two main objections to this course. The first is that St. Teresa's is equipped, with an experienced staff, for maternity work. For more than 20 years they have built up an unparalleled reputation in this sphere. To have, say, the ground floor of a comparatively small hospital occupied by geriatric cases—for which the building was not constructed, is not equipped and does not possess the right facilities—and to have the upper floors occupied by maternity cases is something that one cannot contemplate. After all, there would be the inevitable noise that must come from crying babies. Even the advances of medical science have not found a satisfactory method of preventing babies crying on certain occasions. It seems to the doctors and hospital experts with whom I have discussed this matter that this is an entirely unthinkable and inappropriate alternative for the 40 beds at St. Teresa's.
  I do not want to spend time discussing what I would call the ideological view underlying the action of the Board and the Minister. It is only too obvious. What the Minister is doing in this case seems to be based on entirely contrary reasoning to the reasoning applied to fee paying schools. In that case the Government say that it is unfair that these should be reserved wholly for fee paying parents and that, therefore, local authorities should take a number of places, at public expense, to be occupied by the children of parents in general.
  In this case, however, instead of the most admirable and sensible arrangement whereby half the beds in St. Teresa's are paid for by the patients who use them and the other half paid for by the Board and the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman is saying, "I am now going to take away from people who cannot themselves pay hospital fees any

  1145
  right to benefit from the services of this admittedly superlatively efficient hospital and leave all the beds in future for the privileged minority of people who can afford to pay for them. This is an inversion of the philosophy that is generally applied, and it is utterly inconsistent with what is sought to be done in respect of schools and other social services.
  I beg the Minister to regard this as a human problem in which the health and happiness of thousands of mothers are involved in the years ahead. This is not a statistical exercise. If hon. Members would read the pathetic letters I have received from mothers who have been patients in this hospital, begging me to persuade the Minister to change his mind, they could not fail to be moved by their earnestness and sincerity.
  St. Teresa's is an efficient, economical and necessary hospital, and the ending of the grant has no local support. The Regional Hospital Board, aided and abetted by the Minister, is engaged in nothing more nor less than the murder of a hospital. I beg the Minister to think again on this matter because if he proceeds with this project he will not be forgiven.
  11.50 a.m.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: There has been some informal indication in the last few days that further consideration has been given to this matter. I very much hope that that is so; and that the Parliamentary Secretary will have good news to give us this morning. For that reason, and in that hope, I shall speak with more restraint than my feelings impel me to do in view of a decision which, if allowed to stand, seems to me to be the worst decision that has been made since the inception of the National Health Service.
  I do not want to impale either the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of Health any further on the hook: I am only anxious to help them both off it. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman who has shown in many respects great good sense in many matters of this kind, will himself be able to secure reconsideration of a matter which has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) has so well said, aroused local opinion in the areas which he and I and many of my hon. Friends
  1146
  represent more sharply than has any issue for many years past.
  I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to understand the feeling that has been aroused. I have personally had more letters on this subject than on any I recall in 20 years membership of the House. I have had an immense mail—detailed, precise, bearing none of those indications of organisation which hon. Members have experienced and which they very easily detect. They have all been quite obviously spontaneous, and more than one have been from women who have written to say that they believe that the attention they got from the hospital saved the life of the child if not of the mother herself.
  It is an issue of no party political significance, but one on which people of all political views in the area are unanimous in simply asking the Parliamentary Secretary, his right hon. Friend the Minister and the Regional Board, by whatever expedient they like, to get themselves off the hook and continue arrangements under which the National Health Service supports this hospital as a maternity hospital by paying a certain amount in respect of beds.
  I should like to follow up one or two of the points made by my hon. Friend in what I thought was an immensely cogent speech. First of all, there is the cost factor. I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Health on 20th March last. I asked him:
  "As his own Answer to me … indicated that his alternative method of providing these beds was some 30 per cent. more expensive to the taxpayer, will he not reconsider the matter?"
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "No, Sir; I do not accept that the alternative provision will be 30 per cent. more expensive to the taxpayer …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 1030.]
  The figures on which I based my supplementary question are the right hon. Gentleman's own: £4 12s. 11d.—there is a rather curious precision about that figure—paid to St. Teresa's under the present arrangement, and about £6 at Roehampton; in both cases per bed per day.
  Without relying on the point my hon. Friend very wisely made that it is one's general experience, as perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will know, that particularly with new hospitals costs are

  1147
  higher rather than lower than expected, accepting the Minister's figures, it may be that my mathematics on my legs erred marginally, but I still make the difference between £4 12s. 11d. and £6 to be nearly 30 per cent.—perhaps 28½ per cent. At all events, it is a very substantial difference, and I would be obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain why his right hon. Friend contradicted me when I made that assertion. The figures are there. It is purely a matter of fairly simple calculation. If I am wrong, will the hon. Gentleman tell me his right hon. Friend's view of the difference in cost?
  I do not rely by any manner of means solely on these financial figures. This is such a good hospital that even if the financial arguments were the other way it would still be reasonable to retain it; but it certainly makes a more powerful case against change. If public opinion is to be affronted, if the public who actually are being served are to get what they think will be a less good service and, as an outcome of it all, the taxpayer is to pay more, it really seems to be the reductio ad absurdum of administration.
  I come to the reasons which the Regional Board itself has given for this proposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister was courteous enough, when I corresponded with him, to send me a copy of the Press statement which the Board put out. Following immediately on the passage that my hon. Friend read out:
  "Over the years St. Teresa's has provided a very satisfactory maternity service for those patients admitted there"
  the statement goes on:
  "It is however the duty of the Board to provide its own maternity service, where possible in district general hospitals or Teaching Hospitals providing a district function. This policy was set out in the Minister's Building Plan and there will be a progressive reduction of contractual arrangements as the programme unfolds."
  Whether this is right, whether this centralisation of hospital facilities in those hospitals that are the Board's own is right or wrong, could be argued at length. I know that there are many of us who feel that basically it is the wrong approach; and that if a voluntary hospital is satisfactory there is something to be said for variety, for alternatives,
  1148
  for choice for National Health Service patients.
  With respect, however, this point does not arise at this stage. No one knows better than does the Parliamentary Secretary how inadequate are the hospital facilities generally in this area. I think that he has visited Kingston Hospital. If he has, he knows the kind of urgent work in many directions in respect of many services that is simply awaiting financial approval from his right hon. Friend. It is really the biggest nonsense in the world, if a maternity service is properly provided already in a voluntary hospital, to set up the Board's hospital as an alternative, even if it were as good, when there are large numbers of other directions in which services are inadequate and to which I would suggest priority should be given in the allocation of resources. If a voluntary hospital already adequately serves an area, why replace it with the Board's hospital when the Board itself knows as well as anyone in how many other directions modernisation and extension work is required on its existing hospitals? I particularly stress that a very short time ago I saw the work required on Kingston Hospital.
  There are really two points on which it seems that the Board's argument falls down. First, there is the curious proposition that everything should be bureaucratised into the Board's hospitals, and that there should be taken away from what are admittedly efficient hospitals the National Health Service support and patients. On this general issue I should like to argue at some length on an appropriate occasion. The second point is this. Even if the Board and the right hon. Gentleman are right about this proposition, it is not sense at this moment to go out of the way to replace satisfactory externally operated services by the Board's services before the Board has applied the resources which the right hon. Gentleman gives it to provision of what is so much lacking and where rebuilding and modernisation are already so much needed. These should have prior claims because the citizen is not getting the service either from the Board or from outside.
  This would be an argument, if the Board and the Minister are in a conciliatory mood, for a change of view. It

  1149
  would be perfectly reasonable for the Board to say that it would prefer to apply its resources in other directions, and for the time being there would be St. Teresa's in operation doing the job which it has been doing so well for a number of years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will grasp the opportunity which the situation offers him. I beg him to understand the violence of public reaction to this proposal.
  Many of us thought from the beginning—some of us were here to say it at the time—that it was a pity to set up the hospital regional board system divorced from local authorities and divorced from local opinion. Surely the fact that a regional board is dependent solely on the Minister and has no constitutional dependence on other local organisations or local people demands that it should be the more cautious in not affronting public opinion. This is what in this case the Regional Board has done by this decision.
  My hon. Friend did not exaggerate—if anything, I think he under-stated—the reaction in the whole area which this hospital serves. It cannot make sense for a regional board, because it is not responsible to local opinion or organisations but has to live and work with them, to affront local opinion in this way and go flat in the face of local opinion. There is so much that local voluntary organisations and locally-elected authorities can do to help a hospital board if there is co-operation with organisations such as "Friends of the Hospitals". Surely a regional hospital board, anxious to do a good job, would go a long way and would lean over backwards to carry public opinion with it.
  This issue is the crunch in the relationship between the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board and opinion in a large part of the area which it is supposed to serve. I do not want to rake over old sores, but the Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that this Hospital Board has not had a happy history. The appointment of its present chairman was very much criticised as a political appointment. I had hoped that this was wearing down and that the Board and local opinion were beginning to live with each other. If the Board could show generosity—I do not ask that it should admit that it is wrong but that its action is premature—it could go along with
  1150
  local opinion which would help it in the job it has to do and would help the Minister.
  We are in a democracy, and public bodies, whether directly dependent on public election or not, are right to pay attention to public opinion. They are doing their job foolishly if unnecessarily they defy public opinion. The Parliamentary Secretary has had some experience, not unsuccessful experience, of constituency work and dealing with public opinion. I ask him, if it be necessary, to use his own influence to persuade the Board, whatever its view of the precise merits of this particular proposal and whether or not they are contrary to what seems to himself to be right, that it should recognise that it will do the hospital service in this area much harm if it persists in a step which the overwhelming majority of opinion in the area regards as wantonly wrong.
  12.5 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I express regret that I was not here at the beginning of this debate to hear the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). I had assumed that he would be rising about midday and I arranged my morning accordingly and had hastily to readjust it. I am sorry for that.
  I did not agree altogether with what I heard of the speech of the hon. Member. Neither do I go the whole of the way with the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I do, however, think that there ought to be found room for a compromise here. I think it possible that such a solution might be found. Indeed, and here again I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, this whole situation would probably not have occurred if the regional hospital board were itself responsible to an electorate. I think that this can be adduced as an argument for something which many of us on both sides of the House feel it is time we moved in the direction of, the establishment of responsible regional government—
  Mr. James Dempsey: Elected.
  Mr. Jenkins: Elected.

  1151
  Appointed boards are no substitute for government responsible to an electorate. Regional hospital boards are not the only appointed boards which as soon as possible should be made responsible to election. I shall not press this point further, because if I did so I should be out of order, but we badly need the establishment of an effective form of regional government between national and local government, and this is an example.
  We are in a position in which the board has firmly established its view and my right hon. Friend the Minister has firmly established his view. It is unreasonable to suppose that the Government will move back on their policy decision in the matter because the Government's view is a general one, and it would be unfruitful to ask the Government to change their mind on their whole attitude. Obviously, it would be quite impracticable to pursue that line.
  What, however, I think, would be a practicable line to follow would be to ask the chairman of the regional hospital board, not to look at the principle of the matter again, but to look at its practical application in this case.
  I am glad to say that Lord Addison has agreed to receive a deputation which I shall be taking to him consisting entirely of members of the women's section of the Putney Labour Party. That cannot be accused of having a political bias, against Government policy in this respect.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Why not? It does not necessarily follow.
  Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. Member says that it does not necessarily follow, but he will have noticed that I used the words, "in this respect".
  In this respect at any rate, whatever may be the case in other respects, this group will be found when the discussion takes place not to be wishing in any way to say that the Government's broad and general policy is wrong. That is not the line which it will take. What it will say is that whoever is right and whoever is wrong in this matter depends to some degree on a series of estimates, a series of estimates on the need in the area, whether the facilities at Roehampton will
  1152
  be ready when the time comes, and upon a number of other factors which are largely imponderable.
  One cannot say what the exact compromise may be, but I think it likely, because the group have already ascertained opinion, that it will press on the chairman the view that there ought to be some deferment here and that the Ministry should continue to utilise the facilities of St. Teresa's for a sufficient time, concurrently with the new facilities, until it is discovered whether the forecasts are correct and whether the facilities offered at the new hospital, excellent as I am sure they will be, will succeed in filling the need now filled by St. Teresa's.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this is a way in which a solution to this impasse might be found. Such an answer would give us time to discover who is right and who is wrong in this case. I hope that not only will the chairman and the Board see eye to eye with us on this, but that perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he would not frown upon such a compromise outcome.
  12.10 p.m.
  Mr. Humphrey Atkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) said that this was in no way a party matter and the speech of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) demonstrated that there is no difference between the two sides of the House on this very important issue. I was glad to hear his suggestion to the Minister and to have his support in what we seek to do, which is to cause the whole matter to be reconsidered. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon covered the ground so well that I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few moments.
  My constituency neighbours that of my hon. Friend, and many of my constituents have been patients in St. Teresa's Hospital. I wholly confirm what my hon. Friend said about the amount of local feeling aroused by the Regional Hospital Board's decision. I too have received many letters and have been approached by many people who know the hospital and are dismayed by the Board's decision to withdraw its contractual arrangements with it.

  1153
  My first point concerns shortage of beds. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary will try to prove to us that the replacement of 40 National Health Service beds in St. Teresa's by 50 in Queen Mary's at Roehampton will solve the maternity bed shortage in our district. I have grave doubts about that, because the average length of stay in the National Health Service hospitals in our area for mothers who go in for confinements is well below that recommended by the Minister. Even if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that he can show that the replacement of 40 beds at St. Teresa's by 50 at Roehampton will solve the problem, will he consider that by the Board's action, whatever else happens, it is deliberately depriving the National Health Service of 40 hospital beds?
  I do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary could claim that the National Health Service as a whole has enough beds. I think that it was said on behalf of the Government in another place only about six weeks ago that there is a queue of about 529,000 people waiting for hospital beds. I admit that they are not maternity beds, but it is clear that this is not the moment to give up any hospital beds. Nevertheless, that is what the Board's proposal appears to do. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take that into account when deciding what should be done in the matter.
  My other point relates to the question of cost. As both my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr Boyd-Carpenter) said, the replacement beds will be more expensive. Some of us view with a certain amount of suspicion the estimate of the cost of the beds at Roehampton, because it was also said in another place during a debate on these matters that the cost of a bed in a teaching hospital is £103 a week in London and £76 a week in the country.
  The estimate the Parliamentary Secretary has produced for the cost of a bed in the hospital at Roehampton, which will be a teaching hospital, is £42 a week—much lower than the cost of beds anywhere else. I am not challenging flue figure, for he may be absolutely right, and I hope that he is, but he will understand if we view it with some suspicion. It is only an estimate, and the cost of
  1154
  £4 12s. 11d. per day for St. Teresa's is not an estimate but the actual cost.
  Those two points should be taken into account by the Minister, and I hope that in view of all that has been said today, and the interest which this matter has aroused in my constituency and the neighbouring constituencies, he will undertake this morning that the matter will be reconsidered.
  12.15 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Royle: I am also glad to have the opportunity to speak and follow my right hon. and hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) on this important issue, which affects so many of our constituents. The strange decision which affects so many of our constituents, taken by the Regional Hospital Board, supported by both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, has puzzled many local people, not only in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), but in others divisions. That has been made clear this morning.
  The details of the case against the withdrawal of the maternity beds from St. Teresa's have been skillfully put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, who has been ably backed up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) and the hon. Member for Putney, all of whom, like me, have seen an outburst of indignation in our constituencies over the past few weeks.
  While the hospital of St. Teresa's is not in my constituency, large numbers of patients are drawn from my area, and I have had some of the largest number of letters I have ever received during the seven years I have been privileged to represent Richmond at Westminster. The extent of local indignation is underlined by the fact that in most of the lobbies that are built up on any public issue the letters sent to Members are quite often stereotyped; we know that an organisation behind the lobby is operating, though perhaps not skilfully enough, to convince Members of Parliament.
  But I confirm that in this case the type of letter received is that from constituents who are obviously, judging from the letters' tone and the way they are written,

  1155
  very concerned and emotionally involved, perhaps because of past experiences of the hospital, where members of their family have been well looked after. They feel so strongly that they have decided to write.
  That was confirmed by the incredible demonstration, including dozens of small children, which livened up the Central Lobby here recently, when people came to lobby their Members. The reaction of the national Press, which has also been mentioned, has underlined the extent of the very real local indignation.
  I do not wish to speak at great length, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has already very ably covered the case, and every point that should be made has been made. But I wish to back him up on one or two points that he has put forward. We have heard that a St. Teresa's Maternity Hospital Action Committee delegation went to see the Hospital Board recently to suggest an alternative. The Board's behaviour was rather strange. I have received a letter from the leader of the Committee, who wrote:
  "At this meeting it was suggested by our delegation that the special committee at present reviewing the maternity services of S.W. London could consider the possibility of retaining the services of St. Teresa's, and converting maternity beds in some other general hospital in the area to some other purpose for which there was a shortage, …"
  The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon that St. Teresa's was a purpose built maternity hospital. To switch the ground floor to geriatric cases, mixing both geriatric and maternity cases in the same building could be very damaging. There is no need for me to detail that.
  The Action Committee went on to say this:
  "It was felt that this would be cheaper than converting a purpose built maternity hospital, and would be a temporary solution and a compromise which would meet the Board's point that they can only allocate a certain proportion of their funds to maternity beds. At the same time it would allow the Board to provide a better maternity service than they will do by using beds in some very dilapidated and dirty old hospitals.
  The Board officials said that they would look into this suggestion and refer it to the special committee. The meeting then came to an end.
  1156
  The Board have since stated that such a reference can have no effect on their decision to terminate the St. Teresa's contract. This amounts to a unilateral withdrawal of a promise made and received in good faith."
  The Action Committee is very upset by the Board's attitude. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would comment on this.
  All the points made by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides this morning boil down to three main issues. Why has this action been taken? Has it been taken for financial reasons? Has it been taken because St. Teresa's provides a very bad service? Has it been taken because there is a much better alternative elsewhere or a cheaper alternative elsewhere?
  If the answers to all these questions could be, "Yes", it might be possible to make out some sort of case for taking the decision which the Board has taken. However, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have made a strong case for showing that none of these points is true, that there are no good financial reasons for taking this action, that St. Teresa's provides an extraordinary good service, that there is no better alternative elsewhere, and that there is no cheaper alternative elsewhere. All the answers to these questions are in the negative. Surely these reasons alone are sufficient to justify the Minister's suggesting to the Board that it should reconsider its decision.
  I support the comment made by my right hon. and hon. Friends regarding the bureaucratic reasons for this decision. In reply to a supplementary question asked by me, the Minister said this on 13th March:
  "If the hon. Gentleman has cost in mind, then nothing would be more extravagant or in my view, unreasonable than for the National Health Service to spend something like £70,000 a year subsidising maternity beds in a private hospital for which there is no longer a National Health Service need."
  In reply to the hon. Member for Putney, the Minister said this:
  "I know that this hospital has provided good service to the regional board, but the fact is that there will no longer be any need for the contractual use of these beds after the end of this year. It has been the policy of successive Ministers—and it is my policy—that maternity units should, wherever possible, form an integral part of a district general hospital. This is in the interests of the safety of mothers and babies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 27.]

  1157
  I find this an incredible reply. The Minister's answers make it plain that the only reason for doing this is that he considers that all beds should, if possible, be within the National Health Service ambit and that, even if a hospital which is outside it is providing a better service or a service as good as that provided by the National Health Service, still these beds must be closed and moved into a National Health Service hospital, for what are apparently purely bureaucratic reasons. Both sides of the House this morning have expressed their discontent and concern about this attitude.
  At that time I maintained, and I still maintain, that this attitude was inhumane. I said that—and I continued to say it—because so far there has been no sign that the Government are prepared to reconsider their attitude. The letter which I have read shows that the Board is not prepared to reconsider its decision or take into account the local protests which are being made.
  The Minister has refused to receive a deputation or listen to the case it wishes to make. In view of the widespread concern and real worry caused by the decision, the least the Minister should do is to agree to receive the deputation and undertake that, if the deputation can make a good case for his reconsidering the matter, as this is a democratic country he will review the facts again and reconsider his attitude.
  I am sorry to have to use strong language. All I can say about the Minister's attitude is that his arrogance in refusing to listen to the views of a deputation, or even to receive it, supports the contention that the decision has been taken for bureaucratic reasons and that the Minister intends to back the local Board. On no occasion has he given any indication that he intends to reconsider his attitude.
  I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend to think again. The hon. Gentleman is personally a humane and generous man. He has listened to the detailed and cast-iron case made by hon. Members on both sides. He has heard about the high degree of local feeling and indignation which exists throughout this part of London. I beg the Minister to reconsider the matter carefully and talk to the Board. As St. Teresa's is a modern,
  1158
  efficient and highly regarded hospital, which draws support from, and which has carried out a task second to none in this area of London, we all ask the Board, and urge the Government to press the Board, to seek a better solution than that which has caused distress to so many of my constituents.
  12.28 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I, for one, could not possibly complain about the moderation with which, with only two exceptions, the case has been put on behalf of St. Teresa's. The two exceptions to which I take objection were embodied in the speech of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), to which I shall refer later.
  However that may be, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon for raising this matter, because it gives me an opportunity to deal, I hope fully, with the various points which have been raised, not only this morning, but outside the House as well.
  The question we are concerned with is a very sensitive one. It is natural for people to form an attachment to their local hospital, whether it is a National Health Service hospital or a private one. One is piling Pelion on Ossa when the hospital concerned is one which deals with maternity cases. Strong emotions become involved. The fact remains that the hospital authorities, under the Minister, have the duty to provide the best possible service for patients in their area.
  That is what they are genuinely striving to do here and I hope that we shall not allow the matter to become too clouded with emotion. In the House, a speech which is entirely free from emotion tends to be a dull one. Therefore, I certainly do not complain about such emotion as has been displayed this morning.
  To some extent the case of the Regional Hospital Board, and consequently the attitude of my right hon. Friend, has gone by the board. I do not underestimate the organising genius behind the perfectly legitimate agitation over this decision. There has been very good organisation and I do not think that the other side of the coin has been examined. It is important that I should

  1159
  draw attention to one of the main principles governing the development of the hospital service. This is that the hospital service should be based on a network of district general hospitals. This concept was first expounded in the Hospital Plan which was presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in January, 1962.
  The Plan went on to state, in referring to maternity beds:
  "A maternity unit will be a normal part of the district general hospital where full and continuous consultant cover will be at hand for all beds …".
  The concept was, and still is, that the full supporting services which are found in a district general hospital should be available to all maternity patients. It is in the implementation of this policy, that in the area of South-West London with which we are today concerned, Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, is being developed as a district general hospital for the surrounding community.
  In order that this hospital, which is part of the Westminster Teaching Hospital Group, should be able to undertake a responsibility for maternity services, my right hon. Friend's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, five years ago, asked the Board of Governors of Westminster Hospital to plan a maternity unit at Roehampton.
  Here, I will come to two points made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon. On reflection, he may consider that talk about hustling patients out of hospitals, and coming dangerously near to suggesting that the mortality rate for the Westminster, which is a very famous hospital indeed, was not as good as St. Teresa's, was mistaken.
  Sir C. Black: On the second point, I have asked for information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell me what the facts are.
  Mr. Snow: The hon. Gentleman did not put it quite like that. He drew attention to a disparity of statistics, as known to him. The point that I am making is that St. Teresa's, in its own way an excellent hospital, cannot be compared with the responsibilities and duties of a great teaching hospital such as
  1160
  Westminster. The analogy was unfortunate.
  This maternity unit is now under construction, and is expected to open for admissions from January next year. The new unit will embody many improvements which are the result of research and experience. It will contain 50 beds, consisting of 35 beds in single rooms or rooms with four beds, and a further ward similarly divided for 15 ante-natal patients. The full resources of Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, will be available to mothers and to their babies whatever the complications in any case.
  These will include full operating and X-ray facilities, and pathological services, a small isolation unit and a special care baby unit. In addition, paediatric cover will be available. The unit will also provide training for medical students, and student nurses for Westminster Hospital will receive their midwifery training there.
  The new building, which will surround a courtyard garden will provide a fully modem service up to the high standards of a teaching hospital.
  I mention the point about the courtyard garden, because as hon. Members will be aware, some of our older hospitals have these gardens. I am thinking of Queen Charlotte Hospital, with which I have some connection. This is not just an amenity, but in many cases, something providing an essential part of recuperative treatment. I am sure that Members will agree that the new hospital will represent a most valuable addition to services in the area.
  Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to refer to the hospital services which are now available and which will be available for maternity services when the new unit is opened next year. My right hon. Friend's policy on hospital confinements is based on the Report of the Maternity Services Committee, which was under the chairmanship of the Earl of Cranbrook, published in 1959.
  It is important, because we have been discussing certain financial statistics today and, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon has mentioned, one of the basic necessities in preparing statistics is that there should be a certain common factor. In this case, it is difficult to provide such a factor.

  1161
  The objective recommended in that Report was that a national average of 70 per cent. of all confinements should take place in hospital on the basis of a normal stay of 10 days. That figure of 70 per cent. was to include women in the following classes:

  (i) those with abnormalities or anticipated abnormalities (including mothers with four or more children and those over 35);

  (ii) those requiring admission on social grounds;

  (iii) all primigravidae;

  (iv) all emergency admissions for medical reasons.

  There is, however, no objection in suitable cases to arrangements being made for early discharge, before the period of 10 days has elapsed. In that part of London with which we are mainly concerned, that is, the London Boroughs of Wandsworth and Merton, 85.4 per cent. and 85.9 per cent. of mothers were delivered in hospital last year—well above the percentage recommended in the Cranbrook Report. In providing this service, the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board has made use, on an average of about 40 beds at St. Teresa's Hospital, Wimbledon, a private hospital which caters also for private patients and with which it contracted to pay for maternity admissions.
  I have already explained that 50 additional National Health Service beds will he provided in the new maternity unit at Roehampton next year. In addition to these beds, 10 additional beds for mothers from the Richmond area will be provided by Queen Charlotte's Hospital, and 12 more beds are to be provided at Kingston Hospital later this year.
  I have seen a letter written by an obstetrician who has played no small part in this matter, in which he says that he has been advised that these beds are not to be provided. I can assure the House that this is not the case, and that the beds will be made available. A total of 72 beds will be added in place of the average of 40 beds contracted for at St. Teresa's.
  Mr. A. Royle: Who will cover the ante-natal care for these new beds?
  Mr. Snow: I will refer to this later.
  1162
  These figures of bed provision demonstrate conclusively that the National Health Service facilities which will exist next year will be fully adequate to meet the need for hospital confinements in this area. The Board has many other priority calls on its budget, and could not be expected to devote further finance to a maternity service which is already well up to the nationally accepted standard for confinements in hospital.
  Given the policy which I have stated for the provision of maternity services, and given the practical implementation of this policy which I have described, hon. Members will surely see that the Regional Hospital Board had no option but to give notice to St. Teresa's Hospital that it would no longer need to maintain its contractual arrangement for maternity beds after the end of the current year. My right hon. Friend has supported the Board in the conclusions which it reached and in the action which it has taken.
  I should perhaps explain that all contractual arrangements for hospital services are, by their nature, temporary and I understand that the temporary nature of the contract in question was specifically referred to during discussions which took place between the Board and St. Teresa's on at least two occasions before the formal notice was given in November, 1966. The earlier of the two alerts was given about the middle of 1964.
  I should say, in parenthesis, that it is perhaps a little unfortunate that some of the financial anxieties as opposed to the other considerations with which the administration of St. Teresa's is confronted arise from the fact that it contracted to have built an extension costing, I am informed, about £60,000. I understand that it is nearing completion. The Regional Hospital Board has informed me that it was not told of this intention, nor was it consulted as to the future need for additional accommodation.
  I take the point that St. Teresa's caters for private patients as well as for National Health Service patients. Therefore, what I have said is no criticism of the decision to build additional accommodation, but, in the light of what has been said since, the fact that St. Teresa's had this intention should perhaps have been a matter for consideration by and consultation with the Board.

  1163
  Hon. Members have made many references to the comparative costs which have been the subject of exchanges in the House at Question Time on one or two occasions. The true comparison, in our judgment, can only be the respective costs per case, and these were, in 1965–66, £49 18s. 10d. in regional board hospitals and £57 4s. 8d. in St. Teresa's Hospital. These are the actual costs to the National Health Service.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose—
  Mr. Snow: Perhaps I can anticipate what the right hon. Gentleman wishes to say.
  It is estimated that the cost per case at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, will be about £55. I accept the historical fact that estimates tend to go awry. But we are dealing with a new hospital which will incorporate tremendously expensive equipment, and its use and amortisation, and so forth, is an imponderable factor which will arise in any event.
  The length of stay in regional board hospitals was on average 9·04 days in 1965 and in St. Teresa's Hospital 12·2 days. But even in the case of the latter hospital the length of stay was reduced in 1966 to 11·15 days. I mention this point because I referred earlier to the difficulty of finding a common denominator in assessing costs.
  Mr. A. Royle: Does the figure for National Health Service beds include such facilities as ambulances and the wider paraphernalia of the Health Service?
  Mr. Snow: I should like to consider that question. I think that it does not.
  So far as we can, we are comparing like with like, but what slightly upsets comparisons is the difference in the length of stay. I do not wish to imply any criticism whatsoever of the decisions taken at St. Teresa's to have a slightly longer stay than the national average or the average of that in National Health Service hospitals. That is a matter for medical assessment. Therefore, I deprecated—I do not wish to make a meal of this—the remark about hustling patients out of Health Service hospitals.
  I do not quote these figures to make the point that St. Teresa's Hospital is
  1164
  more expensive, but to refute the argument that the Regional Board, in developing its own hospital services, will be failing to make use of a cheaper alternative which is available at St. Teresa's.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Since the hon. Gentleman has said that we should compare like with like, would he not agree that his right hon. Friend was less than frank with the House when he said that the right comparison was cost per bed and did not disclose, until it was pressed from him, that we were dealing with about a 30 per cent. difference in the length of stay?
  Mr. Snow: I think that my right hon. Friend was perfectly fair. These figures about the length of stay were known to the people who have been raising this matter outside the House and my right hon. Friend had every right to assume that hon. Members, who have been well briefed, would know about these comparative figures. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows my right hon. Friend better than that. He would not intentionally mislead the House.
  Mr. Bernard Braine: I have not intervened because, clearly, this is not a party matter. It is a matter which reflects a great deal of local anxiety. But, so that we can judge the matter fairly, may we be told, for the purposes of comparison, exactly the cost per patient per day?
  Mr. Snow: I will certainly provide the hon. Gentleman with that information. I do not have the figures at my disposal now, because I was not basing my case on that computation.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figures are on record as given by the Minister—£4 12s. 11d. per day at St. Teresa's and approximately £6 per day at Queen Mary's. Those are the Minister's figures.
  Mr. Snow: I assumed that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) knew those figures. I am giving what I believe to be the correct comparison in assessing the economic argument about this case. I do not wish to base my argument purely on economic considerations. There were other considerations.

  1165
  A further argument is that, as there is a general shortage of midwifery staff, it is wrong that use should not continue to be made of the trained staff at St. Teresa's. I understand that a substantial proportion of the nursing staff at St. Teresa's are lay nurses, and mainly nurses obtained on a fee basis from agencies. It is a free world. If the hospital authorities want to run the hospital in that way—it may be the only way in which they can run it—it is up to them. But it would be a pity if my right hon. Friend were jockeyed into the position of denigrating the great value of what is a minority of sisters of a distinguished order in this hospital.
  I am glad to say that in the year to September, 1966, there was a national increase of 2·3 per cent. in midwifery staff in the National Health Service and 4·1 per cent. in nursing and midwifery staff taken together. This improvement is, of course, most welcome. Incidentally, no maternity beds in this area are closed because of staff shortage.
  I should answer the question of the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) about ante-natal provision. The distribution of ante-natal facilities under the proposed plan is that Queen Mary's will cater for patients from Putney; St. Helier and Nelson will cater for patients from Wimbledon; Kingston Hospital will be self-sufficient; and Queen Charlotte's will cater for patients of this character from Richmond.
  I am well aware of the esteem in which St. Teresa's Hospital is held by the local population. This private hospital has indeed rendered good service to the National Health Service since 1948 and I appreciate St. Teresa's proud claim never to have lost a mother and to have a record for stillbirths and peri-natal mortality of infants which is well below the national average. This is a fine record, but we must bear in mind that the hospital does not provide a comprehensive service to the local community.
  The writer of the letter addressed to the hon. Member for Wimbledon—and I assure the House that I have seen the letter—an obstetrician who has been very much concerned with these activities, makes some play with the fact that only a minimal number of cases are not sent to St. Teresa's because of their complexity. The same comment could be
  1166
  made about cases which could not be catered for by a district general hospital.
  It is true to say that certain cases would inevitably have to be referred to specialist hospitals, but I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon is not arguing that a modernly equipped and designed hospital will not have technical advantages over a hospital which—contrary to a comment made by the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey—was not custom-built for maternity use. It is a very old hospital brought up-to-date, and perhaps the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey, will reconsider his remarks in the light of what I have said.
  Before 1948 the hospital acted as an annexe of the Royal Cancer Hospital, now the Royal Marsden, and cared for chronic sick patients. When the Regional Hospital Board notified St. Teresa's last year—I am referring to the formal notification as opposed to the verbal alert which was given during the administration of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—that it would no longer require the hospital's beds for maternity services, it offered to discuss with the hospital the possible use of beds for other purposes. I know that the Board had in mind the use of beds for geriatric cases. I very much hope that the hospital will consider very seriously whether it could not undertake this much needed service, and extend the reputation which it has already built up among the local residents.
  I hope that I carry the House with me in saying that the developing problems confronting any Administration in the care of old people and of what are called the young chronic sick is getting so serious that we just cannot write this problem off on the grounds that maternity services are needed as well. Any Administration must try to take a balanced view of all this. That is why I say that the use, either for geriatric cases or for the young chronic sick are getting so a suggestion which I hope St. Teresa's will consider most seriously. If St. Teresa's accepted such a responsibility it would, to some extent, be reverting to the use which was being made of the hospital prior to 1948.
  Hon. Members will appreciate that, as the hospital building programme gains momentum, there is bound to be a reduction in the contractual arrangements of

  1167
  the type which have existed at St. Teresa's. I assure the House that this is not a question of doctrinal bias, or ideology, but that it is in the nature of the responsibility which Parliament has given to the Government to provide a general hospital service. If ideological or doctrinal attitudes are to be alleged, I must point out—this is the only party point I will make today—that the decision in principle was taken when the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was Minister of Health.
  During the last three years the number of contractual beds has declined by nearly 1,000 to 4,960. Under the National Health Service Act, 1946, it is my right hon. Friend's statutory duty to provide hospital and specialist services and he is continuing the policy of his predecessors that the services should, as far as possible, be provided in hospitals within the National Health Service. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this is the right and, indeed, in the long-term, the only policy.
  Reference has been made to the fact that my right hon. Friend refused to meet the Action Committee. The contract was, after all, entered into between the Regional Hospital Board and the hospital. The Action Committee has, as some hon. Members have pointed out, been seen by the chairman of the Regional Hospital Board. In addition, officers of the Board interviewed representatives of the Committee at the Board's offices last week.
  Mr. A. Royle: If, however, the meetings with the Regional Hospital Board were thoroughly unsatisfactory, as they were, should not the Minister now be more generous and agree to meet the Action Committee?
  Mr. Snow: A lot has been said about democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) mentioned that regional hospital boards were not democratic. One could criticise that comment. After all, what is the ultimate right members of the public have? It is to make representations through their M.P.s, and this has been done effectively today. I do not believe that there can be any complaint on that score.
  1168
  Reference was made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon to a circular which, he said, had been sent out by the St. Helier Hospital Group, saying that certain cases could not be taken care of. I am informed that that circular was sent out not by that Group, but by consultants of the Group, a distinction, and that that was done without prior consultation with the Board.
  Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The hon. Gentleman says that the circular was sent out by the consultants and not by the Group. Is not the effect the same?
  Mr. Snow: As a matter of fact, the provisions of the circular have not been implemented. I understand that the document may be withdrawn for the reason that the provision of hospital accommodation has been forthcoming. Thus, it was a non-starter to begin with.
  It has also been stated that there is a shortage of maternity beds in the Kingston area. The position in the area covered by the Kingston Group Hospital Management Committee is that, in addition to the beds available in the Kingston Group, 30 to 40 beds in London teaching hospitals are occupied by women living in the Kingston area. This is possible because of reduced pressure on London teaching hospitals. In addition, 12 more beds are being provided this year at Kingston hospital, as I have already mentioned. The relevant figure is that, in 1965, 75 per cent.—5 per cent. above the Cranbrook recommendation—of the confinements of women from the Kingston area were in hospital.
  I draw the attention of the House to this changing pattern in the use of teaching hospital accommodation in the central teaching areas of London. There is considerable indication that available maternity beds at teaching hospitals are under much less pressure than they used to be. There are various reasons for this, including the decentralisation of population, and the gradual building up of the suburbs. Any Administration must see that the beds that are available, where local demand falls off, become available to people living on the periphery of London. I hope that nothing will be said to deprecate the efficiency and inspiration which is the proud history of our teaching hospitals. I emphasise this in view of certain remarks that have been made.

  1169
  The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to the loss of a good service. This is not a good factor in the argument because the facilities of this hospital can be used, and well used, for other requirements in the National Health Service. I hope that the House will accept that we would welcome co-operative attitudes on the part of St. Teresa's to the suggestion that has been made.
  I have tried—although I fear that I have not answered all the questions that have been asked—to describe the back-
  1170
  ground to this hospital. I assure the House that we are not being dogmatic. We feel that, within our responsibilities, there is a case for this step. As to a proposal that Lord Addison may have had second thoughts, I cannot, naturally, anticipate what he might think, although, of course, the Department is always willing to listen to what he has to say.
  The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.
  Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Arms Sales
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress to date of the work of the arms salesman, Mr. Raymond Brown.
    The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. Roy Mason): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to Chapter VII of the Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1967 (Cmnd. 3203).
    Mr. Marten: I am grateful for that reference, which I had seen. Could the Minister not in future give a more exact figure than the rather overall general figure given in the Defence Review and undertake to give it year by year so that we can make a comparison of the success of our arms sales effort?
    Mr. Mason: Yes. In view of the approach by the hon. Gentleman, certainly I am prepared to consider how better we can give more detailed information in the Defence Estimates on sales. As he appreciates, on this occasion it was the first, but there were three pages of information in it.

    Overseas Servicemen (United Kingdom Accommodation)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance he is proposing to give to local authorities to offset the extra cost involved to them in receiving in their areas the Servicemen and families being brought home from overseas.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer that I gave on 10th April to the hon. Lady the Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell).—[Vol. 744, c. 136].
    Mr. Marten: I saw that Answer, too. Nevertheless, is the Minister aware that a lot of preparatory work of a capital
    1172
    nature has to go in and be done by local authorities before the forces arrive? It is the loans which they have to raise to do this and the charges on them which will be a burden on the ratepayer. Ought not the Government to contribute to those loan charges?
    Mr. Boyden: The local commanders are in close touch with the local authorities, and the military authorities make a big contribution to the rates, anyhow. The spending power which results from families being in an area is good for a local authority. However, if the hon Gentleman has any specific difficulty about which he knows, I will be glad to look at it.
    Mr. Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in the acquisition of the 4,000 extra married quarters he needs to house the families of troops which may be brought home from Germany.
    Mr. Boyden: All necessary preparations are being made for purchase of houses to meet this need should it arise.
    Mr. Atkins: On what number of Service men being withdrawn from Germany did the hon. Gentleman base this figure of 4,000 married quarters?
    Mr. Boyden: A suitable number.
    Mr. Kershaw: Will the Minister give as assurance that the troops will not he brought back until the accommodation is ready for them?
    Mr. Boyden: Yes.
    Mr. Powell: Will the Under Secretary recognise the unwisdom of insulting the House with the kind of reply which he has just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins)? When the Government state that they have ascertained the requirement for married quarters and announce that requirement, they must rationally have some basis in the number of troops for that figure, and it is legitimate to ask for it and legitimate to be told.
    Mr. Boyden: The present programme of purchasing married quarters in the open market is going very well, and we have every reason to suspect that when decisions are taken about the return from Germany, we shall be able to continue in

    1173
    the same way. I must say that co-operation with private builders in this respect is very good indeed.
    Mr. Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence which barracks he is now preparing for the use of any troops brought home from Germany; by what dates each will be ready; and how many troops each will accommodate.
    Mr. Boyden: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on 16th March.—[Vol. 743, c. 149.]
    Mr. Atkins: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the difficulty with which we on this side of the House are faced because of so many conflicting statements from the benches opposite? Can he now assure us that the information given in the Answer to which he has referred is the fixed and final information?
    Mr. Boyden: Of course, the information is not fixed and final. The situation is changing from time to time, and the arrangements being made for both barracks and married quarters take that into account. They are proceeding very well.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that that is a most unsatisfactory reply? We have already had two lists which have been altered from time to time. The first obviously was thought up on the spur of the moment. For him to say now that the position is still not firm must leave a great many doubts in the minds of Servicemen and the public.
    Mr. Boyden: Nothing of the sort. Negotiations with our allies are continuing and, until they are settled, the facts will not be absolutely definite. The contingency planning is going well and we take great trouble with that.
    Mr. Atkins: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Defence where he now proposes to house the 25,000 men due to come home this year.
    Mr. Boyden: Camps have been, or are being, re-activated in the following areas:
    1174
    Barton Stacey, Winchester, Maresfield, Lingfield, Tonfanau, Taunton. Inverness, Weeton, Longmoor, Worcester and Plymouth.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: All other things being equal, would not the hon. Gentleman give rather more consideration to housing some of these troops in barracks in some of the economically weaker areas of the country where they would give welcome civilian employment and more spending power?
    Mr. Boyden: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to Northern Ireland, we have considered the situation there. Unfortunately, in view of the rôles of the units which are likely to be withdrawn, there is no adequate accommodation there.
    Mr. Kershaw: Do not the hon. Gentleman's replies to this and to the Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) indicate that it is the Government's policy—in line with their military planning—to cut the troops according to the barracks available?
    Mr. Boyden: No, Sir.

    F111 Aircraft (Offset Agreement)
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total value of orders received to date from the United States of America by British manufacturers to offset the cost of the F111; and what efforts he has made to include machine tools in the list of approved equipment.
    Mr. Mason: 130·87 million dollars. Milling machines are included in the U.S. Air Force's Shopping List, and several British firms have shown interest in tendering. We are pressing the U.S. Navy to include machine tools in their list. The U.S. Army does not buy significant quantities of machine tools.
    Mr. Woodnutt: I congratulate the Minister on the progress which he has made. Could he not try to have the whole range of British machine tools included? There are many machines which we make for ordnance factories in Australia and Canada and which are not included in this list.
    Mr. Mason: I will certainly look into that.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is the Minister still satisfied that the F111 is a good buy for this country?
    Mr. Mason: If the hon. Gentleman peruses the initial Question, he will see that it is in relation to the offset and not particularly to the aircraft itself.
    Mr. Goodhew: On the subject of offset sales, how can we hope for early decisions on subjects like machine tools when only on 6th April we were told in another place by the Minister without Portfolio that matters like the automatic testing equipment which belong to the aircraft itself are still under consideration?
    Mr. Mason: That is a different question from obtaining orders under the offset agreement.
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the agreement to offset the cost of the F111 exempts British quotations from the provisions of the Buy American Act.
    Mr. Mason: Provided that the item concerned has been identified by the two Governments, and the British bid is in all respects competitive, the U.S. Defense Secretary will normally waive the provisions of the Buy American Act.
    Mr. Woodnutt: Is the Minister aware that the provisions are only waived for machine tools for contracts in excess of 100,000 dollars at any one time, building up to 500,000 dollars in a year? This is a very large figure for small items like machine tools, and it should be lowered. Can he give an assurance that he will try to do something?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. I hope that there will be a review in the near future.

    Thailand (British Army Detachment)
    Mr. Russell Kerrasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the further employment in Thailand of the British Army detachment which recently completed the construction of a military aerodrome there; and how long approximately it will be before the detachment involved is repatriated to this country.
    Mr. Dickensasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state his proposals for the future employment in
    1176
    Thailand of the British Army detachment, which has recently completed the construction of an aerodrome there.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): The Royal Engineers, who recently completed the airfield at Loeng Nok Tha, will be helping the Thai authorities throughout 1967 with a programme of road building.
    Mr. Kerr: Can the Minister give us an assurance that there will be no repetition of this clandestine support of the American war of aggression in Vietnam by any of Her Majesty's forces in the future?
    Mr. Healey: There is no connection between the work which we are carrying out to help the Thai Government to open up its country to Government services to enable local people to export their produce, and the events in Vietnam.
    Mr. Dickens: On the subject of assistance for the American war effort in Vietnam, can the Minister tell the House for what purpose the aerodrome at Loeung Nok Tha is being used? Is it, for instance, being used by American B.52 bombers to bomb North Vietnam?
    Mr. Healey: As I made clear in answer to Questions last time, it is not being used by American B.52 bombers and has no facilities appropriate for that purpose.

    Middle East (Defence Commitments)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has now initiated into the possibility and methods of transferring existing overseas defence commitments in the Middle East and east of Suez to international security systems under the auspices of the United Nations.
    Mr. Healey: It is an established aim of British policy to strengthen the United Nations as the main instrument for keeping peace in the world and to give it effective means of doing so, but there is as yet no concerted will amongst nations to this end. Meanwhile within the practical limitations, Her Majesty's Government are constantly seeking ways and means of improving United Nations influence both generally and in particular situations.
    Mr. Judd: While welcoming the reassurance of that Answer, does my right

    1177
    hon. Friend not consider that the recent events in Aden have reminded us that, if we are to make real use of the United Nations, we must bring it in at the earliest possible stage?
    Mr. Healey: There is something in what my hon. Friend says, but we cannot bring in the United Nations at any stage. The United Nations must decide to come in, and this has been one of the sources of problems in recent weeks.

    Rhodesia (Public Order)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has prepared contingency plans for the restoration of public order in Rhodesia following any breakdown of law and order there as the result of mandatory sanctions.
    Mr. Healey: As I informed the hon. Member on 30th November, 1966, it is not the practice to reveal information about military contingency planning.—[Vol. 737, c. 111–2.]
    Mr. Judd: Surely my right hon. Friend will agree that if we are serious in our policy of economic sanctions, one of the instances which we must have foreseen is the breakdown of law and order, and we must, therefore, be planning for action if that should occur.
    Mr. Healey: I am not in a position to prevent my hon. Friend from speculating, but I stick to what I said in answer to the Question.

    South Arabia (British Forces)
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Defence what interval of time he now expects to elapse between the commencement of the independence of the Federation of South Arabia and the completion of the withdrawal of British forces.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will delay the withdrawal of British troops from Aden until Egyptian troops withdraw from the Yemen.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now announce the programme for the withdrawal of British troops from Aden.
    Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon.
    1178
    Friend the Foreign Secretary on 20th March in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and on 10th April.—[Vol. 743, cc. 1091–4; Vol. 744, cc. 743–6.]
    Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his indication in a reply to me on 1st March, that after independence for Southern Arabia there would be an interval before the final withdrawal of British troops? In view of the important contribution which such an interval could make to a peaceful solution in Southern Arabia, will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm that important indication?
    Mr. Healey: I do not want to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to draw conclusions which are not justified by what I said or what I now say. It will not be possible to withdraw the last British troops from the soil of South Arabia on the very day that South Arabia obtains independence, but I will bear in mind the considerations which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: As the right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that there was no concerted will among the United Nations, would he agree that it would facilitate peaceful negotiations in Aden if the Government would at least declare one thing, namely, that they will definitely not abdicate to anarchy, and will stay there for as long as is necessary?
    Mr. Healey: With respect, my right hon. Friend has discussed this on many occasions in the House, and so have I. I do not think that broad statements of a rhetorical character such as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested are likely to help at all in the matter.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Having just returned from the Middle East, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that I am advised that 45,000 Egyptian troops in the Yemen are now deployed in such a way along the Yemen border facing towards the Federation, and will he bear this in mind in settling his policy for the future defence of the Arabian Federation?
    Mr. Healey: I will certainly bear in mind all the facts which are brought to my notice by sources at my disposal. I think that it might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman gave the figure of 45,000 to

    1179
    his right hon. Friend who spoke in the debate on Monday and said that it was 60,000.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while we on this side of the House appreciate that there need be no precise time between the departure of the last British soldiers from Aden and the date of independence, we are very much against any continuing defence commitment there involving further military expenditure?
    Mr. Healey: I certainly will bear that in mind.

    F111 Aircraft
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the terms on which he has taken up the option to order 40 further F111K aircraft.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence what supplemental ceiling price he has negotiated for the 50 F111K aircraft; and what he now expects to be the total cost of these aircraft including spares.
    Mr. Russell Kerrasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made this year to the United States Secretary of Defence concerning modifications to the F111 aircraft being insisted upon by Service authorities in the United States of America to meet their specifications; what answers he has received; what is the estimated overall cost of the modifications not required by Her Majesty's Government but required by the United States authorities before their approval of the aircraft as operationally viable is granted; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether, before taking up the option to buy a further 40 F111 aircraft, he will satisfy himself that the disabilities of the aircraft in relation to its original specification have been overcome;
    (2) whether, before confirming his decision to take up the option to buy a further 40 F111 aircraft, he will await the findings of the McClellan investigating committee, which is investigating the cost and capability of this aircraft.
    Mr. Healey: Before ordering the balance of 40 F111K's on 31st March,
    1180
    I received assurances from the United States Government that the aircraft would meet our performance requirements. I also received up to date cost information from the United States Government which gave a satisfactory assurance that, excluding United States money inflation, the total unit cost of this aircraft, including the special British features, would be about £2½ million as we had assumed. Discussions on the final figure for the supplemental ceiling for the special British features are, however, still in progress with a view to fixing it at the lowest possible level. I will give the House the figure when it is agreed.
    As regards spares, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force on 23rd March.—[Vol. 743, c. 330–1.]
    Mr. Powell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions: first, why, despite an undertaking given on 1st March that he would not close with this option until there was a firm agreement on the supplemental ceiling, he has nevertheless done so? Secondly, why has he until the present moment concealed from the House and from the country the fact that the fixed price for the basic aircraft was subject to an escalation clause for American money inflation?
    Mr. Healey: On the second question, I have yet to identify a single defence contract made by the present or previous Governments which does not accept that price increases due to the inflation of the cost of labour and materials must be involved. This applies to the Polaris submarine agreement, and also to the Royal Naval Phantom agreement, both made by the party opposite. No reference was made to the House about this at the time by the previous Administration because this was always understood to be the case.
    On the first question about the supplemental ceiling, as I said, I have accepted satisfactory assurances that the supplemental ceiling will not bring the cost of the aircraft above the figure which we originally assumed.
    Mr. Goodhew: Why has the right hon. Gentleman made these categorical statements to the House insisting that a fixed price agreement had been reached, and, furthermore, that he would not place an

    1181
    order before he knew what the price would be?
    Mr. Healey: Because both the statements which I made were literally correct.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that according to the defence correspondent of The Times the F111 programme will total £280 million over a 10-year period, including spares, and that this works out at £5·6 million per aircraft? Does not my right hon. Friend find some difficulty in reconciling this both with his own foreign policy commitment and also with our commitment as a party to the people of Britain?
    Mr. Healey: No, Sir, and I think that my hon. Friend would be wise to recognise that when we are talking about costs over a period of years, we are talking about total programme costs which include the cost of the aircrew who man the aircraft, the people who service it, all spares, and all facilities remotely connected with the aircraft, and that the cost of the F111K programme over 10 years is only 50 per cent. of the cost of a comparable TSR2 programme.
    Mr. Edelman: In view of the serious doubt expressed by the McClellan Investigating Committee about this aircraft, would not it have been more prudent of my right hon. Friend to have delayed making further purchases until the Committee had reported? Furthermore, is it not the case that the new Pratt and Whitney engines introduced last January as replacements for the previous unsatisfactory engines are themselves considered in the United States to be not fully adequate?
    Mr. Healey: No, Sir. On the first question, as I understand it the main subject of criticism of the McClellan inquiry is the suitability of the F111B, which we are not buying, for the U.S. Navy. On the question of the engines, as I said, I have received satisfactory assurances from the United States Administration that the aircraft which we are buying will in all respects surpass the operational requirements which we have set for it.
    Mr. Lubbock: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), does the right hon. Gentleman recall that not only was an
    1182
    overall figure of £280 million over 10 years given by the defence correspondent of The Times, but he also said that out of this £260 million would be in dollars? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that figure is in accordance with the estimates made by his Department?
    Mr. Healey: No, Sir. I cannot confirm any statements made by the defence correspondent of The Times who, with respect, is not a member of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. R. Carr: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall the importance which we on this side of the House have always attached to the cost of spares in relation to the total cost of this programme, and will he confirm or deny that the cost of a new replacement engine will be at least 35 per cent. higher than, and perhaps even double the cost of, the original engine?
    Mr. Healey: I cannot confirm that without notice. What I can tell the House is that we shall be buying spares for this aircraft at the same price as the United States Air Force is paying, and no agreement on an aircraft bought from abroad of such a favourable nature has ever been made by any previous Government in Britain.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile what he has said about prices if he has read last week's edition of Flight, which is based on American information that the costs of the F111K are now the same as those of the TSR2?
    Mr. Healey: With respect, I have not read that article, nor am I expected to comment on such statements, but I can tell the House that the cost of the F111 programme over 10 years will be about half the cost of a comparable TSR2 programme. I can also point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have a firm ceiling for the cost of the basic aircraft, and now an agreed ceiling for the supplemental features of the British F111K, which at 1965 prices cannot be exceeded.
    Mr. Lubbock: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Training Areas
    Mr. Kershawasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many training areas there are in the United Kingdom where an armoured brigade group may train as a whole; where they are; and what plans he has for acquiring more such areas.
    Mr. Boyden: A limited brigade group exercise can be carried out on the Salisbury Plain training area. Until a decision has been taken on withdrawals of troops from Germany the need for additional land for tracked vehicle training does not arise.
    Mr. Kershaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this raises another serious question? What kind of an Army does he want? Does he not realise that unless we have adequate training areas we shall not be able to have a modern Army in future?
    Mr. Boyden: We have a good Army. We shall keep it, and go on improving it.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people who live in areas where the Army has taken over large parts of national parks are concerned that it should not have more land, and that in fact we would like it to give up some of the land which it possesses?
    Mr. Boyden: The Army and Army Ministers are conscious of this clash of interest.
    Mr. Powell: Will it not be necessary to send back to Germany for training any armoured or other formations withdrawn to this country?
    Mr. Boyden: That is a possibility.

    North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Force Levels)
    Mr. Kershawasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects a conclusion to the consideration within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of force levels.
    Mr. Healey: Alliance force planning is a continuing process but I assume that the hon. Member has in mind its current consideration within N.A.T.O. My expectation is that, by the middle of this year, broad agreement will have been
    1184
    reached on N.A.T.O.'s strategy and force posture. Detailed force plans derived therefrom will be presented for endorsement at the December Ministerial meeting.
    Mr. Kershaw: Can the Secretary of State say what progress he is making to convince his N.A.T.O. colleagues of the validity of the trip-wire strategy in which, so far as I know, he is the sole remaining believer?
    Mr. Healey: I do not know what the hon. Member means by a trip-wire strategy, but I am pleased to be able to tell the House that I am making very good progress. Some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may be rather chagrined to find later in the year that their extraordinary views about the need for N.A.T.O. being prepared to fight a long conventional war are not shared by any of our allies.
    Mr. Powell: Can the Minister tell the House whether the estimate of £82 million for the cost of British forces in Germany given by the Chancellor in his Budget speech yesterday is based upon present force levels or some other force levels and, if so, which?
    Mr. Healey: The cost of £82 million, announced by the Chancellor yesterday, allows for present levels of combat forces, but also allows for savings that we are making in administrative, support and consumer spending of the forces, which I have already announced to the House.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever need there was for N.A.T.O., it expired some years ago?
    Mr. Healey: Certainly not.

    Military Expenditure (Asia)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the results of his consultations with Australia and New Zealand concerning proposed reductions in the United Kingdom's military expenditure in that part of the world.
    Mr. Dickensasked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with the Government of Australia and New Zealand about the

    1185
    forthcoming reductions in the United Kingdom military expenditure in Asia.
    Mr. Healey: I have had no further consultations on the level of our forces in the Far East since the 1966 Defence Review was published.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say why he is not continuing discussions with Australia and New Zealand, in view of the declared intention of the Government to reduce these commitments as soon as they can? Is it not the case—it was certainly understood by hon. Members on this side of the House—that these talks were continuing on that specific basis?
    Mr. Healey: My discussions with the Australian Government in January last year covered all the contingencies to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since January of last year certain things have happened, most notably that the official policy of the Labour Party in this country has changed in favour of decisive cuts east of Suez? Will not my right hon. Friend open consultations now with the Governments of Singapore, Australia and New Zealand with a view to implementing that change of policy by 1970?
    Mr. Healey: I must explain to my hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government's policy is determined by decisions taken in the Cabinet and not by decisions taken elsewhere, although we take all relevant factors into account. I can assure my hon. Friend that if there were any question of a change in the basis on which we consulted Australia and other allied Governments last year we should certainly wish to consult them about it.
    Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Australia takes cognisance of statements made at Labour Party conferences, and will he make it clear to the Australian Government that Her Majesty's Government rule this country?
    Mr. Healey: The Australian Government are in no doubt that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is decided by Her Majesty's Government and not by other bodies, including Her Majesty's Opposition.

    Aldabra
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to visit the island of Aldabra.
    Mr. Healey: I have no plans for doing so.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the island of Aldabra is the main haunt of the giant turtle? Is he further aware that it is practically impossible ever to land there because of the weather? Will he say what on earth he intends to do there, and why he wishes to pour so much of the taxpayer's money into this barren coral reef?
    Mr. Healey: As I understand it, the island of Aldabra is inhabited—like Her Majesty's Opposition Front Bench—by giant turtles, frigate birds and boobies. Nevertheless, it may well provide useful facilities for aircraft. What the hon. Member said about the suitability of Aldabra in this respect is totally wrong.
    Mr. Goodhew: Will the Minister tell the House whether it is intended to be a staging post for transport aircraft or a base for the F111K, which we now know is not to be used in Europe?
    Mr. Healey: Without accepting the extraordinary assertion made by the hon. Gentleman at the end of his supplementary question, I can say that so far no decision has been taken by Her Majesty's Government to develop facilities on this island. This island has not been bought. It did not require to be bought. It did not belong to anybody else except Her Majesty's Government, as the hon. Member would know if he took the trouble to do his homework. But if we decide in the end to develop the facilities on this island we shall use them to the extent required both in respect of air transport and any other aircraft.
    Mr. Onslow: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Onslow; Question No. 18.

    Military Firearms (Consignment)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Defence what revised instructions he has issued concerning the

    1187
    consignment of military firearms by passenger train.
    Mr. Boyden: I have now issued instructions that when small consignments of military firearms are sent by passenger train use must be made of the Recorded Parcels Transit Scheme operated by British Railways. This will enable the appropriate authorities to keep the closest control of arms consignments.
    Mr. Onslow: Will that prevent their being stolen?
    Mr. Boyden: I cannot give the hon. Member an assurance, but it is more likely to do so.

    R.A.F. Ground Attack Squadrons (Far East)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force ground attack squadrons are deployed in Far East command.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): One, Sir.
    Mr. Onslow: Can the Minister explain why Chapter 2, paragraph 15 of the Defence Review suggests that there was more than one?
    Mr. Rees: Since that time there has been a withdrawal because of the end of confrontation.
    Mr. Goodhew: Can the Minister tell us now whether he will leave one squadron of ground attack Hunters in Aden?
    Mr. Rees: We shall have all that is required to carry out what is required in Aden.

    Barracks and Married Quarters
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Defence by what date, according to his present plans, the shortage of barracks and married quarters in the United Kingdom will have been eliminated.
    Mr. Boyden: Our aim is to provide Service men with well-designed modern accommodation, either in the form of barracks or permanent houses for all families entitled to them. Under present plans, our building programme for this will be completed about 1973–74 for
    1188
    married quarters and four or five years later for barracks.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Does that mean that the implication that caravans and mobile homes are not likely to be needed after Christmas is no longer valid?
    Mr. Boyden: No, Sir, but caravans and mobile homes will be used to the very minimum.
    Mr. Powell: Does the hon. Member's estimate take into account the withdrawals from Germany?
    Mr. Boyden: The permanent programme to which I was referring was devised, and is carrying on, largely without that in mind, but there is some slack in the system to take this up. Withdrawals from Germany, should they occur, will largely be accommodated in temporary barracks which are available now.

    Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has now agreed a specification for the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft; and how many of these he expects to order for the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Technology and I are meeting the French Minister for the Armed Forces next Monday, 17th April, to consider the results of the work done by our officials on the specification of the aircraft. It is too early to take decisions yet on the number of aircraft.
    Mr. Goodhew: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about making decisions about the specification of this aircraft for some time. In view of the uncertainty that exists in the Royal Air Force about even the number of Phantoms which will be at its service, should not the right hon. Gentleman rapidly agree on some figure in respect of the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft?
    Mr. Healey: Certainly not without knowing the cost and other details about the programme. But I have always made it clear to the House that we planned to take decisions on specification in April. That is what we plan to do. The hon. Member ought to remember that.
    Mr. Hooley: Can my right hon. Friend give any estimate of the approximate difference in cost between designing this aircraft purely for an interceptor rôle and for a strike and interceptor rôle?
    Mr. Healey: A great deal depends on the precise operation characteristics of the interceptor or strike aircraft. I can say that if this aircraft were designed purely for an interceptor rôle, as now seen, we could accommodate the characteristics required of it as a strike aircraft within that ceiling.
    Mr. Hastings: Can the Minister tell the House anything about the talks held recently with General Steinhoff, Chief of the German Air Staff, about this aircraft, which were surely relevant to this issue?
    Mr. Healey: I think that there is a Question already on the Order Paper about that point.

    Surface-to-Surface missile
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence when the first British surface-to-surface missile for use at sea will be operational.
    Mr. Mason: I have nothing to add at present to the statements which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy and I made in the recent Defence debates.—[Vol. 742, c. 553; Vol. 743, c. 614–5.]
    Mr. Wall: Can the hon. Gentleman undertake that these missiles will be operational before aircraft carriers are phased out?
    Mr. Mason: I could not give such an assurance, but I think that the position will become clearer after we have examined the report of the Future Fleet Working Party.
    Mr. Goodhew: This is altogether unsatisfactory. The Government have decided to abandon the aircraft carriers and surely it is essential that they should know whether they will have the surface-to-surface missiles to replace them, because without such missiles the Navy will be useless.
    Mr. Mason: We have in mind providing a light tactical strike capabality from either ships or helicopters, and the various alternatives are still under consideration.

    Servicemen (Overseas Service)
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum age below which no lad entering the services may be drafted overseas.
    Mr. Rees: 17½ in the Army and Royal Air Force, except that soldiers may be posted to B.A.O.R., which is a home station for the Army, from 17¼. The Royal Navy does not lay down a minimum age for overseas service but in practice it is about 16½.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that no fewer than 12,000 children between the ages of 15 and 17½ were recruited into the British Forces last year, making more than one-quarter of the total? Is he aware that this is causing great concern? What does he propose to do to ensure that only people of a more mature age shall be allowed to make this decision?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is confusing apprentices and people of that kind who receive apprenticeship technical training at Halton and other places. It would be extremely unusual if they came into the category mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's Question about those drafted overseas.

    Aden (Ground Defence Equipment)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of airport radar and ground defence equipment being left to defend Aden when South Arabia attains independence.
    Mr. Healey: It is not the intention to leave behind any airport radars or associated ground defence equipment when South Arabia attains independence.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman then give an assurance that what is being left behind in the way of aircraft will enable the South Arabian Government to defend itself against external aggression? Will he give the same assurance about naval forces, about which he has sidestepped a Question from me?
    Mr. Healey: What I can say is that the South Arabian Government are being given very substantial financial and other

    1191
    help by Her Majesty's Government within the limits of their own capabilities to operate the equipment which they would wish to use.
    Mr. Goodhew: Surely—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not again"]—Hon. Members opposite are very sensitive about this. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can recognise that it would be much more sensible, if we are to preserve stability in the area and if he feels that the South Arabians are unable to operate appropriate equipment, to see that we supply it until such time as they are.
    Mr. Healey: This subject has often been discussed in the House and I know that there are differences of view between the two sides. I do not believe that an independent South Arabia would have a chance of acceptance in the Arab world as an independent State if it were known to be totally dependent for its defence on the presence of British forces.

    Military Equipment Orders (South Africa)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries for orders for warships and military aircraft from South Africa have been received during the last year; and whether any such orders have been encouraged.
    Mr. Healey: Detailed information about arms inquiries or sales to any country is confidential but, as the House knows, in the case of South Africa these would be dealt with in the light of our arms embargo policy which was explained to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17th and 25th November, 1964.—[Vol. 702, c. 199–208; Vol. 702, c. 1281–7.]
    Mr. Digby: Is it then the policy of the Government to discourage such inquiries and to encourage the South African Government to get its supplies elsewhere?
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will know that in our opinion there are many good political reasons for this. We decided to limit the chances of British arms exporters so far as South Africa was concerned. We still believe that those considerations are correct.
    Dame Irene Ward: As we are very short of naval orders on nearly all our great rivers, if the right hon. Gentleman is to pursue this policy towards South Africa, will the Government kindly place some orders to make sure that men have employment in naval shipbuilding?
    Mr. Healey: I am glad to have the assurance that the hon. Lady will support the Government's policy towards the purchase of the F111K which has brought such large numbers of orders to naval shipbuilding areas in various parts of the country.
    Mr. Rose: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not yield to this financial expediency as against political principle? Will he also bear in mind that countries like South Africa are conniving at the breach of the sanctions against Rhodesia?
    Mr. Healey: I can certainly give the assurance that in this matter we do not intend to allow what might be regarded as expediency to overrule principle.

    British Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to implement the policy of internationalising the British nuclear weapons; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Healey: Our policy remains to internationalise our nuclear forces. Discussion of the N.A.T.O. nuclear sharing problem is now concentrated on improving consultation and planning, and the United Kingdom is participating actively in the machinery which has been set up in N.A.T.O. for this purpose.
    Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this has been the subject of a number of firm pledges over the last few years and that very little action appears to have been taken? Will he issue a statement to say exactly what action is being taken and who, apart from ourselves, is really interested?
    Mr. Healey: This matter was very fully covered not only in the defence debate, but in the Defence White Paper. The existing strategic nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and the planned nuclear forces of Polaris will be assigned

    1193
    to N.A.T.O. and targeted by the appropriate and suitable N.A.T.O. authorities.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend explain whether he is proposing to internationalise the Polaris submarines and, if so, what other nations have offered to pay any of their cost?
    Mr. Healey: I have just answered that question.

    Medical Officers (Pay)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he proposes to bring the increase in pay to medical officers in the Armed Forces into line with the increases given to medical general practitioners in the National Health Service;
    (2) what representations have been made to him by the British Medical Association that a new structure of pay and conditions should be negotiated for medical officers in the Armed Forces; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Healey: Service medical officers will receive a pay increase of 10 per cent. on 1st July which will be backdated to 1st October, 1966. The British Medical Association proposed in discussions last month that a further increase of 8 per cent. should be awarded and that any new pay structure should be excepted from the terms of the White Paper on Prices and Incomes (Cmnd. 3235). These proposals could not be accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Hall: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great deal of indignation among Service medical officers at what they regard as very shabby treatment by the Government? Does he not also agree that this decision will not only have an adverse effect on recruitment but will also encourage medical officers to leave the Services as soon as they can leave without incurring financial liability?
    Mr. Healey: Of course, I know that the application of the prices and incomes policy is resented and regretted by many sections of the community, but I do not believe that there is any chance of that policy succeeding unless it is universally applied. For that reason, although there may be unfortunate effects from the
    1194
    application of the policy, it is right to apply it uniformly all round.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of us who have just returned from visiting troops in Germany have been appalled and shocked by the lack of doctors in certain units? Is he aware that the doctors there are grossly overworked? Is not this a situation which will never be altered unless the pay structure is altered, and altered quickly?
    Mr. Healey: In July all the doctors are to get a 10 per cent. increase backdated to October,1966. That is a very substantial contribution towards the end which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Longden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is even more discontent among Service legal officers? Why are not these concessions being granted also to them?
    Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Question.

    Malagasy Republic (Defence)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what defence agreement exists with the Malagasy Republic; when it was published; and what has been the total cost to Defence Votes of operating from Majunga and other places in Malagasy during the last year.
    Mr. Healey: We have no defence agreement with the Malagasy Republic. By arrangement with the Malagasy Government Royal Air Force Shackletons are undertaking patrols from Majunga in pursuance of the Security Council resolution of 9th April, 1966. The additional cost to Defence Votes of operating from Majunga during the 12-month period which has so far elapsed is about £175,000.
    Mr. Digby: Would it not have been more tactful to approach the French Government in the first place, in view of its defence agreement with this Republic, rather than annoy it at a critical time in our relations with France?
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Malagasy Republic is an independent State.

    Burtonwood
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence if, when Burton-wood comes into use again as a United States Air Force Base, United States bombing aircraft using it will carry hydrogen bombs on board at any time.
    Mr. Healey: Burtonwood is not coming into use again as a United States Air Force base. It is a storage depôt for the United States Army.
    Mr. Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will receive a warm welcome in Lancashire, which is a highly populated area and wants nothing to do with H-bombs anywhere near it?
    Mr. Healey: If my hon. Friend keeps more closely in touch with me, I may be able to tell him a great deal more to our mutual advantage.

    Servicemen and Families (B.A.O.R. and Far East)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the number of single men in the British

    Single

    Married Unaccompanied

    Married Accompanied

    BAOR

    …

    …

    Officers

    …

    …

    …

    952

    117

    2,503

    Soldiers

    …

    …

    …

    26,085

    1,660

    17,669

    FARELF

    …

    …

    Officers

    …

    …

    …

    534

    114

    1,329

    Soldiers

    …

    …

    …

    7,039

    806

    5,939

    Under-Age Recruits (Discharge)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether, in future, he will allow under-age recruits to the Services to opt for a discharge a year after enlistment instead of only three months after enlistment as at present;
    (2) whether he will allow under-age recruits to the Services to opt for a discharge when they reach the age of 21 years.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: As the hon. Member knows, my right hon. Friend is at present looking into these and related matters. I cannot anticipate the result of his investigations.
    Mr. Fisher: There are two separate Questions, of course. On the first, would the hon. Gentleman agree that three months is rather a short period—in the Navy boys would not even have been to sea—in which to expect a young boy to
    1196
    Army of the Rhine, the number of married men and the number of married men whose families live with them; and if he will state the equivalent numbers in the Far East.
    Mr. Boyden: As the Answer consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it not a fact that, if there were a big rundown through demobilisation or curtailing recruitment, most of the single men would return to their family homes and there would be relatively little need for new housing in Britain?
    Mr. Boyden: I do not accept that.
    Mr. Onslow: Has the hon. Gentleman any proposals to reduce the time before families can join married soldiers in Germany, which we found a cause for great concern over there?
    Mr. Boyden: The percentage is not very high but we are naturally anxious to cut down the time whenever we can.
    Following is the information:
    make a long-term decision covering the next 10 or 12 years of his life? On the second Question, surely, especially if a boy has not received any special training, he should be allowed the option of discharge at the age of 21, when he has gone into the Service without really knowing what was involved in the first place.
    Mr. Rees: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all these points are receiving urgent investigation.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of public disquiet about this matter of juniors who enlist in the Armed Forces not being allowed to opt out? How do the Government continue to justify the discrimination in this matter, when under the ordinary civil law of this country, no minor under 21 can make a contract which is not for his own personal benefit?
    Mr. Rees: I fully accept that there is great concern. This is not a new matter.

    1197
    It has gone on for a long time, but we are looking at it with urgency.
    Mr. Bishop: Has my hon. Friend seen the publicity given to the case of Airman David Arnold, who was sentenced to 56 days detention following disobedience of orders while seeking his release from the R.A.F.?
    Mr. Rees: This illustrates the difficulty of the matter. I am sorry that this happened to this young man, who fits into the category about which the country is concerned, but if he had applied for his discharge at one point, he would have had it. He applied only when he was down for an overseas posting, and this immediately altered the case. If he had applied at the earlier point, it would have been possible for him to be discharged, because it is not the case in every instance that a young man has to serve out his time.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would not the hon. Gentleman at least agree that, when a boy has gone into the Service at 15 and has done a long term of service, he should come out within a year or 18 months of his normal discharge if he so requests?
    Mr. Rees: I can only promise that this and all allied subjects, in the light of changes in apprenticeships and so on in recent years, are being investigated closely by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kenneth Lewis, Question No. 46.
    Mr. Gilbert Longden: On a point of order. May I have the opportunity to ask Question No. 45?
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I thought that that Question was answered with No. 28—
    Mr. Longden: My hon. Friend was not here, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: My apologies. The hon. Gentleman was not called. Mr. Longden, Question No. 45.

    Legal Officers (Pay)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present position regarding the pay of the Army Legal Services; whether Command
    1198
    Paper No. 2903 of February, 1966, applies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Healey: Discussions on the new pay scales for Service legal officers were overtaken by the Prices and Incomes Standstill. Increases in pay for these officers are still under consideration and I hope to be able to announce the amounts and the timing before 1st July, 1967, which is the earliest possible date of implementation under Cmnd. 3150.
    Mr. Longden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. From what date will the increases run? Is he aware that these services are greatly undermanned, that one of the greatest needs of justice is that it should he speedy and that these officers are being treated totally differently from their equivalents in other branches?
    Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir, I am aware of all these points, and they will, of course, be taken into account in the negotiations.
    Mr. Allason: As the other officers received a 12½ per cent. increase, could not the Army legal services receive that increase as a temporary measure while waiting for the further increase, which will, no doubt, come on 1st July?
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Member will know that, under Government policy, it is not possible to give people increases now as a temporary measure. All these matters are under consideration, but I hope to be able to announce a decision on this in time for the payment to be made on the first possible date under the law.
    Mr. Powell: Why has it not been possible to make an earlier announcement regarding the Government's intentions as to these forgotten men of the last Grigg Award?
    Mr. Healey: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that these men are not forgotten. We have been negotiating on their case for some time. This is why we are not able now to take decisions.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On a point of order. Have we not missed Question No. 28? Was it not to be taken with No. 45—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is just unlucky. Mr. Kenneth Lewis, No. 46.

    Forces, Aden (Casualties)
    Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will take steps to see that information either by print or photograph of members of Her Majesty's Forces in Aden being injured in combat is not released before the next of kin is informed.
    Mr. Boyden: We release the names of serious casualties only after the next of kin have been informed. Where the Press have free access to incidents, they cannot be prevented from publishing photographs and information about them.
    Mr. Lewis: Cannot the hon. Gentleman make some arrangement to try to persuade the Press not to print photographs or to show them on television or to give names, as happened in the case of a consituent of mine, because next of kin suffer great anxiety when this happens?
    Mr. Boyden: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's position, but normally the Press is very responsible and frequently inquires of the Army first before publishing, names. Fortunately, in two reports in the Press recently, the incident was of a relatively trivial nature.

    Chemical and Biological Warfare Laboratories (Inspection)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy towards the international inspection of chemical and biological warfare laboratories, in the light of the Report of the 13th Pugwash Conference, a copy of which has been sent to him.
    Mr. Healey: Her Majesty's Government would like to see progress made towards international agreement on measures to deal with chemical and biological weapons. The Western Plan for General and Complete Disarmament makes proposals to this end. We hope that it will, in due course, be possible for the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva to examine the problems involved and we naturally welcome contributions such as those by the Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs to their solution.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that chemical and biological
    1200
    warfare must be mainly directed at the civilian population and that, for this reason, it is a particularly dangerous development, and that the United States Government appear to be trying it out in Vietnam? Will he, therefore, regard this matter with rather greater urgency than has perhaps been done hitherto?
    Mr. Healey: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's implied criticism of the urgency with which we regard this matter, but I agree that it would be desirable in all our interests if we could reach an agreement to ensure that these weapons were neither produced nor used.

    Aden (Service Accommodation)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Defence for how many Service personnel his Department has accommodation in Aden; and for how many Service families; and how much has been spent in the last five years on the provision of such accommodation.
    Mr. Boyden: There is accommodation for 8,467 single personnel and for 3,051 Service families; about £4 million and £7 million respectively.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As one of the arguments adduced in favour of the withdrawal of troops from Aden is the saving to public funds, has the hon. Gentleman taken into account the cost of providing similar accommodation to this in the United Kingdom for troops when they are withdrawn?
    Mr. Boyden: This has been done.

    Malta (Service Accommodation)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Defence for how many Service personnel and for how many members of their families he has accommodation in Malta; and what is the average cost per man per day involved in maintaining a private soldier in Malta, Germany, and the United Kingdom, respectively.
    Mr. Boyden: There is accommodation for 4,015 single personnel and for 2,250 Service families. The average costs are £3 4s., £3 10s., and £3 12s., respectively.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view in particular of the cost figures which the hon.

    1201
    Gentleman has quoted, may I ask whether he is considering the sending to Malta of some of the troops who are withdrawn from other stations, using the accommodation there at apparently less cost to public funds than maintaining them in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Boyden: No, Sir.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: How long would it be before the alleged extra cost of keeping troops in Malta was amortised and reached a greater figure than the capital sum which would be involved in rebuilding the barracks in Britain?
    Mr. Boyden: The hon. and gallant Member should give me notice of that question.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: As I said a few minutes ago without getting a reply, if these men were brought home and demobilised, since they are either single men or mostly married men with wives living in this country, no or very little additional housing would be required to accommodate them.
    Mr. Boyden: I cannot accept that.

    Aden (Evacuation of Women and Children)
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the early evacuation of British women and children from Aden; what steps have been taken to provide their fullest protection; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Healey: On the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) on 15th March; on the second, the comprehensive range of measures taken to protect families includes patrols, guards, flood-lighting, escorts and the use of secure areas. It would not be in the interests of the safety of families in Aden for me to reveal details of these protective measures.—[Vol. 743, c. 111–2.]
    Mr. Leadbitter: That is all very well, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that since that statement of his the Chairman of the United Nations Mission, Perez-Guerrero, has made some very disgraceful, irresponsible, and calculated
    1202
    comments which have added to the danger of these families and I am of the opinion that, unless immediate steps are taken to bring these families back much earlier, there will be a graver risk than need be taken?
    Mr. Healey: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I must ask him to recognise that the withdrawal of families in an orderly way with their children will start in just over a fortnight's time. It would not be in the interests of the families, and certainly not of the morale of the troops serving in Aden, to take panic measures which do not have a real justification.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is virtually impossible to protect families living in the Ma'alla district of Aden, and will he consider evacuating those homes first?
    Mr. Healey: I will certainly take into account the point made by the hon. Member.

    "Torrey Canyon"
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many high-explosive bombs were used in operations against the "Torrey Canyon"; how many hit the ship or fell into the sea; and how many failed to explode either on the ship or in the sea.
    Mr. Mason: 171 high-explosive bombs and rockets were used against the "Torrey Canyon". The conditions prevailing made it impossible to count with any degree of certainty the number of misses and the number of bombs which did not explode.
    Mr. Lipton: If that is the best information that we can get with hand-picked crews on an undefended target in reasonably good conditions, does it not look as if we are getting very poor value for our vast defence expenditure? Will my hon. Friend accept the proposition that it is time that somebody got a bowler hat for the lamentable Answer which he has just given?
    Mr. Mason: That is a disgraceful reflection upon the efficiency of Her Majesty's forces. I should, in fairness, point out that two-thirds of the vessel was submerged and was seen only at low tide and, secondly, that after the initial

    1203
    strikes, it was covered with a thick pall of smoke and, consequently, it could not be seen whether there were direct hits or explosions.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the Minister give the cost of all the bombs which were dropped during the "Torrey Canyon" operation?
    Mr. Mason: £200,000.

    Recruits (Security Inquiries)
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if applicants for entry to the Armed Forces who are likely to come into contact with classified material during their Service careers are subject to security inquiries to establish their reliability, whether or not they are of British parentage.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The rules for access to classified material in the Armed Forces apply irrespective of parentage. Consequently, any security inquiries required by these rules are made whether or not the individual is of British parentage.
    Mr. Davidson: In that case, does the Minister agree that the country of origin of parents of an applicant is irrelevant?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Member's next Question is more concerned with that matter. Once a person is in the Armed Forces, however, irrespective of parentage, if he has access to classified material the rules of access apply irrespective of who the parents might be.

    Recruits (Nationality Rules)
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence why the parents of British applicants for entry to the Armed Forces, apart from other rank entrants to the Army, are required to be British subjects or citizens of the Irish Republic by birth.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member's Question refers to the nationality rules which apply for the Armed Services. There is a special consideration relating to the employment of persons of alien origin in case they may be liable to pressure. This implies no reflection on the character of those concerned.
    Mr. Davidson: I understood that those regulations applied to the parentage of the
    1204
    applicant. Will the Minister confirm that any British citizen is entitled to the same rights and privileges in applying for entry to the Services regardless of the origin of his parents?
    Mr. Rees: Everybody who comes to join the Armed Services has made available to him the nationality rules. Large numbers of questions on this matter come to my right hon. Friend, because many people whose parents have fought for this country in different circumstances are affected. The point at issue is that if at some future date pressure could be brought to bear on them because of relations living in some part of the world, we consider it fair from the earliest possible time not to allow them to come into the Services, otherwise they would not be able to have a full and proper career. My right hon. Friend has the right of waiver in this respect, but only in the most special circumstances.

    Armed Forces (Police Service)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to give facilities to members of the Services who wish to leave the Armed Forces for service in the police force to do so.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, Sir. I could not justify extending the existing arrangements for discharge by purchase. However I was glad to learn that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently made a regulation which will allow ex-Servicemen to join the police up to the age of 40.
    Mr. Hughes: While congratulating the Minister on that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there is still a deplorable shortage of police and prison officers? Does he not think that this could be made up by men who are prepared to volunteer, especially in view of the rise in pay, from places in Germany, where some of them are doing damn all?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend should bear in mind that any changes that take place, whether from Germany or elsewhere, are not within the category of the release of a citizen army after 1945. The changes that take place must take into account not only the needs of the police but the needs of the individuals concerned. We

    1205
    have done the best we can in this matter, and personnel on short service can go into the police at an early age.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Minister repudiate the statement by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about the Armed Forces in Germany?
    Mr. Rees: I entirely repudiate it. I was once a school teacher, however, and subsequently became a Member of Parliament. A lot of people think that school teachers and Members of Parliament do nothing. I get it both ways. I took it as a joke rather than anything else.

    Polaris Submarine Programme (Cost)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is now his estimate of the likely total cost of the Polaris submarine programme and its support costs compared with the cost that was stated when the project was first announced in Parliament.
    Mr. Mason: £370 million and £350 million, respectively.
    Mr. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that his estimate is for four Polaris submarines and that the estimate given by the Conservative Government was £400 million? Can he say which was too high and which was too low?
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend will have noticed that there is an increase of £20 million, but now included is the cost of the Royal Naval Polaris School, the new floating dock, the modular repair facility and some spares.

    Westerly Winds
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Defence to what reasons is ascribed the recent eight-week period of westerly winds over this country, one of the longest periods in recorded meteorological history.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the British Isles, westerly winds are more common than other winds and the recent long spell of westerlies, which lasted with some breaks for 45 days, is not without precedent. The reasons for the persistence of particular types of weather over many weeks
    1206
    are not understood at the present time, but the Meteorological Office is engaged on research on the problem because of its importance to long-range forecasting.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: If the Government cannot give me an answer to this very simple question of why we had 45 days of westerly winds—which might help them over the "Torrey Canyon"—can the hon. Gentleman say whether the world weather watch and the putting up of satellites to examine the clouds will give us the answers to these problems and lead eventually to control of the weather?
    Mr. Rees: We ourselves have a research team at work in this matter—but it is no good beating about the bush. The amount that anybody knows about this subject is very small. The hon. Member is falling into the same mistake as his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on Monday evening in pretending that a Government can control the weather.
    Mr. Ellis: Does not my hon. Friend agree that in a recent debate the fact that the wind was not westerly was given by the Opposition spokesman as the reason why the Government were saved over the "Torrey Canyon" incident? Does not this demonstrate that neither in the political nor in the meteorological field do the Opposition know which way the wind is blowing?
    Mr. Rees: The right hon. Member who spoke for the Opposition got his winds going the wrong way.
    Sir R. Cary: Can the Under-Secretary of State for Defence do something about today's weather? It is a wretched day.
    Mr. Rees: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman brings that matter up at a meeting of the 1922 Committee.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: As these persistent westerly winds have driven a lot of oil from the "Torrey Canyon" up into Britain's traditional shoals, what steps are the Government taking to protect Britain's fisheries from poison?
    Mr. Rees: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that I will defend to the death the chance of any oil getting to Aberdeen.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Hastings: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Some little time ago, by means of a supplementary question, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he would say something about the visit of General Steinhoff, the German Chief of Air Staff, with regard to the variable geometry aircraft. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was another Question on this subject. Since, wherever it may be, the Question has not been reached, is it possible for the Secretary of State to say something about the matter now?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request from the Minister. It is not a matter for me.
From meteorology to finance—the Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we seemed to have an indication from the Minister that he was prepared to give an answer, might we have the answer from him?
Mr. Healey: On that point of order. Mr. Speaker. This Question had a written Answer two days ago.
Mr. Speaker: I think that finishes that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee [Progress 11th April].
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

  WAYS AND MEANS

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    Question again proposed,
    That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public review and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this Resolution shall not extend to making—

    (1) amendments of the enactments relating to purchase tax so as to give relief from tax, other than amendments making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description, or for all goods to which any of the several rates of tax at present applies;

    (2) amendments of the enactments relating to selective employment tax so as to give relief from tax—

    (a) by way of exemption fro m, or a reduction in the rate of, tax except in respect of all persons of the same descriptions relevant for determining the rate of the employer's flat-rate contribution with which the tax is combined, whether that contribution is under the National Insurance Acts or under the corresponding enactments in Northern Ireland; or

    (b) by way of providing for payments to employers of an amount equal to the whole or a specified part of the tax paid if the proposed provision—

    (i) is in respect of employers in part only of Great Britain, unless it is in respect of all employers not already entitled to such payments in a part of Great Britain which is included in the areas specified as development areas under section 15(2) of the Industrial Development Act 1966; or

    (ii) extends to employers in Northern Ireland; or

    (iii) is in respect of all persons in any particular description of employment in all parts of Great Britain, and relief in respect of the whole of the tax paid could be given in respect of that description of employment by an order under section 9(1)(a) of the Selective Employment Payments Act 1966 adding that description of employment to the employments to which section 1 or 2 of that Act applies; or

    (c) by adding or removing any employer to or from the employers to whom section 3 of that Act applies; or

    (d) by amending the provisions of Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 to that Act;

    (3) Amendment of the Land Commission Act 1967.

  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS AND ECONOMIC SITUATION
  3.33 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: The Committee listens with respect, and quite rightly, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the right hon. Gentleman probably regrets that the ritual of Budget day yesterday meant that he had to take one and a half hours on a speech that he could well have delivered to the Committee in about 15 minutes. It would, perhaps, have been neither better nor worse for that. I would, on the whole, wholly welcome it if Budget day itself became less important in our affairs. I remember very well "Nye" Bevan saying long ago that our Budget day was a remembrance of a time when we were a purely pastoral society, so it is, perhaps, a mistake that we give such ritualistic importance to one particular day when the management of the economy is something that obviously concerns the Government—and, therefore, their critics—for every month in the year.
  It is inevitable, therefore, that this Budget debate will turn into something of an economic debate on some of the premises offered yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it may well be that the attendance in the next four days will reflect that. I shall do nothing in particular to raise the temperature of the debate—at least, I do not think so—
  Mr. Hector Hughes Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose—
  Mr. Macleod: Not at the moment. A little later, perhaps.
  I mention this at the beginning, because yesterday, at the very opening of his speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that Members should go away and not come back till 5 o'clock. We did not realise that he was serious.
  Any Budget, even one without major proposals, has to be set in the context of the previous debates, and I propose to refer, and that briefly, to only one, the debate in which we had the pre-election preview from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st March, 1966, in which he summed up his considered Budget judgment by saying:
  "The best guidance that I can give the House, therefore, at this stage is that I do not
  1210
  foresee the need for severe increases in taxation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1116.]
  As we know, after the election that phrase turned out to be £385 million in the first year, and a vast amount more in the subsequent measures of 20th July. That statement by the right hon. Gentleman was either wholly dishonest or wholly misinformed and, quite clearly, it was the second.
  But the keynote of that particular debate was summed up in a flashing phrase from the Chief Secretary, in his peroration, when he said:
  "We have taken the stop out of the stop-go."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1231.]
  We should not be too critical of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He realised that the Government had taken one of the components out of the stop-go, and there was an even chance that he had picked the right one.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember that last year his Budget judgment was not really in dispute. What was in dispute, from the very beginning, was the timing, particularly in view of the fact that the S.E.T. and, indeed, the minor factors in the Budget, did not begin to operate until the autumn. I am certain that the scar of that misjudgment last year still remains and that it has affected the right hon. Gentleman's judgment this year.
  Before turning to that, however, which is my main theme, I would pick up one or two smaller matters to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may lend a sympathetic ear. There is the question of secrecy of economic decisions and the aura of mystery that surrounds our financial affairs. I do not accept the view that sterling and the true state of the reserves are something that we should not mention. I have refrained from raising these matters at all out of deference to that view—which is one that I think the right hon. Gentleman shares—but I am happy to raise it today, a day when sterling, as I am delighted to see, touched parity.
  The position with regard to reserves is that we have got into a habit—it was always there, but it has got worse in recent years—of announcing the figure of, say, £30 million, and then allowing people to guess, with the help of nods here and winks there, what the true figure,

  1211
  it may be up to £250 million, is said to be. During an exchange that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had with some of us on this side, one of my hon. Friends said that the monthly figures were inaccurate and misleading. I said that in my view they were accurate and misleading in that they show accurately the state of the cash transfer in the month, but made no mention, of course, of borrowing.
  It is clear that if a man's personal account is, say, £100 in credit at the end of one month and £100 in credit at the end of the next month, we cannot judge whether that man is doing well until we know whether he has borrowed or has repaid borrowing in that month. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, particularly now that sterling is strong—I understand his difficulties before—whether honesty may not well be the best policy here, because the trouble with guesses is that they invariably tend to be alarmist.
  I feel that information in this field should be given by the Government rather than that it should drift out from other sources. For example, the Financial Times said on 9th March:
  "The Bank of England has this month completed repayments of all the special credits obtained in the U.S. at the time of Britain's last sterling crisis in the summer of 1966."
  It goes on to discuss this turn-round and says that the report was prepared by Mr. Charles A. Coombs. That is fine, but I prefer to be told these matters by the Chancellor of the Exchequer than to read about them from Mr. Coombs. I am sure that the Chancellor shares that view.
  The second matter is to consider whether the Government feel that they can share all basic economic thinking with Parliament and the country. When the Conservative Finance Committee tried, a short time ago, to mount an exercise designed to find the basis on which really informed discussion of economic judgment alone could be based, the attitude of Treasury Ministers was deliberately obscurantist.
  The approach of the Green Paper is a welcome one. I think that a Tory Government once produced a draft Bill for people affected by it to examine and consider. But it is even more important that we should not be asked to accept
  1212
  matters of gravest import without proper proof.
  For example, easily the most important section in the Chancellor's Budget statement yesterday was the one in which he said:
  "In the Government's view the growth is likely to be about 3 per cent. per annum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 983.]
  On what basis is this view formed? Was it like the figures in the National Plan—just something which was plucked out of air? That statement is also a requiem for the National Plan itself.
  The figures in the National Plan are buried by what the Chancellor said yesterday and we, too, can bury with it a famous exchange, which has been referred to more than once in this House, which took place on the day before the election last year. It was an exchange between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition asked.
  "How does Mr. Wilson propose to pay for his programme, which is based on a growth rate of 4 per cent., now that it is absolutely apparent that this growth rate is not going to be achieved?"
  The answer was:
  "It is only apparent to Mr. Heath; it is not apparent to us. We shall pay for it out of provision in the National Plan involving a growth rate of 4 per cent."
  It is now at least apparent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, I take it, therefore to the Government as a whole.
  The other matter I wish to refer to is the question of voluntary limitation of overseas investment which is to be continued at least for one year. I am sure that the Chancellor knows that this is voluntary only in the sense that once upon a time a church parade was voluntary in the Army. It has been very well observed that the two strongest instruments of control in the City of London are the Governor's eyebrows. I am sure that he knows very well that a great deal of this is more than voluntary in its operation.
  The Reddaway Report may at first sight confirm some of the Chancellor's analysis and shows that short-term restrictions may be reasonable in a balance of payments crisis, but this problem should be seen in the wider picture of international capital flows to which long-term

  1213
  capital from the United Kingdom makes such an important contribution. It follows that it should be tackled in the context of the world liquidity problem.
  I give a brief illustration from Australia, where I was recently. The figures of the relative decline of our trade with Australia are startling indeed. Ten years ago our share of her imports was 43·5 per cent. On the latest figures, it is 23 per cent. and it has fallen behind that of the United States of America. Our share of her exports 10 years ago was 32·9 per cent. It has fallen to 15 per cent. on the latest figures I have, which is behind both Japan and the United States. The growth potential of Australia is enormous. If we do not invest there some other countries will do so.
  I shall read part of a note sent to me by Mr. Alan Green, who was a Treasury Minister in the last Conservative Administration. He writes:
  "The restrictions on U.S. capital movements are regarded as temporary. The U.K. restrictions are regarded as permanent. The villain of the piece here is the way in which U.K. Corporation Tax has been set up. Australia sees this as a discouragement to U.K. investors."
  I am sure that is true and it reflects a Little England policy which could be particularly formidable, especially at a time, with the growth of Concord travel, in particular, when we shall come nearer, in real terms as it were, to Australia and not further away. I should, therefore, like the Chancellor to reflect on this and, when he winds up the debate, as I understand he will on Monday night, say whether he can go a little further and make clear that this further restriction is to be for one year only.
  I return to the main stream of my argument. I coined a phrase in an article in the Financial Times a week or so ago about "doing a July". By that I meant the Chancellor of the Exchequer, against a great deal of advice from this side of the Committee, was, until the last moment, too optimistic about the pressures upon the economy and that after his Budget he had to have further deflationary measures in July, 1965. In July, 1966, for the reasons I have given, because of the timing of S.E.T., exactly the same thing happened. The Chancellor believed that he could ride on the reserves all that time and this particular judgment proved to be wrong.
  1214
  Now the right hon. Gentleman is determined, in spite of much good news which has come recently—and I welcome it—not to be caught in the short term. I think that the danger which has scared the Chancellor into immobility and reading too much into these portents is a real one, but I cannot believe that inaction is the right reaction in these circumstances.
  I take three points and I shall concentrate in a moment on unemployment. First, there is the question of prices. The claim is often made that the July measures steadied prices. In fact, that is wholly untrue. We have the figures. The latest prices figure is for February. If we take the figures from July to February inclusive, in no less than seven of the last 10 years the figures were better and in only three were they worse. This is a seasonably favourable period. Therefore, no credit whatever can be taken by the Government for any steadying influence on prices over this period.
  Secondly, the February trade figures were very warmly greeted. I found them less encouraging the more deeply I looked into them because I came to the conclusion that the propensity to import was still disturbingly high, particularly when we have a low level of activity as at the moment. It follows that imports may well be sucked in, as often before, when reflation begins.
  I was disappointed that the Chancellor yesterday made no reference to this particular problem. He might be leaving it to one of his colleagues. I have always thought, without the benefit of seeing the inside Treasury papers, that something in the nature of a prior deposit scheme has a good deal to recommend it.
  Thirdly, and most important, I believe that unemployment is a great deal more serious than it looks. I say that, first, because the mildness of the winter cloaks the real unemployment situation and, second, because the underlying trend is still averse. I am not an alarmist in these matters. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) and I, in different speeches, analysed this in an economic debate before Christmas we both came to the conclusion that no enormous increase in unemployment, being cheerfully predicted then, would come about.

  1215
  But the Committee should study the actual position, because it is far from reassuring. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) introduced his measures in July, 1961, when the total level of unemployment was 259,000. The Government's measures last year were introduced when the level was 264,000, for practical purposes an identical starting point. In March, 1962, the figure had risen to 442,000, but in March, 1967, it had risen to 569,000, or 127,000 more than at the comparable period even with a mild winter. I think that we sometimes forget what an enormous effect the weather can have in short winter months. Although there may be a useful debating point in this, I do not believe that we should take it too much into account.
  In the particular cycle of my right hon. and learned Friend's to which I am referring the increase in unemployment went on from December to January, by no fewer than 250,000, and after the February peak it dropped by April by no fewer than 274,000. Clearly, these peak figures are quite unreal and one must discount them in considering both cycles.
  But what matters, and what seems to indicate that the situation is worse now, is that the average estimate—we have had many estimates—of the end figure for 1967 is given as about 650,000. The Committee should remember that in December, 1962, the actual figure was 556,000, getting on for 100,000 or so less than the figure that we may well see towards the end of this year.
  So I must put a point to the Chancellor. If he thinks that unemployment may go more or less according to what I have indicated—he certainly seemed to accept that point of view yesterday—clearly, the situation at all points is worse than in 1962–63, and if there is a severe winter in 1967–68 the figure—it would, of course, be temporary—could easily outstrip that for 1963.
  Nor can I see the slightest real evidence that the development areas have been faring, or will fare, better this time. There was a time, with the distorted effect right at the beginning of the Midland car dismissals which swelled the temporarily stopped, when it was possible to argue that this was so, and, I think, the President of the Board of Trade did so. But
  1216
  these figures have disappeared from the temporarily stopped, and we all know very well that the development areas tend to take the full force of deflation many months after areas which are more sensitive to attacks on consumer goods. In short—and, I believe, with good reason—I am less able than the Chancellor to take a cheerful or even passive view of the economy.
  I was alarmed to read that the Foreign Secretary was making a bullish economic speech last weekend. He has been doing this on and off, turning corners, going round the bend, ever since October, 1964. The besetting sin of this Government, at least until July, 1966 was infirmity of purpose, which led them always to doing too little and doing it too late. However, I should like to compliment the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it will do him no good on his own side of the Council, but most of my political compliments fall into this category—on his steadfastness since last July. I have twice in debate since July urged him not to reflate. But now I believe that very moderate reflation is the right action to take.
  The Chancellor's anxiety is that he may move too soon. No Chancellor ever reflates too soon. Some of them reflate too late, some of them reflate by too little and some of them reflate by too much, but no Chancellor ever reflates too soon. The drag anchors of the Treasury see to that, as they are seeing to it now. The difficulty, to continue in his nautical turn of phrase, is that he has no sea room, no room for manoeuvre at all. Taxation has on many aspects, particularly direct taxation, reached a point where the law of diminishing returns is beginning to operate.
  I am sure that the Chancellor is conscious of the difficulty about the level of public expenditure and the problem that will create in 1968–69 and later years. He said yesterday that he is having a new exercise to bring it under control. We have heard this often enough, from both sides of the Committee when they were at the Government Dispatch Box. I should like the Chief Secretary—he is the most appropriate Minister to deal with it—to expand a little on this when he speaks, and, in particular, to reconcile the known facts about the 8½ per cent. increase in public expenditure with the

  1217
  new target, if we can call it that, of 3 per cent. growth. I should like to know whether the increase will be geared to the new growth target, and if so, what year by year increase the Chief Secretary sees as tolerable, and where the slowdown will come.
  I do not believe that this is the true problem for 1967, although I believe that it may well be the true problem for 1968 and later years. The true problem now is how to provide incentives and to deal with the most pressing of our social needs. Of course, we welcome—the Chancellor knows this; small though they are, I would not wish to pass them without acknowledgment—the proposals which affect the single women with dependants, the widows and others who have responsibilities for children, and the proposals affecting authors and house buyers and the change in S.E.T. for part-timers, against which on no fewer than three occasions the Chief Secretary and Financial Secretary fought us tenaciously a year ago when similar proposals were pressed on them from all three parties in the House.
  But the Chancellor has not tried to deal with—indeed, he has turned his face away, anyway for the moment—what everyone on both sides of the Committee would, I think, accept as the No. 1 problem in the social field, and that is the problem of poverty in the family, particularly when there are a large number of children in the family. I realise that the Government, in their prices and incomes policy, gave a sort of passing nod to the problems of the lower-paid worker, but one cannot solve the problems of the lower-paid worker in the context of the wage structure of the country, because a national wage agreement, or even a local wage agreement, does not take into account the very differing needs of Tom, Dick and Harry and all the rest of us who go to make up the population. If we are to solve this problem, it will never be through a prices and incomes policy, nor will it be through a wage structure. It must be through proposals in the social security field.
  Nor would I think it right—I say this in passing—to solve this problem by taking away the tax allowances for children from those to whom they are paid. I hope that we have heard the last of that proposal. It is entirely wrong to
  1218
  make one particular group pay for the subsidies to another. In any case, this would be the worst of all groups—the brain drain group—to be attacked.
  I believe that we can only fairly find money for such needs in such a year by reducing Government expenditure. I do not mean, in this year anyway, by cuts in the public sector claims for goods and services, because if we did that we should merely increase in 1967 the recessionary pressures that are just around the corner. I mean, in part at least, by the changes in transfer payments which we on the side of the Committee have constantly put forward. I have always believed that the Beveridge Report, admirable in its day but founded with the experience of, and on the assumption of, heavy unemployment, is quite unsuited to our needs in a much more prosperous society a generation later.
  As I put the problem as I see it in a recent speech, "If you help everybody, you help nobody". You cannot help need unless you can identify it. I therefore believe that true compassion in this difficult sphere involves choice. That is the way towards choice in welfare in which we should move, and it happens also to be a way in which the Chancellor, to a small extent this year and a much greater extent in future years, could find the room he needs to manoeuvre.
  As for incentives and the over-riding need to reduce personal direct taxation, it is a sufficient comment that the very word "incentive" did not, I think, appear once in a 90-minute speech yesterday. Of course, the Chancellor should have moved in both those spheres, but he could not because he refused to face the necessity for a reduction in Government expenditure, and so he did nothing.
  As, I think, the First Secretary is to follow me, I wish now to comment briefly on the Government's prices and incomes policy and its Green Paper. We have always held that the creation of the D.E.A. was a mistake. We believe that we have suffered much from there being two hands on the economic wheel, with the inevitable result that the Treasury has won and has turned itself into a sort of sponsoring Department for unemployment. I hope that the First Secretary will soon be ready—perhaps today—to announce the Government's plans for legislation. It is our view that he should

  1219
  not compound folly by continuing a statutory incomes policy, and I think that that is the view of the great majority of the Committee.
  On 25th October last year I said that although Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act would lapse in August we feared that
  "… some equally unattractive bastard child may take its place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 874.]
  That is not a very elegant phrase, but what we have read about a strengthened Part II makes us fear that the Government intend to breach not just the spirit, but perhaps also the letter, of the promise that compulsory penal statutory powers would lapse. Perhaps the First Secretary will tell us today.
  The other point concerns the Green Paper. I do not wish to put forward final considered views from Her Majesty's Opposition, because to do that would be to opt out of the debate, but merely to make some preliminary observations. First, I am wholly in sympathy with the desire to diminish the differences in prosperity between different parts of the country. Everything I say must be taken as subject to that. But the Government should realise that the S.E.T. had a pronounced, built-in, anti-regional bias—that is only one of its many failings. That is why the West Midlands gained from it and Scotland, the South-West and other areas lost. In the Highlands, for example, the service industries are vastly more important than the manufacturing industries.
  We have always been against paying premiums to manufacturing industry, just as we were against the original and, to our mind, wholly artificial—in a modern community anyway—distinction between manufacturing and the service industries. It is not a question whether industry in development areas would like £100 million subsidy on their wage bill. The First Secretary would not need a Gallup poll to get the answer to that. The true question is, "If £100 million can be found, is that the right way of using it?" Should it be used, for example, in the general reduction of tax levels, or, if it is thought right to point it exclusively to the development areas—and I have some sympathy with that view, would it not be far better to do so by repaying
  1220
  all payroll tax, which did not discriminate against the service industries? Or would it be better, as a third possibility, to develop the infrastructure of those areas, the roads, the ports and other services?
  The Chancellor was right yesterday when he said that confidence is the real key to investment in this country. It is not so much a question whether there is this or that scheme, whether there are grants or allowances. Businessmen are not very interested in a promise that they will get £95 back if they will make £100 loss. What they care about is confidence, and I do not believe that that is built in those areas by a proposal proclaimed to be temporary by its very nature.
  I also fear that, at least in some cases, we shall bolster the inefficient firm, and I cannot believe that it is in the long-term interest of those areas that we should do so. Therefore, although my initial reaction is that the proposal is probably misconceived, as was its parent, the Selective Employment Tax, we do not intend to make final pronouncements until we have studied what the First Secretary says today, and in any debate that may follow.
  There are four more days of this Budget debate. It will be possible to get through them only by ignoring the Budget itself. I assure the Chancellor that he will have no difficulty this year in arranging a voluntary timetable for the Finance Bill, although it is only fair to give him notice that as Her Majesty's Government have no particular proposals to put forward we shall wish to concentrate for most of the time on the proposals of Her Majesty's Opposition.
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I was disappointed, when the right hon. Gentleman criticised the high level of public expenditure, that he did not take this first opportunity to state what sort of cuts and changes he wishes to urge upon the Government. He is rather under an obligation to do that.
  Mr. Macleod: I spelt them out in almost incredible detail in the Financial Times a week ago, a copy of which I shall send to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Mendelson: That is not the same as dealing with it now.
  Mr. Macleod: I shall not go over it all again. I found that the proposals I

  1221
  put forward were almost identical with those of the Economist, and that alarmed me considerably.
  However empty the Budget may have been, it is not without significance. I agree with the editorial comment in this morning's business news section of The Times, under the heading, "The Conversion of Callaghan". The editorial says:
  "In essence he comprehensively repudiated the basic tenets of the economic faith on which the 1964 and, to a lesser extent, the 1966 elections were fought and won."
  That is true, and that editorial is perhaps of more interest to the other side of the Committee.
  What most concerns us is the total lack of imagination shown yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly described the Budget as a Budget of lost opportunities, and so it was. The Chancellor did nothing, because he could not think of anything to do. I think that that is sufficient comment on the Budget that never was.
  4.10 p.m.
  The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I begin what I have to say on the point that was defined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said yesterday:
  "… the message is clear. Britain need not stagnate at home in order to pay her way abroad. … Our purpose is to achieve over the years a faster rate of growth of our productive capacity and a fuller use of our manpower both nation-wide as well as in the development areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 984.]
  In his brief comments on the Budget yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition complained that we had not been told how this is to be done. This is the question that it falls to me to answer, because we must all realise—it was clear from the speech to which we have just listened that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) realised it—that the results that we want in the field of growth will not be attained by fiscal means at all, that we are having increasingly to realise, first, that the Budget itself plays a smaller part in the whole range of fiscal measures than it used to, because we have devised means of taking fiscal measures at other times of the year or in other ways; and,
  1222
  secondly, that fiscal measures are a lesser proportion of our whole armoury of instruments for dealing with the economic situation.
  In answering the Leader of the Opposition's question, "How is this to be done?", the things I shall want particularly to be commenting on will be the extent to which it can be done, by sheer increase of industrial efficiency on the part of both management and employees; by better use of such skilled labour as we have; by increasing the amount of skilled labour; by regional policy; by the linkup of taxation, prices and incomes policy and incentives; and by the process of economic planning. Those are the matters to which I shall now invite the Committee's attention.
  Perhaps before embarking on that I should make a comment or two on what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West has just said. He said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put forward so few proposals that the Committee must discuss the proposals of Her Majesty's Opposition. They were limited in number in his own speech. We then learned that we are apparently to regard an article in the Financial Times as having been, as it were, read into the record for the purposes of the debate in this Committee.
  I read that article. I noticed, first, some gaps in it. Where was the provision made in public expenditure to finance a number of extremely expensive aircraft programmes against the cancellation of which the Opposition have protested? Where was the provision to provide for an army on the Continent of Europe as large as that of any other Power, which the party opposite, through its defence spokesman, advocates? These were serious gaps. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not aware of what his colleagues have done and proposed in these fields. It certainly left no trace on his article.
  The article is also subject to the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman had supposed that by doing what he labelled "consolidating the regulator" he had equipped himself with £150 million extra revenue, whereas, in fact, he had merely left it as it was; so that his Budget, which he intended to be reflationary to the extent of £50 million, would have been reflationary to the tune of £200 million.

  1223
  I do not think that the Committee will be very well advised to pursue the proposals of Her Majesty's Opposition, if these are they.
  The rest of the article—there was a hint of it at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech—in the talk about incentives, selective payments, and so on, was a plea for a shift of the burden of taxation by and large in a manner which would hit poorer people and advantage those who were better off. This may be the avowed policy of the hon. Members opposite, but, if so, there are two requirements. The first is that they state it without any dodging or qualifications. The second—perhaps they had better to do this before stating it too precisely—is that they weigh up what the effect of this policy might be when we are having to look at incomes and incomes policy in the way we have to at present.
  When the party opposite has finished messing round with the social services and putting everybody who is not so poor that he is actually on National Assistance or so rich that he is really well off, in a worse position, do hon. Members opposite suppose that men will not pay any attention to that fact when they are arguing about what wage they ought to be paid and what wage they need to bring their families up on? This is one of the nostrums of the party opposite, put out without thought and without consideration of the kind of society in which we are living today.
  I want to turn from these proposals, if I may so call them, to the things with which my Department is specially concerned, the items of policy that are designed to promote growth. We know what the underlying position is, that frequently in the past, ever since the end of the last war at least we have found that attempts to get sustained growth have been checked by balance of payments difficulties. We have asked ourselves time and time again: how can this chain be broken?
  To some extent this restraint can be removed if we are all of us careful about prices and about every form of income. The restraint can to some extent be removed if we devote our efforts towards greater efficiency, particularly in industries which contribute to exports or
  1224
  which result in the saving of imports. Above all, we can break this balance of payments restraint on growth if we can increase the figure to which my right hon. Friend referred and which was really the basic figure in productivity.
  If we allow balance of payments considerations to restrict growth, we shall be faced, as my right hon. Friend warned us, with a continuation of unemployment at a level we should not be prepared to tolerate. If we merely attempt to increase the actual amount of growth, without bothering about the underlying productivity, that can be done for a time. The balance of payments consideration can be neglected for a time It cannot be so neglected for long, and that turns us up in violent difficulty.
  Our real task—this is something to which economic argument must repeatedly return—is an actual increase in productivity, or, to put it in its simplest terms, to ensure that a week's or an hour's effort goes further in the satisfaction of human wants than it did before if this is to be done, it must be looked at at several different levels—at the level of the individual firm, the particular industry, the industrial world as a whole, and in the field of Government action.
  I want to begin by referring to the pursuit of efficiency in the individual firm, because that in the last resort is where it really occurs. All the other things—action by the Government, advice given in an industry as a whole, or the general climate of business and industrial opinion—are important only in so far as they affect the individual behaviour of management and employees in the firm in question.
  For this reason, I want to begin deliberately by mentioning what I think can be called the success story of a particular firm. It is the Kershaw Division of the Rank Organisation, at Leeds, a firm making optical instruments, three-fifths of its production being for export. By taking advice and acting on it, and by applying quality and reliability methods, it has in a comparatively short period been able to reduce its prices by one-seventh and expects to make a further reduction of about 25 per cent. during the next six months. I mention that one example—it is one of many that I could put before the Committee.
  Mr. John Biffen: I am sure that the Committee is interested in the case quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. Could he tell us, as a result of the application of these new techniques, what kind of return on capital this company is now earning, so that we may judge what the Government mean by a fair return?
  Mr. Stewart: I cannot give that figure offhand, but I do not think that the hon. Member has taken the point. This firm has managed to produce the same amount of worth at a lesser cost. Consequently, it can reduce prices', and, since it is an export firm, reducing prices means that its products will be able to compete with Japanese and American products in a way that would not have been possible before. This means an advantage not only to the firm and its employees, but, by the beneficial effect on the balance of payments, it is contributing to building that foundation on which the whole increase of productivity proceeds. This is one of a great many examples that I could put before the Committee.
  The important thing is to notice that, first of all, this increase in productivity ha: not been gained by toil and drudgery, but by skill and forethought, and by receptivity to new ideas. It is sometimes believed, when people hear exhortations to be more productive, that they are being told that they are lazy and are not sweating enough. That is not the point at all. These results are achieved not by drudgery, but by skill and forethought. Our motto for the future ought to be "less drudgery and more work".
  Sir Cyril Osborne: If the Minister has a secret by which we can improve our efficiency I am sure that many businessmen would like to hear from him. In this special case, did it involve a great outlay in new machinery and, if so, how much did it cost?
  Mr. Stewart: No, it did not involve a great outlay on machinery. It was obtained very largely by the pursuit of what are called quality and reliability methods, which, as the hon. Member knows, would not involve a great outlay on machinery. I am glad to see that there is so much enthusiasm for information of this kind, because much more of it can be obtained in my Department's magazine Upswing, about the publication of which some hon. Members opposite
  1226
  were, a little while ago, bitterly objecting.
  There is a great deal of evidence of this kind throughout the country and sometimes I think that if some of the money that has been applied to finding ways of not paying one's taxes had been directed to this kind of activity we should be better off. In case it may be thought that I am attacking one section of the community unduly, I will add this. We know quite well that there are groups of workpeople who engage in practices such as seeing that a man goes on being paid even when he has nothing whatever to do, and seeing that there are seven men doing work that five could do perfectly well. If all the ingenuity which went into that had been used in the manner which I have outlined, we all, including the practitioners of this kind of thing, would be better off. If we want less drudgery and more work, we also want more wit and less craftiness.
  These are examples at the level of the individual firm, but the significant thing is that these successes are often achieved by the willingness of one firm to learn from another, and by the spread of knowledge and discovery throughout an industry. This is the purpose of the bodies known as the "Little Neddies". At the National Productivity Conference, last autumn, there were frequent references to the need for inter-firm comparisons. I am glad to find that the "Little Neddy" on the chemical industry is now pursuing this very rigorously, both nationally and with American comparisons. In the "Little Neddies" for the chemical and the chemical engineering industry, there is a careful study of relations between the manufacture of a product and its user. This will make it possible for us to assess more accurately the demand the need for plant in the chemical, petroleum and gas industry.
  The "Little Neddies" have been important in bringing to the attention of Government changes in legislation desired by industry. We are for instance, in process of preparing alterations in the Restrictive Practices Act, which will at the same time crack down more vigorously on certain kinds of restrictive practice which ought to be prevented, and also remove from industry a fear of being caught in the working of the Act, which has sometimes prevented entirely

  1227
  legitimate and helpful developments in industry taking place.
  We are also arranging for industry to have better information, for example, about what kinds of machinery are imported so that we can apply ourselves more effectively to the task of making at home things which ought to be made here instead of importing them. Similarly, the proposal which was welcomed from the other side for the treatment of part-time workers under S.E.T. was also urged upon us by more than one of the "little Neddies."
  What we have done in the creation of the "Little Neddies" is not only to get an instrument through which improvements in production can spread throughout an industry, but we have also helped to create an understanding by industry of the fact that the Government are willing to listen to, and to act upon its recommendations.
  Sir Douglas Glover: If the right hon. Gentleman's party feels that way, why did it vote against out Amendments last year?
  Mr. Stewart: That point has been met and it is hardly worth wasting time on it.
  This contact between Government and industry has been apparent also in the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. It has engaged on a list of about a dozen projects. The Committee will understand that, in view of the nature of its work, I cannot give details, except to say that it is making very good progress in the telecommunications industry, and is receiving all support from the firms concerned. I am sure that hon. Members opposite would be glad to know that, despite the fact that if they had had their way, the Corporation would not be in existence at all. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman at some subsequent time would explain why his party took that obscurantist attitude to I.R.C.
  I have spoken of the individual firm and particular industries, but there is also the climate of industry as a whole. Here the most important single factor at the moment is the level of private investment. When the right hon. Gentleman complained that there was nothing in the Budget to stimulate investment, he
  1228
  has surely not forgotten the increase in the rates of investment grants, and the arrangements, more recently announced for the speedier payments of the grants.
  This is the point that I was making at the beginning of my speech, that we do not nowadays expect to see all the measures necessarily taken in one annual block at Budget time, and at no other time. It is doubtful if that leads to good management of the economy. The fact that we made that increase in investment grants and made certain other changes indicates very clearly our attitude. The way in which we have behaved shows very clearly that the Government watch the situation and are aware of the need not to be inflexible and to apply at the appropriate moment such corrective measures as the situation may need.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman talked earlier about a tolerable level of unemployment. As we have had from the Chancellor a forethought as to the level of exports, the level of production and the level of every other essential figure, may we have the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the tolerable level of unemployment during 1967 and 1968?
  Mr. Stewart: I think that this must depend on how successful we are in the regional programmes. A figure which sounds tolerable as an average over the whole nation can be intolerable if the gap between certain regions and the nation as a whole is too wide. If it is evenly spread, we can tolerate a figure—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Answer the question.
  Mr. Stewart: I have answered it. I do not think that I can go further.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) rose—
  Sir G. Nabarro Sir G. Nabarro rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I will not give way again.
  On the encouragement of investment, we should notice the figure of increased grant and the speedier payment and the recent increase in liquidity. But, as I have said, we have made it clear by the action taken so far that the Government is watching this situation and would be ready to take whatever steps were appropriate in dealing with the problem.

  1229
  But we cannot expect investment to arise simply from grants or action by the Government. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a matter of confidence, and on that there are a few things which I want to say. First, it will be clear—and no critic of the Budget disputes it—that the Budget and the measures which preceded it mark a success in defence of the £ sterling and the balance of payments. We have not now that anxiety overhanging us so as to be an obstruction to growth in the future. Secondly, industry should notice the increasing possibilities of markets overseas—the actual existence of E.F.T.A. with the industrial free Trade Area completed in it, and the possibilities of the approach to Europe.
  I know from reading an article in the Journal of the Confederation of British Industry that there are still certain anxieties voiced by them. First, they say that if the Government want the kind of confidence that leads to investment they must have a proper regard to profits. I would first reiterate what my right hon. Friend said yesterday about profits and about the unwisdom of attempting to kill the goose or to pluck it too harshly.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Stewart: When I referred to the goose I was not referring to the hon. Member.
  But when we deal with prices and incomes policy we have to accept the position that what we do over prices and incomes policy affects wages, salary, prices, profits and dividends. We must start with the assumption that all forms of contributing to production—work, professional skill, enterprise, management and thrift—have a claim for proper consideration. The result is that an incomes policy cannot be administered on the basis of favouring one section of these to the exclusion of others. If there is any doubt about that in the mind of the C.B.I. I hope that they will take it as quite clear that the Government understand that the rewarding of enterprise and management is as important as the rewarding of any other form of human effort.
  I understand from that article, too, that another of the Confederation's anxieties is the fear that Government activity may
  1230
  be widened to the disadvantage of the private sector. My right hon. Friend pointed out yesterday that by common consent the Government have had to act in certain fields—aircraft, shipping and computers—which are new for Government action. It is long ago since J. M. Keynes wrote that in every decade or so the line between those things which Government can properly do and those which they had better leave to others needs to be redrawn. This is something which the Government have always understood, and comprehension of it is now increasingly apparent on the benches opposite. But I should like to make it clear that where the Government propose any new field of Government activity, this will be done plainly in consultation with industry in advance and not by any kind of back door. If industry have any further anxieties about this, I shall be happy to have further consultations with them.
  I think that we all accept that we live in a mixed economy, that the dividing line cannot be the same at all times, and that, as I once heard the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) say, the important point in a mixed economy is that both the public and the private parts should be run with zest.
  Mr. Michael Alison Mr. Michael Alison (Barkston Ash) rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I do not want to take too long, for many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  I have spoken of efforts to increase growth at the level of the individual firm, of an industry and of the industrial climate as a whole. I want now to turn to certain fields where, in particular, Government action is required.
  This is particularly true with regard to the increase in what I suppose is one of the most valuable forms of investment—the number of really skilled men and women there are in industry and commerce, because, particularly for a nation with our industry and needs, we are still surprisingly short of what we need in this respect.
  For example, in some regions, in the skilled occupations the vacancies are twice as great as the number of unemployed people. By the end of this year

  1231
  we shall have 15,000 people in Government training centres. That is a decided advance on what was put in the check list of the National Plan when it was originally published. It represents a very rapid advance—about five times the rate of the previous Conservative Government.
  But this training is not all done in Government training centres. Much more important quantitatively is what is done in industry. It was for this reason that the Government made the advance of £2 million to the Industrial Training Boards for the training of men to a semiskilled level. The Boards also have their levies from its own very considerable resources.
  On looking into the question I found that we have to make further study of exactly where our needs lie. A short time ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I got on to this and we are now identifying, and aiming to be able to quantify, the numbers of people at different ranges of skill that we are likely to need in years to come. This is a point to which neither the Government nor industry have given sufficient attention in the past. It is an attempt to make a forward budgeting of manpower and to see the numbers of skilled men which would be required. We are getting on to that.
  But when one speaks of retraining one must remember that this has a human problem side to it. If we want the economy to expand and grow at all, it is inescapable that during their working lives men and women should accept the idea of giving up one job and learning a new skill and occupation.
  However, one cannot expect people to do this unless one makes proper provision for them when they are not in employment. That is one of the purposes of the Redundancy Payments Act. One cannot get the necessary degree of mobility of labour unless one increases the amount of housing—of accomodation to let, which means housing provided by public authorities; and makes it easier—and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken a step in this direction—for people who wish to buy houses to do so. It is, then, by a combination of effort in industry and action by the Government that we shall progressively
  1232
  be able to overcome the shortage of skilled labour which has been one of the shackles holding us back from growth.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Am I to take it, since I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his speech, that we will not be hearing from him how he arrives at a productivity growth figure of 3 per cent.? How does that fit in with an 8½ per cent. increase in public expenditure, mentioned by the Chancellor yesterday? The right hon. Gentleman is the second Treasury Minister to speak. Are we not to get an explanation of how these figures are arrived at and reconciled?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will have noted what was said by my right hon. Friend and what I have said. I hope that he will wait to hear what I have yet to say.
  To recapitulate, this would appear to be a figure that we could achieve without making a special extra effort, the need for which I am urging on the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] During these months, as I have explained, with N.E.D.C., I shall be examining the whole basis on which growth can be obtained. We will probably find, for the future of the National Plan, that we should set out alternative rates of growth; one which we should, in any case, achieve, and a higher one which could be achieved by extra effort. I have explained this to the House before, and the process of consultation through which we should get to that result.
  I turn to the question of regional policy. When people speak of regional policy they have generally thought of the social case for this. They have contrasted conurbations like London and Birmingham, such magnets for jobs which looked as if they would never solve their housing and traffic problems, with parts of the country that are gradually becoming derelict as the population, particularly the younger and more vigorous, move away. That would, in itself, be a good enough case for having a regional policy.
  We should notice, however, that there is also an economic case that is an instrument for growth. It is that it is possible, if we can spread economic activity a bit more evenly over the country, to have extra growth in the sense that more people will be in work—will be producing wealth

  1233
  —without our producing the overheating of the economy that would result if one tried to do, at one and the same time in London and Birmingham, what it may be desirable to do in Scotland, Wales, or the North-East. It is for these reasons that the Government have pursued a whole range of measures to get a more even spread of economic activity.
  One hundred advance factories are included in the programmes already announced. The building and occupation of a number of them is already complete and we have exercised the industrial development certificate policy in a way that has been to the increasing advantage of the more difficult regions. We have pursued, particularly in regard to any organisation which is under the control or influence of the Government, a policy of dispersal away from crowded centres to where the work that it can provide is more needed. We have made arrangements for the preferential treatment of local authorities in the development areas. It is noticeable that during the months of increasing unemployment the rate of increase in these areas has been only two-thirds of the national average and, therefore, substantially less than that in the more fortunate areas like the South-East.
  However, the question—a fair one—asked by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West was whether the impact of recession will become apparent rather later in these regions. That is true of some, but not necessarily of all regions. It depends very much on the industrial structure of the different regions. It has generally been true that Scotland has felt the impact later, but it is not true of all regions.
  If this is a continuing problem, then the measures I have described are also continuing measures, the impact of which will become increasingly felt. From the time one starts a programme of advance factories to the time when the first one is in use is so much, but after one has reached that point the rate at which more and more come into use proceeds more rapidly.
  It is with this very point in mind that we have put before the Committee the proposal about the regional employment premium. I listened to what the right
  1234
  hon. Member for Enfield, West said on this subject, but I do not think that anybody will expect me to give, at this stage, the Government's view on this proposal. Clearly, it is the function of the Government, at this stage, to listen to the reactions, in the light of which they must make their decision. We have deliberately put this forward—as hon. Members who have read the Green Paper will note—as a proposal for discussion, and I look forward during these debates to hearing hon. Members' opinions on the proposal, some critical perhaps—but I am not sure that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West will find all that number on his own benches to agree with the rather critical attitude which he took to the proposal as a whole.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the past eight years I have been putting forward the argument about increasing productivity? Does the present position mean that the Government are giving up all idea of mobility of labour and are replacing it with a development policy for the regions?
  Mr. Stewart: No, and a short while ago I was speaking about mobility of labour and some of the problems involved, such as housing and training. I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I appreciate that he has often put this argument forward. He must be glad that, perhaps for the first time, he is hearing it echoed back to him from the Government Front Bench.
  I suggest that firms, industry as a whole, the commercial world and the Government have before them a programme of useful and important things that can be done to promote growth. This question will then be asked: will people really have the incentive to do it? If a firm or industry learns that there are measures it could take to increase productivity, will it feel that it is worthwhile? If a group of employees learns that if they accepted certain new practices good results would follow, will they feel that it is worth while?
  It is on this point that the prices and incomes policy is relevant. There are several aspects of the prices and incomes policy and several arguments why it is necessary to have such a policy. I will

  1235
  mention, first, on this occasion, the connection between this policy and incentive. It was noticeable that even during the period of standstill a productivity agreement was reached among shipbuilders on the Clyde and was carried through, to their advantage and to that of the nation. Since then we have had the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the nature of productivity agreements, with a means by which a genuine and useful productivity agreement may be distinguished from a sham.
  We have also had increasingly the recognition that the concept of productivity goes wider than manufacturing industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I recently opened a conference called by the Greater London Council on the question of how productivity can be applied to the work of local authorities.
  One useful outcome of a prices and incomes policy can be an increasing study of how individual effort can be related to individual award and how the readiness by a group of workpeople to adopt policies which lead to an increase in growth can be made of direct benefit to that group as well as to the nation as a whole.
  Another aspect of a prices and incomes policy is that it helps safeguard the balance of payments and makes growth possible. Another aspect is that, though it cannot do everything, it can do something to help the position of the lowest-paid workers. The Government's recent acceptance of the Board's recommendation about manual workers in local government is an indication of the influence which a prices and incomes policy can have in that direction.
  When we speak of productivity it must not be forgotten that, if a prices and incomes policy is to be generally acceptable, it must make provision for those whose work is not susceptible to precise productivity measurement. That is why it is my earnest hope that, when we move on in the development of our prices and incomes policy, we shall be able, as we were not able for the coming period, to state a positive norm. What is required of a prices and incomes policy is a certain amount of economic growth which will enable everyone to have some rise in his or her standard of life, and then there
  1236
  will be additions to that for certain groups who may prove their case on genuine criteria, of which a special contribution to increased productivity is one.
  If the nation fails to get a successful prices and incomes policy, we shall not only again endanger the balance of payments but set back the good progress now being made towards getting everyone to see that increased productivity is in their interest, that the national interest is not some vague abstraction, but that it is their interest as well as other people's I look forward to the time when we can say that we have a successful prices and incomes policy worked by wholly voluntary means. As the Committee knows, we have to consider by what rates or stages we proceed from the present admittedly harsh statutory powers to a fully voluntary policy, and that is something on which I shall be making a statement to the House before long.
  For the purposes of this debate, what cannot be disputed is the vital necessity of making the prices and incomes policy a success. Whenever it is claimed by any group of people, be they management or employees, that they can work it successfully on a purely voluntary basis, they take on themselves a considerable responsibility. If it does not work voluntarily, it can throw away everything which has been gained by the sacrifices which we have made since last July, it can upset all our prospects of growth, it can threaten the employment position, and the results of these evils would by no means necessarily fall on those whose irresponsiblity was the cause of them. Those are matters which we have to weigh up when we talk of a prices and incomes policy.
  Perhaps I might refer again to the right hon. Gentleman's article in the Financial Times. One of his proposals was to save several million pounds by abolishing the Land Commission. The party opposite did enough injury to the country by letting the land racket loose when they repealed the 1947 Act. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite all know that, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) actually got as far as saying, in their last years of office, that they ought to do something about it. I can well remember the angry growls which arose on the benches round him when he said it.

  1237
  Are they really proposing at the present time, when we are obliged to say that everyone must look very narrowly at whether his claim to increased income is justified, that we should do something which will enable people to get large chunks of money for doing nothing? If there is one essential in a prices and incomes policy, it is that it should be accompanied by saying that people shall not get gains for doing nothing. It is very hard to tell a man who is working that he ought not to have more when he asks for it if he can see people getting advantages for doing nothing. That is something which the party opposite has not considered.
  Anyone who has to administer a prices and incomes policy is bound to be represented as a person who always has to say, "No". I think that it was Goethe who called Mephistopheles "the spirit that never denies". But that necessity is there at the moment. It is not an invention of mine, of the D.E.A., nor of the Government. It is the child of fact and necessity. The more ready that we are to say "No" when it is necessary, the speedier will come the time when we are able to say "Yes" and when we are able to see our prices and incomes policy as an instrument for the proper sharing out of the growth which is within our hands.
  I have tried to set out the steps which need to be taken and which can be taken if we apply ourselves to them and if we keep a sense of proportion about the rewards which can be earned by them. However, keeping a sense of proportion involves the concept of economic planning, and I was describing just now in response to an intervention how we propose to deal with the reconstruction of the National Plan.
  Of the need for planning, among informed people there is no doubt at all. There is no doubt about its necessity to enable the Government to see how their part of the economy fits into the whole, its necessity to enable industries to see both their opportunities and their tasks, and its necessity to be able to set out to all a credible and genuine incentive.
  When, during the course of this year, we are able to complete the process of setting out the National Plan, we shall be able to say to the nation as a whole that here is a possible course which, if
  1238
  we make the necessary effort, can give us the increase of wealth, and, by a proper prices and incomes policy, we can see that that wealth is reasonably shared. But if everyone is to say that he will not play his part until someone else does it first, or unless he can snatch an unfair share for himself, we shall not make progress. I believe that, by a combination and knitting together in the National Plan of the measures which I have been outlining, it is well within the capacity of the country to make not merely the growth which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor described first, but the greater rate of growth which he foreshadowed.
  In my speech, I have been obliged to deal almost entirely with material matters, incentives and personal rewards. There is more to it than that. When we speak of growth, we are speaking not only of the hope of each man and family to raise their individual standard of life. We are speaking of the aspirations of all to provide the country with social services of which it can be proud and of the desire of us all to see the country able to play its proper part in the world, both in helping to keep the peace and in giving its proper share of aid to the less fortunate sections of mankind. That is what material growth means.
  It is not a concept to be despised, and when we speak about incentives it would be unrealistic to suppose that people act without any regard for personal gain. It would also be a misreading of human nature to believe that people act from that motive only, or that that motive only can bring out their greatest efforts. It is true, I think, that the greatest moments in the history of nations have occurred when the citizens of a nation have been moved by something more than their individual or family concern—with the reputation and standing of their nation as a whole.
  To that extent it is that kind of challenge that we now meet. It is not a challenge which calls for the fierce and ruthless qualities which a nation needs when it is meeting an aggressor. It calls not only for the qualities of tenacity of purpose and of thoroughness in which our nation has never been lacking, but for another in which I think we have yet something to learn, a capacity to accept and to act upon new ideas, and the need

  1239
  for this runs through every level of society.
  If we can exercise these qualities, the prize of material growth, with all that it means, both in comfort and in national dignity and honour, is before us, and is capable of being achieved.
  5.1 p.m.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: It is well known that there is hostility in Whitehall and competition between the Department of Economic Affairs and the Treasury. In this debate, that competition has taken a singular form, that of briefing their Ministers in such a way as to set going a competition to see which of them can speak longest and say least. On length, the Chancellor, I think, wins, but on paucity of content I think that the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary has a very creditable lead.
  There was one matter on which I think the right hon. Gentleman really could have helped the Committee. He was asked quite firmly by my right hon. Friend what was the basis for the calculation that there would be economic growth this year at the rate of 3 per cent. If there is anybody who should be in a position to tell us what it is, if there is a real calculation to sustain this figure—it should surely be the right hon. Gentleman, the head of the Department which, as I understand was expressly set up for the purpose of fostering economic growth—though it is perhaps rather more than a coincidence that since the initiation of that Department there has not been any economic growth.
  It really is basic to the Chancellor's Budget statement that there should be a growth rate of 3 per cent. The Chancellor's argument about the very heavy level of public expenditure which he agreed he was accepting this year depends for its intellectual validity on this 3 per cent. being a real figure. If it is a real figure, based on serious calculations inside the Department, why cannot this Committee be told the factors and the calculations on which this 3 per cent. figure is arrived at? If this is not done, it simply will not carry credibility outside, and if it does not carry credibility outside the whole structure of the Chancellor's Budget will be seen to collapse.
  1240
  I agree with one thing that the First Secretary appeared to be indicating, and that is that this Budget really offers nothing to help that process of improved productivity, and the process of economic growth about which he was trying to talk, and for that reason the First Secretary, very properly, hardly referred to the Budget at all. The right hon. Gentleman appears to accept the point which I shall develop in a moment—and this is the real criticism of the Budget—that it does nothing in that direction.
  If it contained measures so designed, no doubt the First Secretary would have related his arguments to them, and the fact that so skilled a debater as the right hon. Gentleman—and I have debated with him for many years now, both here and in what we might call for this purpose another place—could not fasten any part of the Budget on to his argument about productivity and growth shows that there is general acceptance that the Chancellor has made no contribution in that direction at all.
  What the First Secretary does not appreciate is that our criticism goes further. It is a criticism of what the Chancellor has not done, the criticism of allowing a growth of public expenditure at this level, and the maintenance of very high levels of taxation, both of which, in my view, are serious handicaps to economic growth and to the efficiency and productivity about which the First Secretary talked at some length.
  The right hon. Gentleman threw a gibe at certain industries and those in charge of them when he said that if only the ingenuity devoted to questions of taxation were devoted to the problems of production we should get along better. There is, of course, a great deal of force in that, but does not he see that it is the existence of excessive levels of taxation on industry and on persons which inevitably involves responsible people giving up far more of their time to considering the taxation consequences of what they do than it is in the national interest that they should give? If people are placed in a situation in which the taxation consequences of what they do may be more important to those whom they serve, their shareholders, than even an increase in productivity, it is inevitable that such attention should be given to them.

  1241
  What the right hon. Gentleman said is really making the point that I want to make, that industry and commerce are carrying an extremely high level of taxation, both personal and on industry, and that it is because of this that we are facing difficulties in competing with the industries and individuals of other lands who carry less of a load.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about stimulating investment. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must be desperately worried about the forecast for the level of private industrial investment during the coming year. But does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that far more important to those who make the decisions about industrial investment than the precise quantum of the grants they receive, or whether they get them three months earlier or later, is the question whether, if they make that investment and go forward with that enterprise, they will make a satisfactory profit and be allowed to retain a fair share of it?
  No amount of fiddling about with grants, no amount of encouragement, still less of exhortation, will get industrial investment going properly ahead as hon. Members on both sides are desperately anxious to see it do until those who have to make these decisions can see a clear road forward for the chance, not the certainty, of a profit, and the chance of keeping a fair share of it.
  Let the right hon. Gentleman recall that sometimes these enterprises go wrong. If they go wrong, the industry and its shareholders carry the whole loss. If he weights the scale against new initiatives by saying, "If you lose, it is your loss, but if you gain it is precious little gain for you", he will create a climate hostile to initiative and to enterprise. I believe this to be—and in a few moments I propose to say a word or two about this—the great weakness of this Budget, and, at the same time, to be the basic weakness of our economic position and the explanation of the stagnation with which we are faced.
  Before I do this I can only express regret that for all his admirable generalisations about prices and incomes, the First Secretary has not yet told us what he will do in legislative form. He made a statement before Easter and said that
  1242
  a further statement on what powers he proposed to take would be coming. It has not come today. He must realise that the fact that this is left uncertain even now, when the Budget statement has been made, is adding to the uncertainty of those who have to make decisions on both sides of industry. I have hoped that instead of the admirable generalisations that he gave us and the sentiments that he quoted he would tell us what the Government intend for a period not very far ahead—beginning in August.
  In his Budget speech the Chancellor said that this year was an "off year". How right he was! It certainly was for him. All this jolly nautical stuff about "steady as she goes" is a little dangerous if the ship happens to be on the wrong course and headed for the Seven Stones. In one sense I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was not quite sure on which side of the "Scillies" he was.
  The right hon. Gentleman dealt very sketchily with one immensely serious problem, namely, the rise in public expenditure against the background of the small rise, which he forecast—and for which we have had no evidence whatsoever this afternoon—of a 3 per cent. growth rate. The Committee will realise that to allow public expenditure to go ahead in this way, quite out of line with the growth of the national economy, is a new departure. It was the essence of the National Plan—rest its soul!—that these two should be brought together. Yet the increased rate of public expenditure that we see today is roughly in line with that contemplated in the National Plan, which was based on a growth rate of 3·8 per cent.
  Even if the right hon. Gentleman achieves this misty 3 per cent.—this un-backed assertion of 3 per cent.—there is a great gap between that and what can reasonably sustain this expenditure. I ask the Committee to recall the right hon. Gentleman's own statement in Cardiff, on 14th October, 1964, that
  "The whole basis of our case is that increased social expenditure will be financed out of the growing expansion of British industry."
  We asked then, and some people have asked today, what happens if there is not a growing expansion of industry.
  The right hon. Gentleman produced a very interesting argument yesterday. He

  1243
  obviously realised the departure involved in the policy he was undertaking. He said that this increase was allowable this year because of the low level of private investment. I remind the Committee what he said yesterday:
  "First, public expenditure, notably public investment, will still rise rapidly this year. In our present circumstances I do not regard this as a cause for alarm. It is quite justifiable that during a period when private investment is declining public investment should be allowed to advance quite rapidly, so expanding the infrastructure of society and raising the collective standard of living. But, of course, the corollary of this proposition is that when private investments recovers there should be enough room for it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 990.]
  That sounds suspiciously like the observations of academic economists who proceed on the assumption that public expenditure can be turned off like a tap. The Chief Secretary will perhaps not dispute that those who have had experience of dealing with problems of public expenditure know that this is not so, and that if we want to achieve a reduction in the rate of increase of public expenditure—and no more than that—we have to take steps to bring it about years in advance. These public expenditure programmes have a momentum of their own.
  Let the Committee think of the point in practical terms. We cannot half-build a hospital and then decide that, as private investment is rising, we will leave it unfinished. We cannot grant a social security benefit and then suddenly reverse it because we need room in the economy for more private investment. Unless the Government, this year, attack the rise in public expenditure—which they are not doing—it is hopeless to expect that they will be able to cut it back sufficiently when and if, as we hope, private investment begins to rise.
  Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how we can have the programme of your party, which calls—
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of order. You have no programme or party, Mr. Probert.
  Mr. Heffer: If the hon. Member wants me to keep strictly to the unnecessary, rather out-dated and silly idea of calling hon. Members "hon. Members" on every
  1244
  occasion, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain how the party to which he belongs can call for more roads, more schools, and greater expenditure in many directions and, at the same time, argue for cuts in public expenditure?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall be happy to explain that to the hon. Member, but at the moment I am dealing with the Chancellor's observations, and I do not propose to be diverted from them. I remind the hon. Member of what I have just quoted.
  The Chancellor has said that when private investment begins to recover the corollary of allowing public expenditure to go ahead this year is that it will have then to be cut back. I do not think that the hon. Member differs very much from me in thinking that unless this problem is tackled now and the Chancellor reverses his decision to allow a large increase in public expenditure this year he will not be able to do what he says will be necessary in those circumstances. I challenge anybody who has dealt with problems of public expenditure to dispute that.
  This leads us to a position in which, once again, the economy will be overloaded. Private investment will not have freedom to expand, because public expenditure will be very high, and the Government will probably then take the further disastrous step of trying to make room in the economy for the clash between private investment and public expenditure by increases in taxation, thereby making even worse the problem to which I want to refer. I ask the Chief Secretary, when he replies, to explain to the Committee and to his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) how it is proposed to carry out the Chancellor's undertaking when private investment begins to increase.
  I want to direct myself to what seems to me to be the centre of our troubles, the reason for our slugguish private investment and the lack of zip and vigour in the economy. It is undoubtedly the high level of taxation, and especially direct taxation. The surcharge on Surtax, introduced last year and now, mercifully, to be dropped, was a mistake. It must have made things worse rather than better. Apart from that, it is useful to compare the rates of direct taxation in this country—especially in the higher

  1245
  levels of earnings—with those ruling in the countries of many of our principal competitors.
  With this object in view I put a Question to the Chancellor on 7th March asking him to set out—and he was good enough to do so in a table—how much of his income above certain high levels—£5,000, £8,500, £10,000 and £15,000—would be retained by a married man with two children in this country as compared with a married man with two children in the countries of our main competitors. I invite the Committee's attention to the answer.
  Up to about the £5,000 a year level, on the whole we are running fairly level with other countries and the man to whom I refer is rather better off than the man in Japan. But once one gets above that level, once one gets to the £8,500 a year level, a level not wholly unfamiliar to right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench—they would be the last people to say that it was an excessive salary for anybody to have, and I agree with them—it becomes very clear how heavily penalised is the Englishman. Of the income above that he keeps 43·3 per cent. as against 47·3 per cent. in America and 71·2 per cent. in France.
  I should say, in fairness, that at that stage the Japanese is still worse off. But when one reaches the highest figure which I have mentioned, £15,000 a year, the Englishman gets 16·25 per cent. of the excess, whereas the American gets more than twice as much and even the Japanese gets nearly twice as much. The Frenchman and the West German get nearly three times as much.
  That surely is the explanation of so much of the brain drain which has been worrying people. There was an extremely good and succinct letter in The Times the other day which simply said that if we took from the high earner a large proportion of his earnings and gave it to the low earner, two things happened—high earners went and low earners came. To support that suggestion I call in aid Professor Titmuss. I do not always agree with Professor Titmuss, who is probably best known as the spirit guide to the Lord President of the Council. He made a most interesting speech the other day to the British National Conference on Social Welfare.
  1246
  I quote from The Times of Tuesday:
  "After all, what could social workers be expected to do about 100,000 doctors, scientists and engineers which, Professor Titmuss told us, the United States had absorbed, and to some extent deliberately recruited since 1949?
  The Americans would, he said, have saved some 4,000 million dollars (£1,400 million) by not having to educate and train, or train fully, this vast quantity of human capital. They have spent more on consumption goods, less on public services. They had taxed themselves more lightly while imposing heavier taxation on poorer countries."
  Professor Titmuss was arguing this as an attack on what the wicked Americans were doing, but the Committee will see the moral that this is a clear indication that trained intellects are being lost by this country to countries which offer to that trained intellect a greater opportunity to retain a fair proportion of its earnings.
  One could argue the social case for taxing those with high earnings. There is plainly a strong case up to a certain level, but in a free world, or even in a free society, no matter what Professor Titmuss may say, people are entitled to go to places where they think that they can get the return for their abilities which those abilities can command. A country which in that respect gets out of line with other countries is greatly disadvantaging itself, and the problem will become much more acute if we go into Europe.
  Ministers tell us that they have good intentions and even that there may be good prospects of going into the European Economic Community. But under the Treaty of Rome we shall then have a system in which there is free movement of capital and individuals. Some Minister must tell us what is being done to reconcile our levels of taxation upon earnings with those in countries with whom we shall be co-operating. If we are in Europe and a man can take himself and his business to another part of the Community where he can get a much higher share of what he and that business can earn, it is perfectly clear in the light of what has happened already—according to Professor Titmuss and according to our own observations—that there will be a tremendous flow of both capital and brains from this country to other parts of the Community.
  If the Government are sincere in their alleged desire to take us into Europe—

  1247
  and I have considerable doubts about the Prime Minister's intentions in this respect—they must face up to this problem—that no country in the Community can possibly sustain widely different levels of taxation on any level of income or any particular business activity, because, granted the condition of free movement of labour and capital, there will inevitably be a tremendous outflow. This is the kind of problem which will be set if the Government are serious about going into the European Economic Community.
  I return to the point which I want to leave with the Committee. The central cause of our stagnation and of our failure to grow, all the symptoms of which the First Secretary gave us so many details today, occur because in a free enterprise society there is no substitute for a man's desire to keep for himself a reasonable proportion of what he earns, and the desire of companies to do the same. It is, of course, a matter of infinitely delicate judgment what is the point beyond which it is not safe to go.
  I concede that it varies from time to time. But all the evidence now is that we have gone too far in this direction. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has missed an opportunity to give a stimulus and incentive by reducing the levels of taxation upon earnings and upon profits. In this way he could have given a stimulus to the economy; and he has proposed no alternative or substitute method.
  It is not surprising that the Govern-men have fallen into the same difficulties as previous Socialist Governments. They do not understand, and they do not really like, a free enterprise, private enterprise, economy. They accept that there must be a mixed economy, but they do not accept that that mixed economy requires the dynamic of the pursuit of individual profit to keep it going. That is why with every Socialist Government the country has been in the same position. I can only conclude by slightly altering some words of Goldsmith:
  "Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where men accumulate, and wealth decays."
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. Austen Albu: In his capacity as an ex-Chief Secretary of the
  1248
  Treasury, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has failed to raise the controversial temper of the Committee, although he tried his best in the last few moments of his speech. I shall refer to the core of his argument later, but I must say that I am slightly oppressed by the fog of equanimity in which the Chancellor's statement and Budget have been received—equanimity and almost unanimity. I must to some extent be more controversial, perhaps performing slightly the rôle of the small boy in the tale about the emperor's clothes.
  As I have recently left the Department of Economic Affairs, the Department which the Opposition so frequently criticise, I should like to say a few words about it. I found it a most stimulating Department, largely due to the energies and drive of my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary in collecting around him an absolutely brilliant team. He forged it—it has been forged in the last year or two—into a powerful intellectual instrument for advice on economic policy. It has the great advantage, unique to a Government Department in our history except in wartime, of a mixed staff of civil servants, of senior industrialists and academic economists and economists from other walks of life.
  But although the irregulars, as they have come to be called—the economists from outside—make a valuable and stimulating contribution, the state of economic science is such that those economists with experience of managing the economy must continue to play the major part. In the Department there was the greatest freedom of discussion, and I hope that this continues to be so.
  The views which I shall express were developed in the Department and are well known to my right hon. Friend. But it is not the Department of Economic Affairs any more than the Treasury which determines major economic policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in a recent television interview that when it came to questions of major strategic decisions—major long-term financial decisions and even short-term ones, of course, because one cannot very much concerned, and it was, of separate the long from the short—he was course, a Cabinet responsibility.

  1249
  Within the limits of constraint on policy in which he has to operate, the Chancellor is doing all that is possible, and I think that this is recognised on both sides of the Committee. The nature of those constraints was brilliantly described by Mr. Peter Jay, in the first number of The Times Business News, and also, I thought, with a good deal of filial sympathy.
  This policy is, of course, orthodox—not necessarily the worse for that—and owes a great deal to the views of Professor Paish. It is not necessarily wrong to take those views into account because we could not have continued the relationship between the level of unemployment and the level of vacancies which held during 1965 and the first half of 1966.
  The Chancellor has now given us some information on how he sees the immediate future. I do not see why right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite or, for that matter, the public prints, should make such a mystery of this. There is none. At the moment, at least four independent short- or medium-term forecasts are published, three of them quarterly, and it is no secret that they do not greatly differ, at least within the margins of error, either from one another or from official forecasts. They are probably slightly more optimistic than the latter. I do not believe that official forecasts today can be so different from the careful forecasts of these bodies.
  What picture do they foresee? My right hon. Friend foresaw a rate of growth equal to the rate of growth of potential productive capacity of 3 per cent. I do not believe that he meant for this year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It does not say so. I have checked this in HANSARD. I think that it is probably from the end of this year or from now to 1970. I do not know, because my right hon. Friend has not said so. Anyway, I am certain that we shall not get a rate of growth of 3 per cent. this year—
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that what the Chancellor said was that
  "… total output will rise by close to 3 per cent. between the end of 1966 and the end of 1967."?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 993.]
  1250
  Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is equivalent probably to a rise in output over the year as a whole of ½ per cent. over the previous year?
  Mr. Albu: I think more than that, but probably not very much. When this growth begins—and I believe that 3 per cent. is optimistic—the resultant increase in personal consumption that will be possible will be less than 2 per cent. a year. What is more, there will be a very slow revival of private investment. According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research Review, the rise will be to a level of about 12 per cent. above that of 1964 by 1970—not a very substantial rise over that period.
  Of course, apart from the effect which this has on the underlying rate of increase of productive potential, which the Chancellor is counting on as being 3 per cent. this has a very serious effect on innovation and the structural change which is so important to us to maintain our competitive position—the change from one industry to another, the growth of some and the decline of others. This cannot easily take place without a continuing high level of investment.
  Moreover, if productive potential does rise, unemployment will rise unless some way of reflation is found. If it does not rise, unemployment will stay at its present level, in which case we must expect an increasing unwillingness by the trade unions to co-operate in increasing productivity. This is a very depressing outlook, which will put us even further behind other industrial nations. The Prime Minister has said that there is no easy way out, through an increase of personal consumption—the candyfloss society—or even through an increase in the social services. This would only lead, I think we all agree, to a further balance of payments crisis.
  The Prime Minister has said that the reflation must be led by export and investment. Are there any alternatives to such a policy? I preclude the use, advocated by some of my hon. Friends, of a great extension of controls. Economic theory is not sufficiently precise to allow any detailed control over more than one or two parts of the economy. Anyone who has recently been to Eastern Europe knows how rapidly it is moving away from controls to a market economy. There is nothing frightening about the

  1251
  phrase "market economy". It is merely an explanation of how people behave psychologically in the face of deterrents or incentives to spend or not to spend and to save or not to save. We cannot control the way people behave.
  Therefore, the number of physical controls which can be applied is very small. I believe that, for example, it is impossible to control prices—except for one or two—or profits. Certainly, they cannot be controlled in an economy with the freedom necessary for expansion—
  Mr. Biffen Mr. Biffen rose—
  Mr. Albu: Perhaps I might continue. This is not an easy speech.
  As regards incentives to investment in industry, whatever the value of tax allowances and grants, and so forth, may be—businessmen always want taxation reduced, but I am talking of incentives intended to produce certain increases in investment, and so forth—there is little evidence that they have much effect compared with the level of profitable demand. In 1963, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) increased investment and depreciation allowances and the Opposition have frequently claimed since we have been in power that this led to the subsequent boom. If that is true, it also led, of course, to the balance of payments crisis in 1964.
  The point is, did it in fact lead to that boom? No, it did not. By far the greater effect was on home demand created by reductions of personal taxation, plus the substantial increase in public investment. Out of the total tax reduction of that year, estimated at £269 million in the first year, capital allowances were estimated to come to £11 million. They were estimated to rise to £130 million in 1966–67. It was the rise in demand, in this case in home demand, which caused the boom and the subsequent rise in investment, as well as the troubles from which we have suffered ever since.
  Even in regional policy, I believe that the much maligned policies of the Board of Trade have been by far the most effective—the I.D.C. policy, the loans and the advance factories. Nevertheless, I welcome the proposals on the selective employment premium which have been
  1252
  tabled for discussion by my right hon. Friends but I hope that, in addition to our discussion and that in industry and throughout the country, full surveys will be undertaken, perhaps by the Government's own Social Survey, to try to test the validity of the hypothesis on which this proposal is based. To come back to my original point, economics is not an exact science and hypotheses are not proven theories.
  There are two other ways in which it is often suggested that we could resolve our dilemma. One is the reduction of Government expenditure—at home, mainly proposed by the Opposition, and overseas, mainly proposed by my hon. Friends on the Government benches. I agree with the importance of a rapid and substantial reduction of defence expenditure, both for its effect on home public expenditure and also for its effect on overseas expenditure.
  I also believe in a very selective policy, which, I believe, would be accepted in the City, on overseas investment. The case for this has been completely made by the Reddaway Report. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) took this altogether too easily. I do not think that he has studied the Report properly or realised its implications which are for a selective policy on overseas investment. I believe in both these things—not merely for one year, but for a very long time—until we have got this thing right.
  If those things were done they would reduce the burden which our exports have to carry. They would, however, bring no immediate relief. If the long term is connected through the medium with the short term, we must try to do something much more quickly. Nor do I believe that by themselves those measures would produce a permanent solution.
  A proposal which is frequently made, generally by some of my hon. Friends, is for import restrictions or quotas. Apart from the effect of this on confidence in sterling following the end of the import surcharge, I believe that the general effect would be harmful. It would protect inefficient industries, it would involve further substantial administrative costs, it would be a difficult exercise, it would increase the rigidity of the economy and it would invite retaliatory action abroad

  1253
  the result of which is impossible to estimate.
  When I was in the Department, I tried to see whether we could not do a theory of games exercise on this problem such as is done at the Rand Institute in the U.S.A. The question would be, if A takes a certain course, what is the likely response of B? I was told that it would be impossible to make any sort of calculation to ascertain what effect the imposition of controls on imports would have on those with whom we trade overseas. In any event, if such restrictions were imposed, they could be for only a very short time.
  We face in the end the situation, which we all understand, that however much by increased competitiveness we may to some extent reduce our imports, we must have a far greater rate of increase of exports. The truth is that our proportion of world trade in manufactured goods is still declining, and still at the rate at which it has been declining for the last several years.
  This year we face a serious situation, mainly because one of the areas in which our exports have been rapidly increasing—Germany—now has its own economic difficulties, with the result that our balance of trade with Germany has been reversed. Presumably, exports could be made more competitive by a successful and rigid prices and incomes policy. Although I am in favour of the Government having reserve powers in this matter, nevertheless such a policy must be essentially voluntary. The most that we can hope to do with it is to restrain the annual rate of inflation to a more tolerable level. We cannot do more than that.
  Moreover—and here I come to some extent to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames—we lack any strategy for incomes, taxes and social benefits taken together. I believe that some work is being done on this. If, however, it is not already being done, I beg my right hon. Friends to make a thorough examination of all these matters, not separately, but taken together, as they must be. Within this I include the question of incentives for effort, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. In passing, I think that it was a mistake to introduce so many tax changes before such a strategy had been worked out.
  1254
  So far I have not been very constructive, and I now come to what may not be very popular on the Treasury Bench. I am forced to the conclusion that the only way we can achieve in any reasonable period of time an increase in the rate of our exports is by a change in the exchange rate. I believe that this is the only solution. It would not only improve the competitiveness of our exports and reduce the tendency to imports, but, even more important, it would increase the profitability of exports and, therefore, encourage manufacturers to go after exports harder.
  In a debate in the House last July, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—obviously he was moving towards that—said that he would have preferred a floating rate for the £. At the present time, however, and given existing circumstances, I doubt whether that would have the effect that is needed. The situation is now different. We are in a deflationary situation and most people agree that a measure of reflation is needed.
  If a change in the exchange rate were made, the slack now existing in the economy would be taken up in the only way that is acceptable and the only way which would not lead in the foreseeable future to another balance of payments crisis—by profitable exports. The investment would then follow. Investment will only follow the opportunity of profit, and the only profitable demand which we can afford to increase is that of exports. The investment would follow the increased demand and in the industries which most need it.
  I see no alternative to what I am suggesting. Unless an alternative is found or such a policy is adopted, I believe that we are in for a prolonged period of slow growth. Unless people are willing to forgo all increase in personal consumption, there can be no real improvements in social services beyond the relatively small amount that a reduction in defence expenditure would temporarily provide.
  The political and social dangers of such a course are serious. Just as I believe that the Suez debacle exposed our people suddenly and without warning to our military weakness and led in the following week or two to the most nasty mood which I have known in this country for a long time, and, possibly, to the loss in

  1255
  national confidence which we have also suffered for some time, so I believe that if now the Labour Government fail to achieve what the Opposition failed to achieve, if we cannot achieve a reasonable rate of growth comparable to that of our partners among the advanced industrial nations, we shall get a serious feeling of frustration. The electors will not necessarily turn to the party opposite, but perhaps to irrational political experiments.
  Fundamentally, I believe that in spite of the decision which has undoubtedly been taken by the Government to try to get into the Common Market, we have not yet as a country faced up to our true position in the world. We are still clinging to illusions about our political and our financial power. The responsibility for the course which we are following is that of my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet and nobody else. I beg them to bestir themselves before it is too late.
  5.47 p.m.
  Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) gave us a fascinating excursion along the corridors of power. I was not at all surprised, when I heard his description of what was going on in the Department of Economic Affairs, that the casualties were numerous.
  We all value the hon. Member's "promotion" to the back benches if it leads to further speeches of the same stimulating nature as we have heard from him this afternoon. It contrasts, certainly in content and interest, very favourably with those which he used to deliver from a more restricted position. Perhaps, too, now that the hon. Member has changed with his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), he will find that his hon. Friend's rôle has fallen on his shoulders and he will enliven some of our passages on the Finance Bill. I hope so, indeed.
  I will not follow the hon. Member on the subject of devaluation because I have something rather germane to that to say at the proper place in my speech. Unlike most other right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, I should like to say something about the Budget, because clearly this non-subject
  1256
  did not appeal to those who have as yet spoken.
  It was very well summed up in the old joke, of which I was reminded, of the punter who, on his way to the races, scrutinises the card with very great anxiety, sees himself faced with six almost hopelessly unsolvable problems and says, "What a day this is going to be. If only I could break even, I could certainly use the money". The country today is probably feeling that it has broken even and can use the money. I do not think that the non-Budget needs very much description.
  I am rather surprised that so many people have argued that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has played safe by doing nothing. When one is walking a tight rope, it is not the course of safety to stand still. This is the special danger in which the right hon. Gentleman has placed himself. I shall elaborate that a little. The right hon. Gentleman has taken powers to extend the use of the regulator for a further year. What is the power of the regulator? It is to apply gentle pressure or release on the economy if it is required, but I very much wonder whether in terms of the figures we have in front of us it can be counted upon to do this in future.
  Let us look at the various estimates, as qualified by the 20th July increases. Purchase Tax was estimated to bring in £688 million, the out-turn has been £686 million, and it is estimated that in 1967–68 it will go up to £735 million. It is true that revenue from oil went from a previous estimated £880 million to an outturn of £887 million, and that this year it is estimated to bring in £950 million. Spirits were estimated at £672 million, the out-turn was £687 million, and the estimate for 1967–68 is £780 million. Against this, tobacco was estimated to bring in £1,030 million, but the Tobacco Duty was not raised in July for the very good reason that it was thought that at that very moment the law of diminishing returns would be in operation—as it was, because the out-turn was £1,023 million and the estimate for the current year is £1,020 million.
  Those figures suggest to me that the power of the regulator to slow down the economy further is already prejudiced, and it is possible that at the end of the

  1257
  day the Chancellor of the Exchequer may very well find himself with a regulator which is impotent to take money out of circulation, as it is intended to do.
  The right hon. Gentleman commented that he could not afford to give back last year's 10 per cent. increase because it would cost £150 million but, having looked at Table 9 in Cmd. 404, it seems to me that he is budgeting for a current surplus of £1,185 million—the biggest Budget surplus ever. Incidentally, we used to talk of Budget surpluses, but it is now preferred to conceal them as borrowing requirements. The Budget surplus of last year was £1,149 million and, as I say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is budgeting this year for a surplus of £1,185 million. In that £1,185 million I think that there is certainly room for a reduction in the rates charged in respect of the regulator. This reduction is needed in order that the regulator may be an effective weapon in the current year, if it is required.
  I turn now to one or two matters in which I have a special interest. Yesterday, according to col. 1001 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the ceiling on bank advances of 105 per cent. of the amount outstanding in March, 1965, is to be abolished, for the very good reason that it is no longer required. The present demand for advances has fallen so much that the ceiling is no longer effective.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the London clearing banks and Scottish banks are also subject to the special deposits machinery, and this gives the Chancellor every opportunity of controlling their activities. However, he said in respect of what we might call the smaller banks that new arrangements are required:
  "… in order to secure from them an appropriate degree of restraint in their lending."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1967, Vol. 744, c. 1001.]
  I want to put on record my reasons for suggesting that these new arrangements are unnecessary.
  When I went to my office today I made inquiries as to the number of forms and returns we send to the Bank of England without referring to specific transactions. I find that we supply the Economic Intelligence Department of the Bank of England with 200 separate returns every year. Among these, we
  1258
  supply a weekly statement of sterling claims and liabilities and, also weekly, a statement of foreign currency claims and liabilities. The Economic Intelligence Department has that information every week.
  Monthly, the Economic Intelligence Department receives a very wide embracing Form A containing banking statistics. This form is divided into 15 separate heads and includes all the details of any bank's activities. There is also Form BLC 1 and 2, which are really enlargements of the weekly ELCWs and FCWs. There are also returns quarterly, which are consolidations, and go into greater detail.
  My point is that the non-clearing banks are relatively modest in size compared with the clearing banks. The Bank of England, and, through the Bank of England, the Treasury, keeps a very close eye on their activities and information is available at any time on what is going on. I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who probably knows even less than I did of how many forms are put in—that he has complete control over these establishments.
  The right hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind the remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), that in the City the chief instruments of discipline are the eyebrows of the Governor. This is a very important matter, because the City is a close community. The people operating there depend on trusting each other. An adverse comment from the Governor is very rapidly known and very rapidly repeated, and it is something to which no one would expose himself. I make the little suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that he might stop asking his hon. Friends in the Department to find an appropriate degree of restraint and, instead, leave it to the common sense of the small units to follow the example of the larger units—
  Sir Ronald Russell: Can my hon. Friend say how much time is used in compiling those returns? Is not that a major problem?
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question. Frankly, I would rather

  1259
  fill in the forms and be free to act than fill in the forms and not be free to act.
  There is a technical point which is of interest to the Chief Secretary—the unification of sterling. This is a sensible step. There has been no justification in the last few years for having a separate rate for security sterling, which was the rate payable to foreign investors who wished to sell their investments. Unification will be of benefit there. However, he is rather optimistic in thinking that he will be able to impose exchange control in the Persian Gulf and Hong Kong.
  As the Financial Secretary knows, there is no form of exchange control in the Persian Gulf States and any restrictions imposed on them have to be imposed from this end. As for Hong Kong, I have no doubt that leading British banks there are entirely amenable to anything he says, but a large proportion of the business carried on there is carried on by banks which are not subject to the same discipline. I wish the Chancellor well in his attempt to impose controls there.
  The Chancellor did not refer to the Bermudas and Bahamas, which are notorious places where sterling is exchanged for dollars. Are they thought to be too rich to need the discipline of exchange control? If the right hon. Gentleman wants to go in for exchange control, he will find instruments capable of carrying it out there. I do not think he will be able to do much in Hong Kong and certainly not in the Persian Gulf.
  This has been a good year for gilt-edged. The Government have been able to issue £2,000 million in new loans, which is a very great improvement, and they have paid £1,267 million off the floating debt, but it is no coincidence that the upsurge in the gilt-edged market has come with the recovery in sterling. They are very closely linked. I ask the Financial Secretary, although I do not expect him to answer today, if he can satisfy himself as to how much of the new investment in the gilt-edged market has come from hot money from abroad.
  These are figures which are not easily arrived at but they are worth investigation, because it is notorious that it is
  1260
  easy to swap dollars for three months or six months with an interest differential of between three-quarters per cent. and 1 per cent. Therefore, it is easy for the worst kind of hot money, which is kept in dollars all the time, to find profitable employment in the gilt-edged market for the short run. This is something about which the Chancellor should be thinking very hard.
  The Chancellor ended his speech on a great nautical metaphor: "Steady as she goes". I find in the Wall Street Journal of 11th April a very important article, which has since been contradicted by the U.S. Treasury but, as it was bound to be contradicted, it is worth quoting. A very well-informed article says:
  "The United States Government appears to be making a momentous switch in its policy for defending the stability of the dollar."
  It goes on to comment that the free stocks of gold in the U.S. Treasury are down to about 3·6 thousand million dollars, whereas foreign holdings in New York were something like 30,000 million dollars. In other words, if all foreign depositors in New York asked for gold, the U.S. would no more be able to find the gold asked than we could if we were placed in a similar position.
  This warning comes simultaneously from two of the most important banks in America, the Chase Manhattan Bank and the Bank of America. These are two of the most responsible institutions of a large size and with worldwide interests. They comment that the upshot to the exhaustion of the United States gold supplies would be a world financial crisis. I do not think we can discuss the state of this nation calmly and dispassionately without taking these very grave outside matters into consideration. I am not going to make comments as to whether a cold in New York gives us double pneumonia, but it must be clear to anyone in this Committee that if we talk in terms of a world financial crisis we would be major sufferers.
  This brings me back to what I started with. That is to ask the Chancellor whether he is satisfied that he has done everything in his power in this country to face the possibility of this international crisis. He mentioned, as reported in column 977–8 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the useful international collaboration which is leading to a substantial plan to be put

  1261
  before the I.M.F. Governors when they meet at Rio de Janeiro in September.
  I wonder, incidentally, if that venue is a very happy one, although it may be very appropriate. Rio de Janeiro is a beautiful town, perched between the South Atlantic and high mountains, but it has a shanty town which is liable to fall down on the beautiful skyscrapers. We saw how this could happen only a few months ago when there were floods of a minor nature which brought the whole life of the town to a standstill for a fortnight. There was no electricity to take the lifts up 24 floors in the skyscrapers and there was a complete cessation of water supplies.
  This, I am afraid, is all too reminiscent of the sort of world monetary situation in which we find ourselves. That is why I ask the Chancellor most sincerely whether he is satisfied that, so far as his power allows, he has everything under control here. The newspaper article to which I referred spoke of this change in U.S. policy as
  "the monetary equivalent of a nuclear deterrent."
  The late Aneurin Bevan once spoke, with a great deal of disapproval from his colleagues on the back benches, about "going into the conference chamber naked." I ask the Financial Secretary most seriously that he should satisfy himself that we do not go into that conference chamber naked in September.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Alec Jones: In making my maiden speech today, Mr. Probert, I am very conscious of the fact that there are here many time-honoured customs and conventions. If I should inadvertently break any of these, I claim the indulgence of the Committee.
  I am very proud to be the representative in this House of the Rhondda, West constituency, which has been represented here by many worthy figures, such as Mabon, Will John and Iorwerth Thomas, men who earned their right to be here by the part they played in the industrial and political struggles of South Wales. There were occasions when as a result of their efforts they earned a term of imprisonment. Although I seek to emulate them in certain ways, I trust that I may be saved from the cost of a prison sentence. My immediate predecessor was
  1262
  Iorrie Thomas. Not only was he my predecessor, but he was my friend. I have been very pleased to hear high tributes paid to him from both sides of he House, and to learn of the great regard in which he was held here.
  I have heard very pleasantly of his kindness to new hon. Members. I know of his hatred of hypocrisy. I know of his tenacity and determination to fight for things in which he believed. Above all, I have been pleased to hear since coming here of how hon. and right hon. Members appreciated the long years of service which Iorrie gave to this House and to my people of Rhondda.
  Rhondda is known throughout the world for coal and for its long history of political and industrial struggles. We began in 1871 with a population of 24,000 and rose to a peak of 163,000 by 1921, and we have now slumped to less than 100,000. The rise and fall in our population reflects the rise and fall of the coal mining industry and also the industrial stability and well-being of the people of Rhondda.
  As one who was brought up with the background of colliery accident and colliery explosion—explosions have taken place even in very recent years—I would not want to see a return to the old days. But I must express the very deep feelings of the people of Rhondda in telling our own Government that we had a right to expect that there would have been a halt to pit closures until alternative employment had been provided. An important consequence of the pit closure programme was the fact that the Rhondda Borough Council in January last year lost rateable value of £23,000. While this is made up from the rate resources grant, it certainly has the effect of stultifying local initiative.
  With the end of coal as the base of our economy, we in Rhondda are taking part in a new and ofttimes more bitter struggle than that in which we took part previously, because we must now seek to create a new industrial basis upon which to build a new future for our people, and from this Government more than any other the people of Rhondda expect the greatest possible assistance. I would say in passing that we do not believe that any attempt to reduce even our political

  1263
  representation at this juncture will help us in this struggle for a new Rhondda.
  Since 1934 Rhondda has been in receipt of varying forms of Government assistance. We have been called a distressed area, a special area, a development district and now a development area—all different names to express the same essential need. While the names have been changed, it is with regret that I must say that the needs and problems of Rhondda are still acute today.
  At present there is a high level of unemployment, about 9 pr cent., which is more than twice the average for the rest of Wales and four times the national average. These figures justify the protest which the electors of Rhondda made on 9th March. If we in Rhondda were able to find that our unemployment level was as low as many hon. Members consider the national average to be high, we should be celebrating this as a tremendous victory.
  I would say on behalf of our people, as evidence of the pride of the people of Rhondda, as evidence of our industry and as evidence of our thrift and willingness to work, that three quarters of the houses in Rhondda are owner-occupied. This in itself presents a very considerable problem when people talk rather loosely about the mobility of labour. What we seek in Rhondda is not some permanent Government assistance or charity. We have had examples of that for 34 years. We seek the reality of an industrial redevelopment which will enable us to stand on our own feet and build a future for ourselves.
  I appreciate and understand many of the actions which the Government have taken. I know that many plans have been made. But I must repeat the sentiments of Oliver Twist and say that we want more; we want the improvements which have been promised to be carried out a great deal more speedily. This afternoon we were told about advance factories and the fact that 100 have been allocated. This is good. It will be welcome not only in Rhondda but throughout the country. Two factories have been allocated to Rhondda: one in September, 1965, and one in May, 1966. But at the moment the word "advance" baffles me, because not yet have two bricks been laid one on top of the other. While I appreciate the
  1264
  difficulty of acquiring sites in the Rhondda and know the tedious and protracted processes of negotiations for the acquisition of land, I urge the Government to tackle these problems with the same urge, drive and energy as were shown during the war when land was needed for the construction of airfields and other military installations, for in Rhondda this is a war, a fight for our very survival.
  We welcomed the Industrial Development Act, 1966, because it now makes available to industrialists the largest inducements of all time to build new factories inside development areas like Rhondda. But I feel that there is still a reluctance to do so. So I urge the Government not to close their eyes to the desirability of setting up Government-owned and operated factories in those areas, because if private enterprise cannot or will not bring employment to areas like Rhondda I believe that the Government should take the next logical step and embark on new public enterprises. I ask all my right hon. Friends who head Departments of the Government to examine them to see whether inside them there are developments which could take place on the lines of public enterprise.
  I should be failing in my duty to my constituents if I ignored the effects of the Selective Employment Tax on areas like Rhondda. It is obvious that there is an adverse effect on the distributive trades in many areas, but to some areas it is proving particularly crippling. The Mid-Rhondda Co-operative Society, not a very big one, already pays £5,770 in Selective Employment Tax in six months. However, today I am concerned not only with the financial aspect but with the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on employment. That small co-operative society has been forced to cut its staff by 22. The Selective Employment Tax has been referred to as an instrument for the redeployment of labour. I beg hon. Members to appreciate that in an area like Rhondda there can be no redeployment of labour because no alternative employment exists.
  I welcome on behalf of Rhondda and many other areas the Chancellor's modest steps yesterday in modifying Selective Employment Tax for certain part-time people. I was very pleased to hear the Chancellor repeat words which

  1265
  we have uttered on many occasions about unemployment:
  "As regards unemployment … the problem is basically inside the development areas".
  This is something which we have felt in South Wales. I am sure that my colleagues from the North and from Scotland all feel the same way, that inside the development areas lie the chief examples of our high levels of unemployment.
  I liked the Chancellor's statement that:
  "… the position is still not nearly good enough."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April; Vol. 744, c. 984–5.]
  If I had been speaking in some other place I would have expressed that view, but in much stronger language. As a new boy here I am reluctant today to use the language that the situation needs and justifies.
  Finally, I turn to last week's proposal for regional employment premiums inside the development areas. That has been suggested to mean a £10 million or £12 million boost for the manufacturing industries of Wales. We in the Rhondda welcome any such step, but whilst accepting the principle I urge the Government to consider that it be made even more selective than they already suggest, because there are great differences of need inside the development areas. There are great differences in the levels of unemployment and in the extent of the problems of depopulation.
  While it is true that all parts of all development areas have need, it is equally true that some have a greater need than others. I suggest that we might have different rates of the regional employment premium in the development areas, and the criteria might well be the levels of unemployment and the extent of depopulation. Even as it is, I welcome the proposal, because the premium is likely to attract new industry to the development areas and particularly to my own area of Rhondda, but if it were made more selective, it would provide extra assistance and incentive, particularly to bad black spots of unemployment such as my area now is. To me and the people of Rhondda it would fulfil those essential ideals which we have held for a long time, those Socialist ideals of, "To each according to his needs".
  6.23 p.m.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: It falls to my pleasant lot to congratulate most warmly the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) on a brilliant and modest maiden speech. Over the past 60 or 70 years, the House has been greatly enriched by the fine type of South Wales coal miner who has come here, and we remember with gratitude the hon. Member's predecessor as a modest man who was well informed on both local government and national matters. The hon. Member showed signs of maintaining that high standard which we have come to expect from Welsh representatives from the coal mines.
  I agree with the hon. Member that the greatest curse of the modern age is persistent unemployment. The fact that his people are suffering 9 per cent. unemployment at present gives him every reason to use infinitely stronger language the next time that he speaks. It was a pleasure to listen to him, and I hope that he will catch the eye of the Chair many times and that I shall be here to listen to him. I again congratulate him most warmly.
  It is strange how Ministers seem to make good speeches once they leave office. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) whom I am sorry not to see here now, said that there will be no increase in production in 1967. He should know for he has just come from the Department of Economic Affairs. We know that Government expenditure will rise by £700 million, and therefore one of two things must result: there must either be substantially increased taxation or corresponding inflation. Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there will be no increased taxation, we must expect considerably increased inflation in the coming year. Both sides of the House should face that.
  I believe that the Chancellor's Budget, which bitterly disappointed so many of his supporters below the Gangway, deserved a better Press than it received this morning. To me, it was a Micawberish Budget, imposed upon him by the international bankers to whom he owes so much, who have rescued him before, and who will have to rescue him again. We should remember that a Chancellor of the Exchequer, like everyone else when he is a debtor, is not a free agent. It

  1267
  seems to me that the Chancellor has become a willing prisoner of the "gnomes of Zurich", in whose name he spoke yesterday and on whose behalf he seemed to speak exclusively.
  In my opinion, he rightly puts the strength of sterling as a first priority. It was not the sort of full-blooded Budget that a Socialist Party with a 100 majority in the House could reasonably have expected, but I believe that the Chancellor is no longer a full-blooded Socialist. He has been converted by the international bankers, who trust and admire him, and the financial facts of life, into a mild capitalist. In that respect, he is following the footsteps of Philip Snowden. I think that that is the key to the situation.
  In his absence, I congratulate the Chancellor on his successful handling of the narrow aspects of our financial problems. It is no mean feat for him to have contained inflation in this country to 4 per cent. in an inflating world. I have just returned from South America, where even sound businesses must pay up to 70 per cent. for temporary bank accommodation; where the bank rate is 3½ per cent. per month, or 42 per cent per annum; and where wages are adjusted every six months, at the rate of 30 per cent. per annum. But the workers are worse off, because inflation is rising at 40 per cent. per annum, and prices are always in advance of increases in wages. I believe that it is against that evil that the Chancellor is trying to protect the British worker, and he deserves the support of both sides of the House in that.
  I also believe that he is to be congratulated on his export figures; but are the additional marginal exports being sold at a profit? Are the Government-controlled agencies pushing exports, even at a loss? Any fool can give goods away, and to sell exports at a loss is a mug's game, from the point of view of both companies and the nation.
  The Chancellor is also to be congratulated on balancing the nation's books and starting to repay our international loans. But how far is our improved gold and dollar reserve due to the influx of "hot" money which, at a turn of world political events, could go away as quickly as it came? Is our financial position as good as the Chancellor makes it out to be? The nation should be told.
  1268
  The crucial point is that it is possible, individually or nationally, to have a fat bank balance and yet have an empty stomach. It is not merely the bank balance that matters. Industrial production is far more important than inflated gold and dollar reserves. The present industrial stagnation is the true measure of the Government's failure.
  As an ordinary business man I warn the Government of the trade position as I see it. I agree that this is from my own narrow experience, but I still speak as a business man. In some trades of which I have knowledge the outlook today is worse than it has been at any time since 1951. Short-time working, unemployment, and loss of profits are bedevilling many small family businesses. Many people, workers and employers alike, are losing heart. There is a lack of confidence which I believe will grow. This is the most serious problem facing us.
  The Chancellor's gravest problem is to get the whole nation—managers and employers, as well as workers—to do a really fair and hard week's work and to be prepared to adopt and use the latest techniques for industrial production. This is the core of our problem. The Chancellor will not get that extra production from all grades in industry by taxing people to death for working harder. He must allow people to keep more of the money they earn and let them spend it in their own way. This is the way to success.
  On the other hand, I hope that the Chancellor will stick to his stern financial controls for at least another two years. He will not get and maintain honest money until he deals with the basic causes of inflation which, generally speaking, are excessive national and local government expenditure, a swollen bureaucracy, and high taxation.
  I remind the Committee of one or two important figures. National and local government expenditure in the 10 years 1955–65 increased from £6,459 million to £13,334 million. Since 1964 the Government have employed 200,000 extra civil servants. If we assume that each civil servant costs £1,000 per annum, we have been charging ourselves an extra £200 million per year since 1964 to govern ourselves. We are over-taxed because we are over-governed. The one cannot be altered unless the other is altered.

  1269
  I am glad that the Chancellor has not yielded to the unwise demands for the inflation of our economy at a rapid rate. Above all, he must not reflate the public sector to the detriment of the private sector, because it is the private sector that produces the profits which the Chancellor taxes at the rate of 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. and from which the welfare services are maintained.
  In the last 20 years the four major nationalised industries—coal, gas, electricity and transport—have employed about £8,000 million of public money. The Welfare State has not received a farthing from any one of those four great nationalised industries in taxation out of profits in the last 20 years. Had that money been invested normally in the private sector and produced, as we reckon, an average return of 10 per cent., of which the Chancellor would have taken at least 50 per cent., the Welfare State would have had £400 million every year to help pay for hospitals, schools and old age pensions. This is why I hope that when reflation comes it will be in the private sector and not in the public sector.
  I also hope that the Chancellor will not surrender to the pressure from both sides of the House of Commons for the ending of the prices and incomes policy. Such a policy was, and still is, urgently needed. I am not sure that a prices and incomes policy should not become a permanent feature of our national life, no matter which party is in power. With time and experience, adjustments would naturally have to be made.
  Whilst I was in South America I read a report, which I take to be true, that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), who had apparently been attacking the Government, had said in one of his speeches or letters that an incomes and prices policy was pure Fascism. That is arrant nonsense. I believe that it is far more dangerous to allow incomes to be fixed by the trade unions in conjunction with, or in conspiracy with, employers' federations, without any respect for the prices the consumer must pay at home or the foreigner must pay abroad.
  In the last speech Mr. Frank Cousins made in the House—it was a brilliant speech, when he had ceased to be a Minister, a much more brilliant speech than any he made whilst he was a
  1270
  Minister—he said that the economic issues confronting the nation would not be solved in the House of Commons. That contempt for the House of Commons is far nearer Fascism than any Government-supported prices and incomes policy.
  In this modern world the Government, of whatever party, have no option than to take an effective interest in prices and incomes, for if, as I learned has happened in South America—the Committee will forgive me for referring to my trip again—the trade unions become more powerful than the Government, that is the end of liberty. Workers and trade unions have a right to put their point of view, but the Government must have the last word, no matter which party forms the Government. Therefore, I hope that the Chancellor will stick rigidly to the prices and incomes policy.
  Hon. Members opposite who have agreed with me so far will not agree with this. I appeal to the Chancellor to look afresh at the rate of Income Tax and Surtax he is imposing. Here I declare my personal interest. I am a heavy Surtax payer and have been for 30 years. I should like to see Income Tax and Surtax reduced by one-half. I believe that this would encourage men to take greater commercial risks, to accept greater responsibility, and to work much harder. That, in turn, would greatly increase the national income. Everybody would be better off.
  It is not a question of giving to the rich and taking from the poor. In my opinion, a reduction of taxes is the only way in which we can have a vastly increased national cake from which everybody can have a bigger slice. It is high time some hon. Members opposite abandoned the stupid, nonsensical belief that it is somehow a crime or a sin to be rich, either individually or nationally.
  The problem facing the Government and the Chancellor is this. The profit motive is the mainspring of the capitalist system. Last year Income Tax and Surtax was at the rate of 19s. 3d. in the £. Who can expect a sensible man to take extra responsibilities and risks to gain 9d. in the £? It is unreasonable, it is crazy. In addition, if a man is fortunate and far-sighted in other matters, and if he makes a capital gain, he has to pay 30 per cent.

  1271
  on that. When he dies, if he has been unwise enough not to pass his money on to his family, then his family may be faced with 80 per cent. death duties.
  The Chancellor may retort that no one pays 19s. 3d. on the whole of his income. The Chancellor will say that about 14s. 6d. is the average effective rate. I call that Civil Service hokus-pokus. It is not the average return that matters, it is the marginal bit that matters. A man asks himself, "What am I going to get out of it? Why should I build an extra factory; why should I take the extra responsibility? What am I going to get out of it?" There is nothing wrong with a man saying that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Public ownership."] The hon. Gentleman says "Public ownership". I have just tried to show that it has produced nothing but tragic losses. A Welfare State cannot live on losses.
  The Chancellor has to face this. If he is not to allow the capitalist system to work properly, if he is to destroy the profit motive, what will he put in its place? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rhondda, West finished his speech with the cliché, "From everyone according to his ability." How can one get that? How does one make a person work who does not want to work? No one can deny that there is a minority of idle and good-for-nothing people in the country.
  Mr. Heffer: Hear, hear.
  Sir C. Osborne: What we have to face is: what is the alternative to the profit motive? Hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway seem to think that "profit" is a nasty, dirty word, and that no one can make a profit unless he steals from someone else. That is such old-fashioned nonsense that I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen use it.
  We all know that about 30 years ago, in Communist Russia, under Marshal Stalin, results were achieved by the threat of Siberia and, if necessary, the tommy gun. Today in Soviet Russia the new rulers are wisely reintroducing the profit motive—
  Mr. Heffer: But not private enterprise.
  Sir C. Osborne: It is no good the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool,
  1272
  Walton (Mr. Heffer) chuntering away in his seat. Perhaps when his turn comes he will tell the House what he will put in place of the profit motive, and how he will get people to work. The only way the system will be made to work to its maximum efficiency is to pay the men for the work and let them keep a much larger share of what they earn.
  It may be asked: why should the rich have more? It is the few exceptional men in industry who matter, as in sport. Hon. Members will recognise that if Aston Villa or West Bromwich could get Jimmy Greaves to play for them, it would make a difference to their teams. If one does not pay the exceptional men, one will not get the exceptional circumstances. The enmity and envy that the party opposite have always shown towards profit making and those fortunate in profit making is something which has done the country a great deal of harm.
  The Chancellor has to face this dilemma. He has either to let the profit-motive work properly or put something better in its place. I have not heard, in the 20 years that I have been in this House, one responsible Socialist Minister or, when in Opposition, a Front Bench spokesman say what the alternative policy is. The Chancellor said yesterday that we live in a mixed economy. The heart of the mixture which is nationalised always loses. How will he make the half that is privately-owned work properly?
  The Chancellor has to make very drastic cuts in Government expenditure—
  Mr. James Dempsey: Where?
  Sir C. Osborne: I expected that stupid intervention. We need a new Beveridge to investigate the waste and extravagances of the welfare services, and to stop a good deal of sponging on those services. The original Beveridge estimate for 1945 was £697 million, rising to £858 million for last year. The actual cost of those services last year was not £858 million but £3,681 million. This should be investigated. It does not necessarily follow that we are doing a lot of good for our people by pouring money out regardless. Unless this colossal expenditure is cut, there can be no serious reduction in taxation.
  I should like to see the Chancellor take a risk and take 2s. 6d. off Income Tax

  1273
  and Surtax, and see if he does not get the bigger cake that I am sure he would get. I am certain that he would get such increased industrial efficiency that it would surprise him. If he will not take that risk, he has to come to some greater form of compulsion, of which hon. Gentlemen opposite think so much and which the trade unions oppose so bitterly. My plea to the Government is that we should get taxation down as quickly as possible, and we shall do that only by cutting Government expenditure. In the meantime, I hope that the Chancellor will stick to the rigid controls that he now exercises.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. William Edwards: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) in his outline of our economic policy—very few people do, even on his own side of the House. I think that the Budget, rather than being the subject of a full four-day debate, could have been introduced as a Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and could have been given a couple of days' debating time. We have so many important Bills requiring much Parliamentary time that we should not spend four days debating this rather irrelevant Budget.
  I am also in some difficulty in that I have to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) who, in his excellent speech, outlined the problems of the Principality, as he saw them and as I see them. As one involved in the by-elections with which we were faced in the Rhondda, I know that there were only two factors which ensured my hon. Friend's arrival in this House. One was the loyalty of the people of Rhondda. Despite their chronic economic difficulties they supported the Government. The other factor was my hon. Friend's ability, which we have now witnessed.
  As this Budget is of rather a miscellaneous character, my speech will be something of a miscellany. There is only one thing that I can think of which commends the kind of Budget which we have had, and it is that it does absolutely nothing to disturb the bankers of Europe, and the view of the capitalists of Europe of our economy, particularly when we are trying to obtain entry to the Common Market. There is nothing in the Budget which offends any European capitalist or
  1274
  any adviser of a European Government with doubts about our entry. There is nothing which offends against their economic thought.
  Since we are dealing with a miscellany, I should like to comment on one or two miscellaneous matters which are surprising by their absence. As a practising solicitor, when I heard that the Stamp Duty provisions were to be amended and that the lower level would be raised to £5,000 I was amazed this time, as I was amazed before, that the exclusion of the payment of Stamp Duty was not extended to mortgages. The man with £5,000 who can pay cash for a house gets away without paying Stamp Duty, whereas people such as those who sent Members on this side of the House to Westminster, who have to borrow money, pay Stamp Duty. It is time that we dealt with the situation. I am surprised that the Budget did not deal with this small amendment which is so long overdue.
  Provision could have been put in the Bill to deal with death duty relief on agricultural land. I have mentioned this matter before. In the last five or six years a situation has arisen which was never envisaged when the death duty relief for agricultural land was given. Farming incomes are falling. The profitability of farming per acre is going down and the price of agricultural land is going up. It is obvious that one of the main causes for the increase in the price of agricultural land is the considerable death duty relief which holders of agricultural land get.
  I know of one estate which holds agricultural land to the value of about £1 million, and the death duty relief which it is getting is considerable because the money is tied up in agricultural land. The advantage of death duty to some wealthy landowners, particularly elderly landowners, is so great that they do not have to bother about the way in which the land is farmed. They do not want to be worried with tenants. One landowner in my constituency, whenever a farm becomes vacant, razes the farmhouse to the ground and farms the land indifferently. He can afford to do so: he is a millionaire twice over. The death duty relief to his successors is greater than any profit which he could make out of farming the land properly.

  1275
  It is time that the Labour Government looked anew at this situation and realised that there is no need to give incentives for investing money in agricultural land. The demand for agricultural land is already great, and there is absolutely no economic advantage to the country, to the Treasury or to agriculture in allowing this relief to large holders of agricultural land. The Treasury could give the relief only in respect of agricultural land which is let to a tenant. That is where the relief could be of advantage to farmers. The death duty relief could be given when land is bought and then let to young farmers who want to make their way in agriculture.
  I refer to one other omission from the Budget. Long before the Budget there was an indication that there would be reform on the question of child poverty. A strong indication was given in the newspapers—I do not know whether it was an inspired leak—that the Government were thinking about changing the family allowance provisions for large families. Not only have the Government not done that but they have not given any indication that they are thinking about it. They have indicated that they are thinking about other things—for instance, about changing the Selective Employment Tax—but we have had no indication that even thought has been given to the question of child poverty.
  We have heard about the problems of Rhondda. In my county of Merioneth we are facing a strange situation The people of the Rhondda who have become unemployed as a result of pit closures are getting high unemployment benefit as their income was higher than the national average. But the people in my constituency, while working, are getting far less for doing a week's work than they would get if they were unemployed and if they have three or four children.
  We have heard that the First Secretary of State has faith in his prices and incomes policy. I have the same faith in it. I will continue to have faith in it. But I can persuade the people in my constituency that there is merit in this policy, that it will help those who are not working in modern industries, that those who are not represented by powerful trade unions and that those who are getting a wage far less than the national
  1276
  average will have their income raised, only if I can tell them that they will get benefits from it. But those benefits are not coming. There is no sign in the Budget of the benefits being given to the people who need them most.
  In my constituency, council house rents have recently gone up in one area by 15s. a week. The average gross income of a forestry worker, farm worker or quarry-man is about £11. Men are taking home £9 10s., and they have to pay council house rents of £3 and maintain their wives and families on this inadequate sum. There is no indication in the Budget that the Government are trying to adapt the prices and incomes policy, not only to keep wages down when there are pressures on the economy, but to raise the standard of the lower paid worker and the worker who is not strongly represented by trade unions.
  Until this happens, we shall continue to have the kind of protest vote which we had in Rhondda. It is nonsense to say that the people of Rhondda were voting to have a Welsh National Government. They were not. They were protesting, and they will continue to protest. The very people who have sent us to the House and who have supported the Labour Party all their lives will not support us again unless we translate the policies which we sold them at the last election into Socialist policies.
  This Budget was a brief Budget. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not a brief speech. But I do not think there is any need to comment at length on the Budget.
  There is only one other matter which I should like to mention. It was dealt with extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West. I refer to the position of my county in relation to the amendment of the Selective Employment Tax, which was proposed, not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but by the Department of Economic Affairs. According to the Green Paper, it is proposed to pay a premium of £2 per head for every worker employed in manufacturing industry. In my county, only 7 per cent. of the population is employed in manufacturing industry. Eighty per cent. of the population is employed in service industries. It is ridiculous that the Selective Employment Tax should be paid

  1277
  in respect of people employed in quarrying, agriculture, tourism and in all the other services which we have to provide for the tourists who flock—and thank goodness they are flocking—to our county.
  A far more sensible amendment of the Selective Employment Tax would be to abolish payment of it in the development areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West said, one cannot go in for redeployment in an area in which the majority of people depend on service industries.
  However much money the Government give to try to promote the growth of industry in Wales, that growth will, in the final analysis, depend on the growth and development of industry in the Midlands. Perhaps the Chancellor is right, on the advice he gets, not to move forward in this Budget. But surely he could have approached a reflation of the economy without foreseeing disaster to the economy as a whole. If the prices and incomes policy means anything, it must mean that if some reflation occurred, there would not need to be a bout of inflation. Our economy in Wales will not improve and we will not get new industries coming to my constituency until there is an excess of employment in the Midlands—until there are more jobs than workers there.
  I was speaking to an industrialist who was thinking of coming to my county. An advance factory was being provided and everything that the Government could do was being done. The Welsh Office was doing all that it could do to try to attract him to the county, but he told me, "I would love to come to your part of the world, but I cannot think about moving industry out of the area in which I now am because in that area there is an unemployment rate of 4 per cent. I could not possibly talk about setting up a subsidiary company in Wales or in any other development area while the fear of unemployment exists in the area in which I am now providing the bulk of employment". Until we get some reflation, we will merely provide a structure to absorb work when that reflation finally happens, but we will not improve the position of the development areas until that reflation occurs.
  In my part of the world we have some manufacturing industries, but most of them are subsidiaries of large companies
  1278
  in other parts of the country. I fear that if there were a payment of £2 a head for all persons employed in the subsidiaries in Wales, the large companies would apply two policies, the first to their main works and the second to the subsidiary companies. A large company would apply to its main works a policy of modernisation and investment in new plant and machinery, while it would save on capital expenditure at its subsidiary company. In the medium term, if this happened, we would reach a new situation in Wales, with modernisation occurring in the Midlands, and in five years' time the plant in Wales would be closed, it being out of date.
  We in Wales need a far more sophisticated policy to meet our problems, but the main thing we need is a reflation of the economy so that the economy as a whole can move forward—and when it is moving forward we can then ensure a more Socialist and equitable distribution of industry.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) used a good phrase when he dubbed the Budget a "Financial (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill". It is evident that he disagrees with most of its miscellaneous provisions. I hope that the Minister is in a position to answer some questions about some of these miscellaneous provisions and, in particular, the Financial Statement 1967–68, because there are some miscellaneous provisions in that which need amplifying.
  On page 23, dealing with capital expenditure, there is a curious item headed:
  "Cash expenditure on acquiring company securities … £48 million".
  When the First Secretary was trying to reassure the C.B.I., I trust that he realised that the members of the C.B.I. read the small print on all documents and are not likely to be happy about a provision to spend nearly £50 million on acquiring company shares. Nor, I suggest, would his hon. Friends want such an amount spent on this exercise rather than on social provisions.
  Will the Minister comment on what the Government will have to borrow this year? Table VII, on page 14,
  "Exchequer Borrowing and Special Transactions"

  1279
  looks as if it will have to be swollen a lot this year because the net borrowing requirement is up from £740 million to £940 million, an increase of £200 million to be borrowed. This seems to take no account of the prospect of having to put on the market something like £500 million worth of Government paper in respect of financing the acquisition for the National Steel Corporation of equity and stock shares in steel companies. How will these feature?
  Suppose the holders of this new Government stock want to off-load it immediately? How much do the Government then think that they will be able to borrow for other requirements? Do the Government consider that they will have to increase the floating debt? These questions are pertinent to the buoyancy of the gilt-edged market and inflationary tendencies. While the Budget is a miscellaneous Budget, we are entitled to clear answers to these questions.
  Although difficult in a Budget of this type, one must try to speak on a broader theme. The only real congratulations I am inclined to offer the Chancellor this year is that he has made the balance of payments the central theme of his Budget, rather than the residual theme, which has been the case in the past. The National Institute's review used a nice phrase to describe an in-built error in the National Plan when it referred to the "strong target element" in the balance of payments, which is a rather formal way of saying that the Government were trying to get to the moon in a minicab.
  The Chancellor has brought the balance of payments back to the centre of the picture, but it seems that although he has made it his central theme the prospects are not nearly as rosy as the apologists for the Government would claim. The whole justification for the squeeze and freeze and holding back of reflation—with the effects that this has had on constituencies represented by the hon. Member for Merioneth and other development areas—and the whole apologia for this is to strengthen the balance of payments. However, the record is a poor one if one considers what has been going on in the two years since the Labour Party came to power.
  I note from the Government's Economic Report that total imports for
  1280
  the first nine months of 1966 were 5 per cent. higher than the average for 1965. Most striking of all is the fact that this is only 1 per cent. above the average for the past decade, during which time they were 4 per cent.—this in a year when the economy has been deliberately held back to strengthen the balance of payments.
  It is not very famous, particularly when one reflects that imports were deliberately held back in the latter part of 1966 in prospect of the lifting of the surcharge—they would probably have been much higher otherwise—and there is little to crow about in this increase. Ministers may claim that the figures are better than 1964. But there was one factor in 1964 to which not enough attention has been paid, a factor that will recur. It is that there was a quite sensational increase in stock building in 1964. The figure for stock building, which went a long way to distort the current balance, was more than the total of stock building for 1963 and 1965 put together.
  Although they made quite a lot of political capital out of the trade imbalance in 1964, there is no doubt the Government have been able to make a good deal of hard material capital out of 1964 in the shape of the very substantial volume of stock building, and they have lived off the fat of it in 1965. When they reflate, the stock building figure will increase again, and, if imports are already rising substantially, how much more serious will it be when reflation starts?
  Another figure which is relevant to some of our broader economic problems is that in 1966, in which investment by private industry is down on the previous year, we find that imports of "mainly capital goods" have gone up by 13 per cent. How do the Government account for that? They have succeeded in depressing investment and, at the same time, there has been a massive rise in imports of mainly capital goods.
  One explanation is that the public sector which has been expanding has been responsible. It is an interesting idea that the public sector goes shopping abroad on this scale, and no doubt the Government will pay attention to that. But the truth is that these imports of

  1281
  mainly manufactured goods have come in this year because they are competitive. The reason why they are competitive is that a lot of capital plant is operating below capacity, unit costs consequently rise, and the squeeze has the reverse effect to the Government's policy. It raises the costs of industry and makes its products less competitive, and imports are sucked in in that way.
  Turning to exports, here again the picture is a very poor one overall. Again, one finds the staggering fact that in 1966, when everything is meant to be held back to make room for exports, exports of motor cars were 20 per cent. lower than in 1964, which was the year of maximum boom demand at home, and 17 per cent. below the average for the years between 1963 and 1965.
  Here are the Government choking back demand at home and increasing unemployment on the broad excuse that they are strengthening the balance of payments for the future; yet we find a 20 per cent. drop in exports of British cars compared with 1964. That surely suggests that the squeeze and freeze by the Government and the shifting of the emphasis to public expenditure has the reverse effect. It raises unit costs in industry, making exports more difficult, and has the contrary outcome to that which the Government want.
  The same is true of steel, which is another basic industry. In 1964, which was a year of great pressure on resources, steel exports went up steadily. In 1966, the year of squeeze and freeze to make room for exports, steel exports went down steadily. Again unit costs have risen due to under-utilisation of capacity resulting in fierce competition from abroad. This is the effect of a Government who are meant to understand how the economy works.
  These may be mere details, but they add up to a picture which is far from rosy. Taking it in broad terms, the volume of exports this year has increased at 3¼ per cent. which, according to the Government's Red Book, is
  "only a little above the average for the past decade."
  This is at a time when we have the highest level of deliberately contrived unemployment since the end of the war. It has produced this mouse of an increase in exports. It is quite laughable.
  1282
  There are one or two other points which should be made about exports in the light of the way the economy is moving at present. One is the figure of exports to the United States, which should be a matter of concern to Ministers and particularly to some hon. Members on the back benches opposite.
  One satisfactory feature of the performance in 1966 has been the rise in exports to America. They have not only gone up by 50 per cent.-odd, but represent one-eighth of all our exports. I wonder whether Ministers have pondered how vulnerable they are here. If the United States take one-eighth of our exports, it is ironic to reflect on the attitude of some hon. Members who sit below the Gangway opposite and whose hearts are more in Moscow than in Washington, because, if the United States Government pursue the same policy in respect of commercial activities as the Iron Curtain countries—
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman made a very interesting statement just now. Who are the hon. Members who are supposed to have their hearts in Moscow rather than in Washington? You.
  Mr. Alison: I always enjoy the interventions of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). He has some splendid contributions to make, and one of the things which I like most about him is that his heart is in the right place. I shall not be specific in his case and tell the Committee where it is.
  Mr. Heffer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell us where his heart is.
  Mr. Alison: Speaking for myself, my heart is in Yorkshire. However, there are hon. Members who have their hearts in different capitals. Some have them in Moscow, and others have them in Washington. Those who have their hearts in Moscow—and I make no apology for claiming that there are such—had better think when criticising the United States Government. If Washington pursued the same policies and treated trade as an instrument of politics rather than commerce, as the Iron Curtain countries do, Britain would be a puppet on a string, with one-eighth of her exports tied up in the United States.
  If the war in Vietnam comes to an end, with one-eighth of our trade lying in

  1283
  the direction of the United States and the possibility of severe recession in the United States, as happened after the Korean War, the prospects for this country are far from rosy. The Government have to recognise that a large number of our eggs in commercial terms are in the United States basket.
  All this adds up to saying that the prospects are not as rosy as the Government try to pretend in justifying this massive dose of freeze and squeeze, putting all previous Tory Measures into the shade, on the grounds that they are making room for exports. In the last two years there has been only a modest increase in the rate of exports, together with a massive increase in a great many of our imports, particularly in terms of machinery and capital goods. It is not a rosy prospect, and the Government have nothing to be pleased about.
  If the Chancellor has put the main emphasis in his speech on the balance of payments instead of leaving it as a residual, who has been the residual legatee in his Budget? As so often happens with a Socialist Government, it is the private enterprise business sector or, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, the goose that lays the golden eggs. This is the sector which has been bashed, and it has been bashed in the interests of increasing substantially Government expenditure through the public sector.
  Now that we have the Chief Secretary to the Treasury with us, perhaps I might be allowed to dwell a little on the increase in Government expenditure, because there are one or two aspects of it on which I want to question him.
  First of all, how does he account for the fact that this year, the "Financial Statement", Paper 404, does not have that useful information at the back of it which the corresponding document had last year and which helped one to make an assessment of the volume of expenditure in the public sector and showed a continuity of presentation from that famous White Paper (Cmnd. 2915)?
  I remind the Chief Secretary that the famous White Paper 2915, of February, 1966, stated quite boldly and baldly in paragraph 16 that
  "the rate of growth of the aggregate of public sector expenditure … from 1964–65 to
  1284
  1969–70 should not exceed 23 per cent. (i.e., an average of 4¼ per cent. a year) at constant prices."
  Indeed, it went so far in Table 3, on page 26, to point out what the volume of public sector expenditure would be in the year 1969–70, that is to say, the next financial year.
  We find that it was due to be about £13,000 million and yet, believe it or not, we have more than got there a year in advance. This with the economy stagnant.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond)The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Alison: The Chief Secretary shakes his head, but—
  Mr. Diamond: Is the hon. Gentleman giving us a comparison in constant figures, comparable figures, or prices at the time?
  Mr. Alison: The figure published in the White Paper was £13,295 million by 1969–70 at what were called "1965 survey prices". My calculation of the figure for this year 1967–78, is £13,577 million at 1967 prices. It therefore ought to be marginally devalued to compensate for the rise in prices between 1965 and 1967, but not to the extent of making the whole timetable of progression at the 4¼ per cent. per annum fall into line in the way the Government pledge themselves to do.
  My complaint is that the Government have obscured this by not producing the familiar table on the back page of this document which in last year's paper was Table 12 headed, "Reconciliation between total supply expenditure and total public expenditure". It would help if the right hon. Gentleman were to consider reproducing this at a later date for the benefit of those who follow these figures.
  I think that the problem with which we are faced in this huge growth of public expenditure is that it is the enemy and not the friend of a policy of making way for exports, as I have tried to show. I referred, in particular, to the example of the decline in the export of motor cars. One of the most serious aspects of this growth in Government expenditure is its effect on what the Chancellor was at some pains to spell out as the "growth of productive potential". Productive potential and the growth thereof is made up of two components. First, there is the increase or growth in productivity, namely, output

  1285
  per head, but associated with that there is secondly the growth in the number of heads from which to get the growth in output.
  Let me consider, first, the growth in productivity. It is plain that with the serious decline in industrial investment, particularly in the private manufacturing sector, caused by a decline in confidence, productivity per head and its growth will not be easy to maintain at the original level aimed for.
  But what about the growth in the number of heads to compensate for this? This is where we come up against the most serious aspect of the increase in Government expenditure, because the manpower prospects for the years to 1970 are poor. The population is expected to increase by three-quarters of 1 per cent. up to 1970, but the difficulty is that those who are users of public services, namely, children below 14 or 15 and old-age pensioners, will increase by a very much greater percentage, by about 2 per cent.
  This means that they are bound to pre-empt an ever-larger volume of Government expenditure without any increase in standards, simply through an increase in numbers. It means that without any expansion in terms of new ideas or gimmicks, or further governmental bodies, or an increase in civil servants, but merely to maintain the services at existing levels, they will pre-empt an ever-larger number of men and women to work in the public service. This is the most worrying aspect of the whole growth of Government expenditure, and the White Paper to which I have referred was quite explicit about this. Paragraph 21 said:
  "One fact of particular importance was the requirement of the health and education services together with public administration for some 500,000 extra people between 1964 and 1970, a requirement greater than the total increase of manpower expected to be available."
  One of the things that is happening as a result of this huge boom in Government expenditure is that they are taking up those who are being thrown on to the employment exchanges as a result of unemployment and sweeping them into the public sector, which has an insatiable demand for people. Is this in the interests of exports? I doubt it, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman of three disadvantages of channelling manpower, an
  1286
  essentially scarce commodity, into the public services.
  First, it is difficult to see the contribution which it makes to exports, to increase for example the expenditure on amenities by local authorities which represent one of the places to which extra manpower is going. Secondly, it pre-empts an unusually large degree of skilled manpower, particularly in activities associated with the defence budget. Thirdly, and perhaps most serious, it is labour-intensive, and wages and salaries make up an unusually high proportion of its total costs.
  Not only is that true, but the public sector tends to be a pace-setter in fixing levels of wages and salaries where its employees are unionised. This is particularly true in Royal Ordnance factories. This means that there is an in-built tendency for public sector expenditure, which is increasing rapidly, to take more and more men out of exporting activities, and, at the same time, to increase the pressure on wages and salaries. This is the result of the Government's attempt to make room for exports by creating unemployment. It is no wonder that the export of British motorcars fell by 20 per cent. in 1966 compared with 1964.
  This all represents an intolerable programme of mis-management by the Government, and although the Budget is bitty and miscellaneous, the long-term damage to the country is incalculable. Until we get back to banning an increase in bureaucracy, and boosting business enterprise, we shall not get anywhere.
  7.29 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Maclcod) welcomed this method of introducing a Green Paper as a means of discussing new problems that come before us. I, too, welcome this method of introducing it, mainly because I know the difficulties which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had in introducing new taxes and other measures.
  When my right hon. Friend announced the introduction of Corporation Tax, he was denounced for introducing uncertainty and instead of accepting the possibility of offering advice, which such an announcement made possible, all he

  1287
  received was a certain amount of derision from hon. Gentlemen opposite. When he tried the other method and introduced the S.E.T. by working it all out and then producing it before the House, he was berated for the anomalies thereby produced.
  In this sort of situation the Chancellor cannot win, but at least the Green Paper might be a method which might command the acceptance of the House. For some time I have been advocating a slowing down of the way in which we introduce our taxes so that they can receive this sort of consideration. Some of them are more suitable for examination by a special committee. I had hoped during the Second Reading of the Companies Bill that the second Companies Bill which we were promised would go before such a special committee. Perhaps the Green Paper might go before such a committee. I hope that this idea might commend itself to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
  At this stage Government economic policy is becoming clear. We have heard the use of the phrase "export-led reflation". Many of us hoped that it would mean a big increase in exports, following which we might have a large increase in growth. It is now clear, however, that the term means that the reflationary screw will be kept down tight and will be released only as exports rise. As they rise the Treasury will do its sums and decide the amount of imports that can be allowed, the wage increases that can be permitted, the amount of inflation that can be tolerated, the level of unemployment that will be acceptable, and how much investment will fit in with this plan. In other words, the exports will determine the rate of economic advance. Because of this, assistance to exports by means of an export rebate, the rebate to manufacturers under S.E.T. and whatever assistance the Ministry of Technology can give, will command a higher priority now even than it did in the past.
  Some people talk about the success story of British exports, but when we examine the situation a little more closely we find that it has not been quite the success story that many people have been led to believe. It is not sufficient to talk about an increase in exports year by year. At a time when world imports—that is, the
  1288
  size of total world markets—are increasing at the highest rate ever it would be horrifying if our exports were not also increasing.
  If we study the position more closely we see that the size of the market we sell to, determined by the volume of world imports, has increased from 1961 to 1965 by 41 per cent., whereas our exports have increased by 25 per cent. Some people may be satisfied with a figure of 25 per cent., but we must compare it with the size of the market, which has increased by 41 per cent., and—to take one example—no motor car manufacturer would be satisfied with his performance if he could merely say, at the end of the day, "I have increased my business by 10 per cent. while the size of the market has increased by 30 per cent." The increase in our exports must be related to the increase in the size of the market, which is rising at an unprecedented rate.
  Taking last year's figures we find that the size of the world market increased by 9·1 per cent. as compared with the increase of 6·8 per cent. in our exports. It is clear that they have been far from enjoying the success claimed for them.
  There is another way of ascertaining the success of our exports, and this is by making a comparison between our exports and those of our main overseas trading competitors. The most comparable countries are Germany, France, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Italy. Last year Germany's exports expanded by 12½ per cent., France's by 8½ per cent., Japan's by 15½ per cent., and Italy's by 11 per cent.—compared with our 6·8 per cent.
  Some people may be satisfied with a much lower rate of growth and consequently, a much lower rate of exports than I would be prepared to accept. Some may be prepared to accept a snug corner in world markets. But we must remember that if at this stage we accept an inferior position it will not be long before people realise that they are not receiving the advantages of increasing prosperity which are being enjoyed by people in other parts of the world.
  We must also remember that if this is all that we can do with the present high level of growth of world imports, if world imports turn down or cease to expand so rapidly, we cannot expect that some

  1289
  aggressive exporters from other countries will fail to penetrate those markets which we might otherwise have hoped to keep as our personal preserves. I say this not to berate the performance of our exporters. I am fully aware of their difficulties and their need to be dealt with justly. I know that the policies of the Government have not been wholly successful in assisting them to deal with their problems.
  If the Government believe that our export efforts have been successful they may be inclined to accept that a policy of reflation which only follows a rise in exports, is a reasonable one. The true position is that our exports are expanding at a rate much less than that at which the size of the market they serve is expanding.
  It may be argued that measures are being taken to put the matter right. The First Secretary mentioned the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, which is arranging to form mergers and to make companies more efficient and so be able to export more.
  My right hon. Friend also referred to the prices and incomes policy—which will reduce the level of inflation and so of our costs abroad—and investment grants, designed to encourage people to invest more and to install more modern machinery, thereby producing more cheaply in the end, and also industrial training schemes. These measures may help to improve the position but they do not take account of what is now going on in other countries, which are also taking steps to improve their economy. It is one of our national vices to compare our future plans with the present performance of other countries. The danger is that our performance in exports will be inadequate to support the economic policy which we desire.
  Four main economic alternatives are open to us, and a further spurious one. The first main alternative concerns the high level of Government expenditure overseas. This could be cut. The second is the imposition of a closer control on imports by means of import quotas or by other methods; the third is the implementation of a deflationary policy, and the fourth is devaluation.
  The spurious one is the prices and incomes policy. The Government must be involved in the question of the level of
  1290
  prices and incomes. They cannot opt out of it. I have always maintained that a Government who were successful enough to keep the rate of inflation down to ½ per cent. or 1 per cent. below that which it would otherwise have reached would surely be justified in putting a Minister in charge. The trouble is that the main advantages of such a policy take the form of long-term benefits as the policy is refined, and the difficulty arises because the Government are trying to solve short-term problems with essentially long-term methods.
  The first main alternative that I mentioned related to the high level of Government expenditure overseas, not least, the high level of foreign expenditure. Our Government involvement overseas costs us £472 million. Despite the improvements which have been announced in making offset arrangements with Germany our Government expenditure overseas this year is likely to cost us £450 million. The countries with whom we are competing for exports have nothing like this burden to carry.
  Germany and Japan have a surplus on Government expenditure overseas. They receive more because they have foreign troops stationed in their countries. France maintains an approximate balance, and Italy has a slight deficit. That is the enormous disadvantage from which we suffer. Cutting overseas expenditure by the Government would be a partial solution to our problem.
  The second alternative is a stricter control of imports by means of import quotas or other methods which would be allowed under G.A.T.T. I favoured this solution up to the beginning of our discussions with the Common Market countries. But because of the present arrangements to go into Europe, this alternative is made unworkable at present, although it is certainly something which we should be prepared to consider as and when the political situation becomes such that we can start thinking once again about using a measure of this kind.
  The third economic alternative is heavy and prolonged deflation, which is what we now have. The fourth is devaluation, followed or accompanied by a short, sharp period of deflation. Devaluation is needed in order to move industry towards exports by giving it a

  1291
  surplus capacity. The reasons why devaluation was not followed were political and not economic, and I do not believe that it is "knocking" sterling to say so. But it is worth stating that some of those who support the Government's decision not to devalue adduce economic reasons. It is essential to be quite clear that there are economic advantages in devaluation which we might consider at some time in the future when political developments might make it possible to do so.
  The economic advantages are obvious. There is an immediate rise in exports; if exports do not rise, there is a drop in the standard of living. There is not such a drop, in fact, because exports rise in two ways. First, goods at present competitive and selling overseas are able over a period of time to increase their prices. Over months, or even over a year, prices will creep up, and so in foreign exchange terms they will be selling not far short of the price charged before the change in the exchange rate.
  That is under a system of perfect competition, and I would remind hon. Members that international world markets are the nearest approach in this world to perfect competition. In fact, prices do rise in sterling prices and in overseas currency terms they sell at almost the same prices as previously.
  The other way in which exports rise is because new exports are created, goods which were previously not competitive become competitive because of the change of prices. Because of this, a large range of products now becomes internationally competitive. Those are the two methods by which goods competitive and selling well can increase their prices and so make a contribution to the sterling amount of exports and new exports can be created because goods not previously competitive become competitive. The result is a very large increase in exports and in new markets overseas, and, particularly important, the creation of new export industries.
  All this is obvious to industry. Following devaluation in the United Kingdom in September, 1949, the increase in exports amounted to 21 per cent. in the first year and to 47 per cent. over the first two years, a massive increase caused largely by the knife-edged nature of so
  1292
  many purchasing decisions in the international market.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: If the hon. Gentleman is advocating, as I think he is, an open mind on the subject of devaluation, as our international debt position is considerably worse than it was in 1949, if we were to devalue, would not the burden of repayment of the debt be enormously increased?
  Mr. Sheldon: Most of the debt is in sterling balances in this country, but I accept that some adjustment would have to be made. However, what is obvious from the figures is that those debts are small by comparison with the substantial increase in the amount of exports—a 49 per cent. increase in the first two years following devaluation in 1949. These are enormous figures which dwarf even the large figures of losses on sterling balances, which might not all need to be repaid immediately, if repaid at all.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Will the hon. Gentleman now deal with the problem of the increased price of imports if we devalue?
  Mr. Sheldon: I thought that I had made it clear, but obviously I did not, that one needs an increase in exports to cover the increased cost of imports. Otherwise, there would be no need to increase exports. I was trying to point out that these two methods—increasing the price obtained for goods already selling and providing new exports—would give such a large increase as to make small by comparison the cost of the imports which we require, or at least to exceed that cost.
  It might be argued that what is required is a small negotiated change in the exchange rate, for example, 5 per cent. I suppose that some could adduce further reasons, such as the need to avoid retaliation. The figure of 5 per cent. is too small. It does not capture the imagination of exporters and show what new markets are open to them. It is a niggling increase which would make for merely minor adjustments here and there in trade.
  My second reason is that I do not fear the retaliation. We had it in 1949, but it had only a minor effect. It must be remembered that in 1949 we occupied

  1293
  a dominant position in world trade and that there were then few relatively undamaged economies. Who could now expect that Germany, with an increase in exports of 12½ per cent., or France with its concept of the value and importance of the franc and enjoying an increase in exports of 8½ per cent., or the United States enjoying a 10 per cent. increase in exports, would feel constrained to retaliate because we, a country occupying a much less important part of world trade than we once did, varied the exchange rate?
  However, as I have said, the real reasons, as we all know, are political and not economic. The political reasons are that undertakings have been given, undertakings most binding, and the position of sterling in the international markets is a reflection of that. I am saying that at least if we understand that the problems are political, when political solutions become possible, the matter might be considered again.
  In his Budget statement yesterday, my right hon. Friend outlined the need for a continued deflationary policy. It is not difficult to be successful in carrying out a deflationary policy. The application of the tourniquet is the one piece of medical treatment which the Treasury has fully mastered. The way in which investment and imports can be kept down by the Bank Rate and hire purchase and other fiscal and monetary measures, the way in which wage claims can be kept down because of the level at which unemployment is maintained, the way in which we are able to convince foreign bankers because of the punishment which we are prepared to inflict upon ourselves—all these ways are well charted and the paths are well trodden. To talk about success in such a policy is to talk about a victory which anyone can achieve for the asking.
  Last year, my right hon. Friend spoke of the need for his triple objective—high employment, growth and the £. The trouble is that real continued growth has been buried by our defence expenditure overseas and our excessive concern with the security of the £. Judging by my right hon. Friend's figures yesterday, the growth last year at 1½ per cent. and the year before at 2 per cent., will give an average growth rate by 1970 of 2½ per cent. Our growth rate will be less
  1294
  than half that of our main trading competitors overseas. I see nothing in our industrial organisation which should make us accept a position inferior to those of our main trading overseas competitors.
  Some might be happy with a growth rate of 2½ per cent. over that long period, but I remind hon. Members that it is impossible to proceed towards equality and fairnes without prosperity. It is far easier to achieve a fair distribution of wealth when it is being created, and almost impossible when it is not. As we saw yesterday, the money which should have been provided for the relief of child poverty, for distribution to pensioners, for slum schools and housing, will not come from increasing taxation of present incomes. It can come only from taxation on rising incomes.
  One point which the Chancellor is prepared to accept and about which I feel disturbed is the drop of 10 per cent. in industrial investment over this year. I do not accept that the alternative of public investment takes its place. The investment in industry will produce the exports which are required. It could have produced the growth this year and the growth and production next year and the year after. This production and investment is lost for all time. Even in a difficult year, surely we could have tried our utmost to preserve it. I am disappointed that even this limited objective was not accepted.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. David Howell: I agree substantially with the excellent speech which has been made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and would like to turn to some of the basic thinking behind the Budget, in particular, the phrase "the growth of productive potential", which is now being peddled vigorously by Treasury publications and the Department of Economic Affairs, to which the Chancellor yesterday and the First Secretary today made copious reference. I should make it clear that I regard this phrase the villain of the piece.
  First of all, what does it mean? Broadly, it means that we are to believe that there is a rate of growth divinely ordained, which has been cooked up by the alchemists in the Treasury and Great

  1295
  George Street, which assumes that the economy is bound to grow at a maximum limit of about 3 per cent. This figure is apparently carved on tablets of stone and must be accepted. It is described in a document from the D.E.A. the other day, on the future of planning, which said:
  "… productivity potential is broadly the rate at which the national product could grow given only the physical limitations of manpower, capital and productivity, and assuming that there are no balance of payments difficulties."
  The argument is that all the Chancellor has to do is manage demand so that it does not rise as fast as the growth of productive potential and the way will be paved for lower costs, higher exports, and so on.
  It is my belief, and, I suspect, that of a number of people who have heard the Budget debate, that this concept is meaningless. There are two reasons. First—a minor one—the Chancellor has no tools and no knowledge with which to assess the growth of productive potential, whatever that means. As the D.E.A. document implies, professional assessments of the growth of productive potential have gone up and down like a yo-yo during the past year. No one is certain at any time what it may be and it has been revised considerably over the last 12 months.
  Now, suddenly, it is brought forward as a brand-new idea to which more and more weight must apparently be attached and we are told that this is definite and likely and that we should go forward on these lines. If that is the line to be taken, as the Chancellor does not know what this figure is or how to measure it, he will fail again. He will have to take panic measures in July or November to operate on the level of demand, without the remotest knowledge of the real situation and we shall be back again in the economic wasteland.
  That is the main reason why this phrase is one of which we should be deeply suspicious, particularly when it is endowed with this spurious scientific accuracy. Much more worrying than that is that, basically, the whole concept of growth of productive potential as something determined in the way the D.E.A. thinks is "mumbo-jumbo."
  One does not need to be 10 minutes outside the cloistered world of Great
  1296
  George Street, where this concept must have been produced, to know that new capacity in a firm is not installed along these lines, but determined by the drive and energy of management and its capacity to innovate, by the amount of resources and available cash in a firm, by the readiness to apply existing and new techniques, designs and processes and, of course, by close union co-operation in installing the new equipment and machinery.
  Government policy in this Budget could have operated in all those areas if it were not for the smoky and mystic concept of productive potential which is now drawn across the scene like a veil instead. These are the areas where policy should be advanced and where hon. Members on this side have advanced and will continue to advance a whole range of proposals which will have a decisive effect in accelerating the growth of production and operating favourably on exports.
  I have no doubt—I know that this view is shared in industry and outside—that if we are to consider the growth of productive capacity it could be accelerated by 100 or 150 per cent. Taking into account the growth of modern technology and available new techniques, the sky is the limit, and the potential for the growth of productive capacity in these firms is unlimited. Therefore, to bring in this phrase at this stage in public economic debate is grossly misleading and dangerous for two reasons.
  First, it diverts the policy and attention from the key areas which I have described. The most important by far is stimulus to innovation and the provision of incentives to get growth of new capacity at the necessary speed and along the right lines. Second, it conceals the fact that the basic limiting factor which the Budget is all about is the balance of payments policies which the Government are pursuing and it somehow suggests that there are other reasons why the Government should pursue these policies. There are other reasons, but it comes down to the key point of the balance of payments. That is the prime consideration behind this year's Budget.
  Whether, at the same time, anything has been done about balance of payments policy to get the economy to move forward is another question. Deflation is

  1297
  doing nothing about the balance of payments. Export and import movements have not gone in the way that some of the more glamorous and ambitious presentations of Government policy have suggested. If we want a balance of payments policy which will allow high growth, of which the country is perfectly capable, we must consider critically a number of important areas of which the Chancellor made little mention in his speech.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned them as alternatives, but I am not sure that they do not go together—the need to revise our whole attitude to current overseas Government expenditure and to export policies, particularly as regards taxation, where it is essential that we should begin to move now and not in the future towards the kind of policies which the E.E.C. is moving towards, which would allow substantial rebates and towards various other developments of export policy of a kind which the Government do not appear yet to have considered. Finally—this is the nub—it requires the Government to look again at exchange rates.
  If the Government close their minds to those predeterminates of balance of payments policy, they are forced back on deflationary Budgets and the mumbo-jumbo about productive potential which are used to cover up the basic difficulties. It is, therefore, worth bringing out the fact that this productive potential idea is a bogus concept. It is immeasurable, it is highly conducive to muddled thinking, and I do not understand why the Chancellor should have been seduced by it. It goes slap against the policy of his party, which fought two elections on the proposition that a high growth rate was achievable and would be achieved. It demonstrates sadly, again in a way which I do not understand, that the Treasury Bench has been dominated by academic and narrow theories about the economy which have no relevance to our position. I therefore say that the country deserves a better economic policy and also a better Chancellor, which, I hope, it will soon have.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: There are three aspects of the Budget and of the Chancellor's speech on which
  1298
  I wish to concentrate. Briefly, they are, first, the question of unemployment and the basic philosophy which apparently has been developed concerning this question in the Chancellor's speech; secondly, overseas expenditure and investment; and thirdly, a redistribution of wealth and the incomes policy. That is sufficient material for a speech of about an hour and a half, but I will try to keep it within the narrow bounds of a quarter of an hour. It is obvious that all these subjects are very much interconnected and complementary to each other.
  Last week—we have been discussing it again today—we were issued with the Green Paper, which undoubtedly will mean considerable assistance to areas like my own, Merseyside, and like the Rhondda, about which we had an excellent maiden speech this afternoon from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones). I am all in favour of anything, even if I am not entirely satisfied with it, which can assist to bring industry and employment into areas such as Merseyside and the Rhondda. I make this clear because I want to develop the point about unemployment at greater length.
  I want it to be understood that I am entirely in support and in agreement with the Government in any measures which they take to reduce unemployment in the development or under-developed areas. That is support which I give wholeheartedly. My maiden speech in the House of Commons dealt precisely with the question of assistance to those areas.
  Obviously, we want to see the present imbalance changed. We must, however, look a little more deeply into the arguments which were developed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech yesterday. We must scratch beneath the surface, because if we look at that speech we see that my right hon. Friend said:
  "… we are discussing the raising of the numbers employed by, say, 100,000 in the development areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 985.]
  That would even up the imbalance, but it would leave us with precisely the present figure of unemployed, which is about half a million. This, we are told, would solve the problem.

  1299
  We would then have the spread of unemployment much more evenly distributed throughout the country. The pockets of heavy unemployment would be reduced and I believe, on the basis of certain discussions in which I have been involved, that unemployment would increase in certain areas where it is at present almost non-existent.
  That is an interesting situation, but it is not a new theory or a new idea. For a long time we have been told by certain people, by Professor Paish in particular and by the Treasury in a different form, a whole series of different ideas but with the same basic premise that if we are to solve our balance of payments problems we must have a certain amount of slack, which means about 1½ per cent. or 2 per cent. unemployment, or, possibly, a little more.
  I remember when the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was rather sold on that idea and what was said by the then Opposition when it was put forward. It was said, quite rightly, that 2 per cent. unemployment as a permanent feature of our society was not acceptable to the Labour Party. I say to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that it is not acceptable to me now, and I am certain that it is not acceptable to the Labour Party throughout the country, either. It is not part of our philosophy, and it never has been, that we should have a semi-permanent or permanent position of 1½ per cent. to 2 per cent. unemployment.
  Mr. Biffen: Can the hon. Member also confirm from his researches that the Prime Minister has endorsed that after shake-out, unemployment would be expected to be at the level of 1½ to 2 per cent.?
  Mr. Heffer: When a Question was put to the Prime Minister in the House, and the figure of 2 per cent. was suggested, it caused a certain amount of unpleasantness, to say the least, but I have never heard it said that this would be a permanently acceptable figure. On the basis, however, of the arguments now put before us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is obvious that around 2 per cent. is a permanently acceptable and, as we heard this afternoon from
  1300
  the Front Bench, tolerable level of unemployment.
  We have been told that we can have a steady growth rate of 3 per cent. and, at the same time, solve our balance of payment problem. But we cannot have a 4 per cent. rate of growth and a surplus in the balance of payments. To me, this is a very strange idea. Nevertheless, that is the theory that we are given. We can have a 3 per cent. rate of growth, which is 0·8 per cent. less than the figure envisaged in the National Plan, which is now long forgotten, and we can solve the problem of the balance of payments. The obvious point, however, is that this must be done with a level of unemployment of about 1½ or 2 per cent. It is high time we changed our views on the solution to all our economic problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), speaking at the Labour Party conference after a speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—who said that the important thing was to root out conservatism in the country—suggested that we might root our conservatism, beginning with the conservative and orthodox thinking in the Treasury—a very good place to start. I suggest that my right hon. Friends start there, and that Professor Paish's ideas, which are accepted by the Treasury, should be rooted out, and that some Socialist ideas should infiltrate that Department. Let us have some Socialist solutions to our problems, not the idea of unemployment as a permanent feature. As I have said, that idea is not acceptable to me, and I am sure that it is not acceptable to any of my hon. Friends when they really think about it.
  I do not need to dwell on the subject of our overseas expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) dealt with it brilliantly, and one does not need to go over the same ground again and again. It is obvious that there are solutions to our economic problems other than those which the Government have adopted. I have said that my first speech in this House related to directing employment to such areas as Merseyside and the West coast of Scotland. My second speech, made now two and a half years ago, was on the need for the Government to carry out drastic cuts in particular military

  1301
  overseas expenditure. I therefore think that I can claim to be absolutely consistent.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred yesterday to the £20 million involved in regard to Germany—excellent, though for one year only—and to the £100 million being taken out in regard to overseas expenditure. That is all fine, but it is not enough. It will not solve our problems. We have to recognise that we cannot continue to believe that we are a great imperial Power. We cannot continue to be a policeman of the world—we just cannot afford it, apart from anything else. If we must either have a 2 per cent. unemployment figure to solve the balance of payments crisis or get rid of our commitments east of Suez or elsewhere, I want us to get rid of our commitments east of Suez.
  If that is the choice, the choice is clear. In the meantime, we might consider a solution put up by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and others—devaluation. I shall not argue that aspect at any great length, as it is something that one does not talk about until after one has done it. But the Government must consider it.
  A prices and incomes policy is a very serious matter. The White Paper said that the Government were considering extending the powers under Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act. In a document put to a meeting of executives on 4th March, the T.U.C. said that it neither wanted Part IV to continue—which, in any case, was not to continue—but it did not want any of the powers contained in Part IV to be transferred to Part II. It did not want the activation of Part II, either.
  That is precisely what the Government suggest in the White Paper, though we do not know the exact details. We are as much in the dark about them as we were when we read the White Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne quite clearly pointed out that the results of the incomes and prices policy have been marginal. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked in terms of compulsory powers to keep wages down but in terms of appealing—appealing to those who control industry not to pay high dividends in the immediate situation. We therefore have com-
  1302
  pulsory powers over the workers' wages, but an appeal to the employers not to be too lavish in the distribution of dividends at the present moment. If any member of the Government believes that the workers in the factories and in the trade unions will swallow that, then, quite honestly, they just do not live in the same world that I do.
  Those workers and those trade unions are prepared to accept an incomes policy, but they want it to be a fair incomes policy. They also want it to be a voluntary policy operated by the trade unions themselves. I therefore appeal to my right hon. Friends not to get themselves into an unnecessary conflict with the trade unions, because in the long run that could do far more harm to our economy than leaving it to the Trades Union Congress to work out a long-term policy on incomes.
  We are deeply concerned about the philosophy lying behind this Budget discussion. The Times Business News today put its finger right on the spot when it said:
  "Mr. Callaghan has, in fact, changed his economic philosophy and has now accepted the orthodox view entirely."
  That is the charge we make. I accept that it is a very serious charge, but we are in a serious situation. We have to get out of that situation. We must have some Socialism in this Labour Party. I believe that Socialism is the real answer. That is also why I believe that we should see an expansion of public ownership.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote an excellent pamphlet in 1957 called "Post-War Economic Policies in Britain". I quote the following passage:
  "The question, therefore, is whether the disappearance of the devaluation danger will lull Britain into a false sense of security and encourage her to continue her policies of sacrificing economic strength to personal comfort or whether we shall not, now, seize this, our final opportunity, living as we are on borrowed money and borrowed time, to take all the measures necessary to make our economy strong and virile.
  We must turn now to examine the specific techniques needed for controlling the economy. I list five of these:

  1. physical controls;

  2. monetary techniques;

  3. positive incentives—subsidies, guaranteed orders, etc.;

  4. fiscal weapons;

  5. public ownership."

  1303
  I recommend my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to reread that pamphlet, to look at the philosophy that underlies it, and to reject that which has been argued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I am very glad indeed to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). Although we stand some way apart in the political spectrum, I sympathise with him and share the disgust he has expressed, not so much with his Chancellor as with all Chancellors, because he complained that the orthodox Treasury view had prevailed over the doctrines of his party and that now, after a very short time in office, his Chancellor is adopting orthodox Treasury policy instead of Socialism in his case; and I might have made the complaint that over many years my party's Chancellors adopted orthodox Treasury policy instead of Conservatism.
  I understand very well how embittering it is for the hon. Member to find that he is supporting a Chancellor who is not following policies which he may think good, although I think they would be disastrous. I entirely sympathise with him. He has indeed been very conformist in this debate. We expect rather extreme speeches from the hon. Member, out of tune with most of his hon. Friends, but that has not been at all the case today. He has been very much in tune with the chorus of unrelieved scepticism and disappointment which hon. Members have expressed throughout the day. There has been no praise at all for this Budget.
  I want to make one comment on the hon. Member's speech, because he made one point which is popular, but misleading, on the Left-wing of the Labour Party. When he talked about 2 per cent. unemployment being absolutely unacceptable I do not know whether he imagined that that implies dole queues and people permanently out of work. If that were so it would, of course, be totally unacceptable. But when economists talk about 2 per cent. unemployment they are merely envisaging something rather less than the acute shortage of labour which we normally have and which has
  1304
  bedevilled the economy since the war. I do not know whether it is a genuine misunderstanding on the part of the Left-wing of the Labour Party, but if it is not they should not mislead the country by making these statements about it.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: When we talk about 2 per cent. unemployment it means 470,000 fully unemployed, absolutely unemployed. In regions such as I represent when a man becomes out of work at age 50 or 55 he is not easily retrainable or employable again. That is why we are opposed to the level of 2 per cent. I am not trying to make a party point, but this is why there is feeling in the country generally and why we feel emotional about it. One person unemployed might be only a statistic to the economist, but his unemployment is a reality to himself and to his dependants.
  Mr. Iremonger: I sympathise with the hon. Member and accept the sincerity of what he has said, but I do not think his emotional involvement is quite just to the economist's argument. It is perfectly possible to accommodate the state of affairs he wants with the ability of the economy to hold down the general level of demand and thus avoid inflation, which is the basic problem of the British economy and has been for the last 15 years.
  I want to end my speech by 25 minutes to 9. Therefore, I should like to make my main point fairly quickly. I wish to draw to the attention of the Chancellor and to commend to him and to his hon. and right hon. Friends the importance to the economy of working women, especially the married woman who works, and the importance of putting right the many injustices which they suffer under our taxation system. I do not know whether the Chancellor has fully accepted the importance of these hard facts. One wife in every three is working and the total of wives who are working and have worked and will work when circumstances permit brings the proportion to very much more like two-thirds of all married women.
  In 1963, 53 per cent. of employed women were married. That represents an increase of 20 per cent. since the turn of the century. A report from the Ministry of Labour Research Unit estimates

  1305
  that there will be an extra 1 million women fully employed by 1980. The increase in the employment of married women is therefore one of the most significant trends in employment patterns of the whole century, and it is common to many European countries, to Australia and New Zealand, to the United States of America and to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.
  Traditionally, the majority of working wives and mothers come from the lower income groups but now the movement is very much more into the middle range of income groups. A study by Simon Yudkin and Anthea Holme entitled "Working Mothers and their Children" stated that 1,011 mothers out of 1,209, when questioned, gave finance as the prime motive for their starting to work or returning to work. I ask the Chancellor to recognise that the taxation of mothers working is of major importance in the economy, since the shortage of labour I mentioned is the prime factor in inflation and inflation is the prime factor in limiting growth; and the availability, therefore, of an important source of labour can be influenced by increasing through less unfair taxation the incentive to married women to work.
  I should like to see all cost of providing help in the home for working mothers tax-free. I should like to see the whole vicious and pernicious system of joint taxation scrapped entirely; especially in reference to Surtax, because professional women married to professional men cannot work without bringing the joint income into the Surtax and the higher Surtax brackets. This is bitterly resented in principle, and in practice it often operates as a total deterrent. It is also particularly and peculiarly socially damaging in its effect on the supply of doctors and other comparatively high income earners such as teachers and lecturers.
  I hope that when my right hon. Friend winds up the debate he will make this a main point of his and the party's policy. This is a particularly good year in which to make the point, because the Budget is a comparatively unenterprising one, and, even if we can sympathise with the Chancellor's limitations, surely this is the time for making comparatively inexpensive adjustments to the taxation system which will be of enormous general economic benefit. I hope that the policy of
  1306
  relieving the tax burden on working women, especially working wives, will continue in successive years to be part of the policy of the Conservative Party.
  I would tell my right hon. Friend that it is especially important that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen should put this forward. It comes very ill from hon. Ladies. It is proper that the point should be made by hon. Gentlemen. There is nothing men hate more than women getting a fair deal. If there is anything they hate more than women getting a fair deal it is women having the face to ask for it. Therefore, it ill becomes us to leave it to hon. Ladies; we should do it for them. I hope that we can now make a start in an area of policy which has been shamefully neglected by successive Governments, not least by the Conservative Party which has the taint of being anti-woman, and I should like it to start this year in giving a lead to the other side of the House and guaranteeing that when we sit on that side of the House we shall have a policy well in hand for putting into effect.
  There is one point that I should like to make to the Chancellor as he happens to be here. I well remember his saying in the Labour Party conference in 1965 something which comes to my mind with peculiar force and poignancy just now. There was an attack from the floor of the conference by, I think, Mr. Harry Nicholas, the leading spokesman for the trade union interests, who was objecting to the prices and incomes policy, which was then in its early day of formulation by the Labour Government. Mr. Nicholas said that the prices and incomes policy was like telling a man whose car had broken down to get out and push and offering him a corn plaster when what was needed was a new engine. It was a very powerful and persuasive argument.
  I happened to be watching on television—they did not allow me into the Conference—and I saw the Chancellor rise to reply to the debate. I thought that he handled it extraordinarily well. Very fairly, he repeated the joke about offering the man a com plaster, and then he said that what Mr. Nicholas had demanded instead of the corn plaster was a new engine. He paused and held up the drab grey publication, the National Plan, which had just come out, and said, all friendly an avuncular, "But Harry! This

  1307
  is the engine", and he patted the National Plan. I thought that that was a very effective debating point, and it was a perfectly fair argument to Mr. Nicholas, but he must be feeling pretty sick now because he has got his corn plaster and has seen the engine put down the tweeny—on the scrap heap.
  If there is one thing that the Budget—one cannot call it a Budget; there is no programme or plan—the Chancellor's speech made clear is that he has scrapped the National Plan. The whole of the 4 per cent. concept has gone. Therefore, he is saying to his Left-wing supporters, like the hon. Member for Walton and Mr. Nicholas, "What we persuaded you was the proper price that you would have to pay was a fraud, and the engine that we were offering you that would make the economy go and justify all the sacrifices that we were asking of you has broken down and will not work and you are not going to have it. All you have got is a voluntary prices and incomes policy that is now being made compulsory."
  It seemed pathetic to me when I heard the hon. Gentleman talk just now about Socialism. What we have now is a firmly established system of bureaucratic Fascism.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The speeches we have heard today have been every bit as lively as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget was dull. As far as I can recall—and I think that I have missed only one speech this afternoon—not a single speech was pro-Government, on balance, apart from that of the First Secretary.
  The Committee would wish me to express our congratulations to the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) for a very fluent and able speech. He fufils the tradition of the oratory of those who come from Wales. The hon. Member represents a constituency with very grave problems at present, and no one would dispute that in him his constituents have a very powerful advocate. We look forward to hearing him further in the future.
  Some time ago, on 17th April, 1956, Mr. Harold Macmillan made a famous remark. He said that it seemed that our statistics
  1308
  were too late to be as useful as they should be:
  "We are always as it were, looking up a train in last year's Bradshaw."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1956; Vol. 551, c. 867.]
  Times have changed; Bradshaw no longer exists—more's the pity—and two things have happened concerning the Government's economic Bradshaw. First, the trains are running a great deal slower in terms of economic growth, and, secondly, a good many interesting pages have been torn out covering the information we get from the Chancellor. I shall return to those two points later.
  First, I think that it is necessary to stress, in the general euphoria which seems to have surrounded the Government following recent balance of payments figures and the public relations talk of the success of the Government's economic policy, something that was pointed out from the back benches opposite this afternoon. Anyone can secure a favourable balance of payments if he is prepared to do so at the expense of suppressing economic activity in other ways, suppressing economic growth, investment, and so on. The crunch comes when the country tries to reinflate, after that exercise has been completed. The crucial question then is to what extent the necessary structural changes have been carried out by the Government in the meantime.
  During the last six years of Conservative government, we achieved a growth rate in the national income of 25 per cent., which was equal to that which was promised in the Government's aborted National Plan, and a great deal more than the rate of growth which we seem likely to achieve in the period which was covered by the National Plan. Even on the optimistic estimates which the Chancellor is now making, it seems unlikely that we shall achieve a 15 per cent. rate of economic growth over the six years.
  This all sounds dull, statistical stuff, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) would be the first to say that we must have fewer dull statistics. But when we think what the loss of economic growth means in terms of hospitals, roads, schools or rising standards of living, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee can regard that figure as very unfortunate. This was exemplified in an article in the Sunday Times on 9th April, headed,

  1309
  "Lost and Gone for Ever", because it is a fact that we cannot now hope to recapture the growth we have lost, particularly the investment on which we rely for future growth.
  I return to the point that the Chancellor appears to have eliminated from his Bradshaw some of the more interesting pages concerning the future outlook. Everyone on both sides of the Committee would subscribe to the view that the fact that the Budget is diminishing in importance as an annual event is good. But I hope that all of us also agree that the more information that can be got into the annual Budget speech the better it is for hon. Members, because we can then debate the matters with which we are concerned in economic policy on a sensible and factual basis.
  Before turning to discuss the question of economic policy and economic forecasting in some detail, may I say how delighted I am that the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) is to reply to the debate. It has been pointed out in the debate today that a number of ex-Ministerial speeches are a great deal better than the speeches made by the same hon. Members when they were in office. I am sure that the reverse will not be true and that we shall hear a scintillating speech from the hon. Gentleman who has come from the back benches into office.
  I shall listen with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, because he sat in the Chair during the long nights in Committee on the Prices and Incomes Bill. Throughout that time not for one moment, even at the end of a 26-hour sitting, was it possible for anyone to discern exactly what the hon. Gentleman thought about prices and incomes policy. Not for one moment did he deviate from impartiality. Therefore, I and a number of other hon. Members who served on that Committee are eagerly waiting to hear the hon. Gentleman's pronouncements on this subject.
  We recognise, too, that on the two previous major Finance Bills in 1965 and 1966 the hon. Gentleman spoke with a very great deal of technical expertise. For this reason, too, when he comes to the Dispatch Box this evening to make his maiden speech from that position we shall listen to him with great respect.
  1310
  In contrast, if I may say this without embarrassing the hon. Gentleman, when the Chancellor is here, the hon. Gentleman's expertise is somewhat different from that of the Chancellor himself when talking on economic affairs. Indeed, I think that it would be true to say of the right hon. Gentleman that he falls over backwards, to say that he is not a professional, though perhaps he might concede he is an amateur who does it for a living.
  In this context, it is relevant to refer to a pathological fear of forecasts which the Chancellor seems to display. In a debate in Committee on last year's Finance Bill we pointed out that the Chancellor would have to use the regulator, as indeed he has had to use it during the past year, and we tried to get from the Chancellor a certain amount of information on forecasts.
  The Chancellor replied in this way:
  "As everybody knows, I am neither an economist nor a statistician; I do not have a trained mind. I merely dance to an old Hungarian tune. But I have been in politics for 21 years, and have survived. The lesson that I would offer to the hon. Member"—
  that is, myself—
  "if I may in all humility, is always to pay a proper respect to arithmetic and a proper disrespect to forecasts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 1854.]
  The reference to arithmetic was perhaps not as fortunate as it might have been, because later in those debates we got into somewhat of a tangle as to the reason why the Corporation Tax rate was the rate it was. We never received from the Chief Secretary a satisfactory explanation for what my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) described as a schoolboy howler.
  Why should the Chancellor be so cagey about giving a coherent economic forecast in addition to some of the variables which he released in his Budget statement? This year's out-turn on the Budget surplus, which was supposed to be £1,047 million, turned out to be £738 million, which is an error of about one-third. The error on the National Plan is about one-third. So it does not seem reasonable that the Chancellor should feel inhibited about giving economic forecasts merely on the ground that they might turn out to be wrong and be embarrassing.

  1311
  The two instances I have mentioned have not embarrassed the right hon. Gentleman. Why, therefore, should he feel unable to give adequate economic forecasts? We know that adequate forecasts are prepared. A book has been published by the O.E.C.D. on how the Treasury prepares its forecasts. Therefore, we might reasonably hope that the right hon. Gentleman will publish the figures. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted rather more this year by way of forecasting the various variables than he has done previously—
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): More than the Tory Government did.
  Mr. Higgins: As to one or two particular figures, yes, but on balance, certainly last year, the right hon. Gentleman was far less forthcoming. This year he has merely gone some of the way towards what was estimated previously.
  Surely the time has come when this country can produce coherent economic forecasts. As has been pointed out, the National Institute and other bodies produce these forecasts. There is no reason why the Government should not fill in the gaps—in particular, the figures for stocks and for housing, which are still missing, total final expenditure, which is still missing, and the figure for consumer expenditure.
  I hope that the Chancellor will change his attitude on this matter and provide the Committee with a reasonable basis on which it can formulate an economic judgment. In the absence of such a coherent forecast I want to consider the Budget judgment which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor has put forward. Primarily, it is concerned with the relationship between the productive capacity of the country and the aggregate demand which there is likely to be for the products which the national economy is making.
  A great deal of this debate has been concerned with the figure which has suddenly crept in—this concept, so heavily criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell), of a figure for "productive potential". The figure of 3 per cent. which the Chancellor has quoted was also vigorously
  1312
  attacked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). It would be true to say that we on this side of the Committee were extremely surprised to hear the First Secretary say, in his speech, "This is a rate which can be achieved without extra effort."
  I would like to examine the statistical validity of this figure, because it is at the heart of the Chancellor's judgment. We have some guidance from the 1966 Economic Report, which the Government have recently published. It turns out this figure of 3 per cent., on which the Government are relying so heavily, and upon which the Chancellor leaned heavily in his television broadcast last night, is a rather optimistic statistical extrapolation of the figures for 1960 to 1965. The Report goes on to point out that there have been some changes since then, the standard working week has been reduced, and there have been a number of untrained entrants coming in. The Report goes on to point out that both these factors have subsequently diminished in importance, but, none the less, the Government stick to their estimate.
  It is surely clear to the Committee that whether the figures achieved from 1960 to 1965 for a reasonable basis for extrapolation depends on two things. The first is the policy of the Government. The period which is being used as a base is a period of Conservative Government, with Conservative policies and the extrapolation is being made into quite a different period, when the Government are pursuing policies which, if they are not as Socialist as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walton would like, are at any rate, not those which we on this side of the Committee would support.
  The second point is that this figure must clearly depend on the level of investment, and on improvements in technology. The fact is that investment has actually declined over the last year and the rate of investment has fallen by something over 10 per cent. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that the underlying growth of productive potential, on which the Chancellor relies, is as high as he suggests. The same is true of technology, because, clearly, new technology can be incorporated through new investment.

  1313
  I suggest to the Committee that we should look askance at the figure put forward in the Chancellor's thinking. I feel that it is mere wishful thinking, such as we had in the National Plan, when there was a target figure of 4 per cent. Now, because of their disastrous performance, the Government have said, "We will have a quite different figure. Let us have a nice round figure of 3 per cent." There is no basis for estimating one's whole Budget judgment on such a singularly tenuous foundation.
  In a radio broadcast last night the Chancellor said that the way in which this 3 per cent. figure was to be achieved was up to his right hon. Friend the First Secretary. This afternoon his right hon. Friend put forward a most remarkably nebulous collection of devices to achieve this end, including one single example of a slight improvement owing to work study, where it seemed to him, that the figure for the rate of return on capital which had been achieved was not really relevant to the exercise. We do not think that quoting a single example provides the basis for saying that national growth will go up by 3 per cent. per annum. The other policies which he advocated were no more plausible.
  There are policies which the Government might reasonably pursue in order to achieve the objective which they have set themselves. They might be described rightly as the Paish policy, which, as the hon. Member for Walton said, the Government seem firmly committed to, keeping a higher level of unemployment over the long term; then cuts in Government expenditure; then incomes policy; and then regional policy. I should like to discuss those four points.
  First, the Paish policy depends on the Government achieving a reasonable balance between productive potential and the level of aggregate demand. It has been said that this is a neutral Budget. In the sense that tax changes in the Budget are neutral—that is, no significant change in the tax rates is anticipated—that is true. But the Budget will not keep the economy on the same course, because the borrowing requirement has been increased very substantially, and this is bound to raise aggregate demand, presumably, in the Chancellor's view, in line with the 3 per cent. increase in productive potential. I hope that the
  1314
  Government spokesman, when he replies, will tell us whether that is so.
  If it as so, and the borrowing requirement is to be used to reinflate the economy in this way, we need to know to what extent credit is to come from the banks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he will have to avoid borrowing from the banks as much as possible, because if he does borrow from the banks naturally it will be used as the base for further credit-creation. We shall get what is known in technical parlance as a credit multiplier, and the extent to which Government borrowing is inflationary or reinflationary will depend very much on this. I hope that we shall hear from the hon. Gentleman how much he expects to borrow from the banks and how much he expects to get directly from saving, because it makes a real difference to the figures which the Chancellor must consider in making his Budget judgment.
  If we turn from the monetary side to the real assets side—in other words, the usual Keynesian break-down into consumption, investment, Government expenditure and overseas balance—we come to an interesting point which has arisen in the debate, namely, the split between private investment and public investment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday.
  "In our present circumstances I do not regard that"—
  that is, the growth in public expenditure—
  "as a cause for alarm. It is quite justifiable that during a period when private investment is declining public investment should be allowed to advance quite rapidly so expanding the infrastructure. … But, of course, the corollary of this proposition is that when private investment recovers there should be enough room for it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 990.]
  We now have the remarkable proposition from the right hon. Gentleman that the rise in public investment which was originally based on the miscalculations in the National Plan was, almost by design, intended to fill the fall in private investment which has taken place. He goes on to assure us that as soon as private investment increases the Government will immediately cut back on public investment.
  We have to ask which twin is the residual. It is not good enough to say that public investment will always fill any gap left by private investment since the real

  1315
  growth of the economy and the real increase in production must depend primarily on private investment and not on public spending, much of which is not concerned with producing further output.
  The second point which one needs to make—and perhaps here I can put a nautical analogy to the Chancellor—is how will he stop the ship—in this case the ship of public expenditure—because he knows that it takes a long while to stop a ship when it has got up reasonable speed. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, I found utterly implausible the idea that suddenly, any time between now and 1970, he can cut back public expenditure in order to allow private investment to go up.
  If the right hon. Gentleman intends to do this, we are entitled to ask what public expenditure he thinks he will sacrifice if we find private investment picking up again. If we do not have a reduction in public expenditure at the same time as private investment picks up, we will find ourselves in the same position that we were in last July, because the aggregate amount of demand for the resources of the economy will increase beyond capacity.
  How might we reasonably attain some increase in output in the coming period? My hon. Friends and I feel that the Chancellor has, even within the limits set by his policies of the last 18 months, failed to take this opportunity to change the pattern of taxation. We welcome his statement yesterday in which he said that he was in favour of profits. At the same time, however, he said that increased dividends would be a bad thing. The two remarks, taken together, must mean that companies already in business are going to have a considerable increase in liquidity. They will be forced to plough back the profits.
  The Chancellor tried to do the same thing with Corporation Tax of 1965. It can reasonably be criticised on the ground on which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition criticised it then—that it would lead to the survival of the fattest. We do not believe that it is a reasonable policy to encourage profits but to discourage, in every possible way, the distribution of those profits. If we
  1316
  are to encourage new and growing firms and the mobility of labour—and the former is every bit as important as the latter—it is necessary that dividends should be paid and that funds should flow into the stock market and thence into other activities which can offer the best rate of return.
  Over the last few weeks there have been many Prayers against prices and incomes Orders, and it might be helpful if I commented on the incomes policy at this stage. I would be glad if the Minister would make it clear what allowance the Chancellor has made in his Budget judgment for the bunching of wage claims which have taken place during the period of the freeze. We find ourselves in an extraordinary position, for instead of there being the usual situation at the end of a period of deflation—with wage claims being negotiated on the basis of the existing economic situation—we have at the moment a number of wage claims already negotiated when demand was much higher. These claims will become effective as soon as the six months' freeze period comes to an end.
  What estimate has the Chancellor made in his Budget judgment of the increase in aggregate demand through personal incomes which is likely to take place as a result of the defreezing process? If the Minister cannot reply tonight, I trust that the Chancellor will look into the matter and answer my question when he replies to the debate on Monday night.
  The second point that should be made clear in regard to the incomes policy is that the Chancellor yesterday quoted approvingly Mr. George Woodcock as having said, in effect "We must have either an incomes policy or a threat to employment, deflation, and so on." The Chancellor seemed to ignore the fact that we have had both a compulsory incomes policy and a greater level of unemployment—as well as deflation, stagnation and a fall in investment—all at the same time. It is no good the Chancellor quoting George Woodcock as saying that these two are alternatives when he is imposing both at once.
  We have had a growing move towards compulsion and intimidation in the incomes policy, which my hon. Friends and I have consistently opposed. It involves

  1317
  a great deal of unfairness and discrimination and this is likely to increase, we cannot put much weight on an incomes policy if it involves, as the First Secretary implied today, either compulsion or merely a degree of ear-stroking, with the Government merely saying, "You should not put in your wage claims". We are much more convinced that an economic policy depends on the successful control of the level of aggregate demand in the economy.
  I now want to say a few words about the Green Paper. It is true that when we were in Government we put forward a draft Bill on a particular subject. As a means of stimulating and encouraging discussion on tax changes, the Green Paper is a useful innovation. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), I do not propose to put forward any clear cut ideas. I wish merely to express one or two thoughts on the subject.
  It is argued that the new subsidy to the regions will be self-financing, on the ground that this balances up the regions. No one has advocated more strongly than I the fact that we need a regional policy which balances up the regions, because we could then operate the economy at a higher level of performance. But any policy which succeeds in achieving that objective will have the same self-financing advantages as the Government's own proposal, always on the assumption that the Government's proposal succeeds in bringing more efficient industry into the regions, which many of us would doubt.
  In discussing the Green Paper, therefore, we must consider all the possible alternatives, for example, by way of improving communications to the regions, which would also prove self-financing in the way that the Green Paper suggests, but which may be a better way of achieving balance. Certainly, the elimination of this regional disparity is a very important point.
  The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said that clearly the Prime Minister and the Cabinet must take the overall responsibility for economic policy. He was absolutely right in that respect, because it was the action of the Prime Minister in dividing authority between the Treasury and the Department of Economic Affairs in 1964 which was largely responsible for the crisis situation
  1318
  in which we found ourselves last July: the Chancellor's constant tax increases since the Labour Party came to office in October, 1964, until July were not sufficient to compensate for the wage claims which were brought about by the statements that the Government would have an incomes policy, which they failed to do so up to the period of compulsion and the July measures. Responsibility must fall on the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister for the division of responsibility. We are still paying a heavy price for it.
  In that connection, it must be pointed out that the Prime Minister is inclined to change the economic definitions in his own favour. That was certainly true in the exchange on the national dividend on 21st March, 1967, when he defined the national dividend, which hitherto in economics has been regarded as the same as the national income, as the marginal increase in the national income. I asked the Prime Minister whether his definition was different from that in economic textbooks, and he said that he had never seen the phrase "national dividend" described in an economic textbook, but that if I gave him a copy of the Victorian textbook which I read he would look at it.
  The definition of the national dividend certainly goes back to Victorian times. But the definition is to be found in Keynes's "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money", on page 37. It is remarkable that the Prime Minister is not familiar with Keynes's "General Theory" because, even amongst Oxford economists, it might be regarded as a very important document. Surely the Prime Minister cannot have forgotten about it. Are we to believe, therefore, that he had not adequately studied it?
  Perhaps, in conclusion, I might read a little from the final paragraph of the "General Theory", which has been the most influential economics book in the last 100 years. It says:
  "… the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than it is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the

  1319
  power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas."
  I suggest that it is not good enough for the Prime Minister or other Ministers of the Crown to juggle the definitions which are normally advanced in economic theory to introduce new concepts, as the right hon. Gentleman has in his Budget and Economic Report, and then expect to produce a meaningful and helpful Budget.
  9.5 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Harold Lever): First, I have the great privilege of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) on what I thought was an outstanding maiden speech. We have come to expect a very high level of passion and intelligence from Members from that area of the United Kingdom, and my hon. Friend by no means let down the standard with the splendid speech he made today, which I think was appreciated on both sides of the House. I must confess that I am a maiden winder-up on behalf of the Government, but happily there will be no opportunity for anybody either to congratulate me or to withhold congratulations, whichever is thought more appropriate at the end of my speech.
  A great deal of the criticism which has been directed to the Chancellor has been based on a misconception. Various adjectives have been applied to the Budget. It has been said to be dull, unimaginative, and the like. I think it should not be forgotten that the Chancellor's objective is not to provide entertaining television material, or even an adequate subject for an amusing debate in this House. His object, and we ought not altogether to lose sight of it, is to make appropriate fiscal changes, and these changes are what we consider to be appropriate in the present circumstances.
  I think that the devaluation of the high drama of the Budget must be accepted as part of the modern concept of how the Budget should be framed, and what purpose it should serve. The old concept, if I might adopt my right hon. Friend's sailing metaphors, of setting the automatic pilot on Budget day and hoping the ship will be able to steer to that course throughout the year without
  1320
  interruption, has gone. Frequent intervention is required, and the original excitement and interest of the Budget necessarily to some extent goes.
  My right hon. Friend is entitled to use sailing metaphors, because to my knowledge he has had the experience of sailing in circumstances in which he required the greatest skill and valour. He sailed under the skippership of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and with me as crew. I think that the House will readily forgive any number of sailing metaphors for a man who has earned them in that manner.
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) rather dismayed me this afternoon. He said that we ought to have a little gentle reflation. He thinks that the Chancellor is holding back. I rather think he takes the view that all Chancellors hold back on this. It is sad to see the right hon. Gentleman so soon anxious to tread the primrose path which has resulted in so much difficulty for our country, and so much difficulty for his party.
  I think that we ought to examine this. The Tory experience in regard to reflation was based upon the belief that there was a simple technique for expanding our economy. All we had to do was to foster demand at any place that it was convenient, to give it a fillip, and with a little courage, a little persistence, and a little borrowing from international bankers, the inevitable rise in the balance of payments deficit would be covered by an inevitable growth in exports shortly after. This was a splendid theory, and the first part of it seemed to work, namely, the reflation of demand. The trouble was that after the demand had been inflated in this way there came the balance of payments difficulties which were not solved in the automatic manner that the captivating theories of the Tory Chancellors should have indicated.
  Each Tory Chancellor tried this theory. Each went through a period when he was applauded and admired. That was when the lift was going up, and his political reputation was ruined when the bills came home to roost. The last Tory Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), carried it to the extreme limit. I am not challenging the motives and good faith of Conservative Chancellors.

  1321
  They were acting on a theory which they thought would work. I am ready to concede that the road to the I.M.F.'s borrowing office is paved with the good intentions of the right hon. Member for Barnet. This is little consolation to those of us who seek to get the economy on a sound basis which can be permanently maintained.
  If we analyse the situation we see that the fault of previous Chancellors was that they knew how to get growth and they knew how to get a balance-of-payments balanced—at least temporarily—but the combination of the two completely eluded them. This was the central fault of Conservative Governments. Our task—and I do not pretend that we have solved all the problems connected with it—is precisely to find a combination on which we can sustain the long-term achievement of growth and prosperity with a permanent and reliable balance of payments surplus.
  The only way in which we can do that is not, the moment we see a breathing space, to be tempted by the siren cries of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West into a speedy reflation. The only way to go forward is to approach reflation on a much sounder basis than has ever been done in the past.
  The first thing to be done is to improve the industrial structure. This we have been labouring at with some intensity ever since we came to office. The N.E.D.C. and the E.D.C.s have fulfilled and are fulfilling a task in relation to our industrial structure which is of vital importance to our prospect of establishing reflation in due course on a sound and sustainable basis. Moreover, the existence of the N.E.D.C. and the E.D.C.s, and the nature of their work, confirm that this Government can and will co-operate with industry. We have received the co-operation of industry and this will develop in the most desirable way.
  A useful instrument of this policy is the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. We have not had a great deal of results so far, because these are early days, but from the very promising work in the pipeline there is no doubt that this Corporation will play a significant part—by persuasion and not by secret, back-door methods—in providing information and supplying capital when and where it is needed in our struggle to improve the industrial
  1322
  structure and to give us a better send-off for our reflationary efforts when the time arises.
  A second point to which we attach the greatest importance in preparing the basis for a durable reflation which we can sustain without running into the classic balance of payments difficulty concerns our regional policies. Here my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West has made a comment which we find interesting. The whole purpose of the Green Paper was to invite criticism so that the Government could give it due consideration. Not only in respect of the Green Paper proposals but by other actions in the regions the Government have taken tremendous steps to bring about a better balance in employment and industry as between the under-developed parts of the country and the places of high employment.
  Here again, there is another vital factor in terms of the structure of the basis on which we hope to go forward and sustain reflation. We have paid attention to exports to an extent not seen under previous Governments. We have brought about a climate in which business people and workers have become export conscious. Attention to this point is one of the necessary preliminaries for a balance of payments in which we can reflate without inflating back to square one.
  I will not list the other striking measures we have taken to ensure that we do not need to go through the same old unprofitable routine of stop-go, spree and hold-back that has, unfortunately, been our experience in the past. When it comes we shall make every effort to give the reflation a capital investment emphasis, both in private and public industry. We shall do so for public industry because that improves the infrastructure of our economic society, and we shall give it to private industry for obvious reasons.
  It should be noted that those hon. Members like the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who separated into compartments private and public investment as if the two had no relation to each other in the economic effort of the country, ignore the fact that great amounts of public investment have a direct bearing on our economic aims.

  1323
  I was interested to note that when he was discussing what we might do to improve efficiency in the development areas, he thought that we might think in terms of improving communications and matters of that kind. I would have said that that was a very satisfactory approach, but, of course, it involves immense public investment. I am sure that the hon. Member is far too intelligent to value private consumption, even of a capital kind, relating to Bingo halls, for example, more than, say, an electricity generator, which is public investment—not that I wish to suppose that all private investment is on Bingo halls or that there is any objection to Bingo halls in themselves.
  Mr. Alison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Electricity Council has just announced a 15 per cent. reduction in investment in electricity generating capacity?
  Mr. Lever: There is no pleasing the hon. Gentleman. If we maintain sensible and effective control over the nature of public investment, we are told that that is driving back capital investment. If, on the other hand, we encourage it and promote it and finance it, we are told that we are squeezing out private investment and depriving the country of the prospects of a mixed economy. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it every way. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of course he can."] He had a jolly good try in his speech, but it does not follow that he was entirely convincing. As an interventionist from the back benches, he might take some comfort from the fact that, in public expenditure, economic investment has been proceeding twice as fast as social investment, so he has no complaint on that score.
  I will not say much about the prices and incomes policy. I am not a great expert on the details because, since being Chairman of the Committee which dealt with the Bill, a fact to which the hon. Member for Worthing so generously referred, a merciful First Secretary has not put me in that department. Either he feared that I knew too much, or that I had had enough of it. At all events, the prices and incomes policy has fallen on shoulders broader than mine.
  However, this too is a vital element in the preparation of our plans for the re-
  1324
  flation of the economy and the progress for which we now look, and it is one of the things on which we rely. That does not mean that we expect everybody to behave in perfect conformity with the desires of the Chancellor and of the First Secretary, although we all know that it would be a much better world if they did. However, we have resigned ourselves to some of the facts of life. We are confident that we shall have a reasonably successful prices and incomes policy, and we are confident that we shall get the co-operation of both sides of industry in our purposes, because it is widely recognised that our future sustained prosperity depends on the formulation and acceptance of some such policy.
  I do not want to pass, as though it were a dark side of the Government, what is done through public expenditure of the non-economic kind on behalf of our beliefs in social justice and our sense of moral obligation to our people. I will not say very much about it, but I should like to say to those hon. Members who have very largely the same priorities in this sort of issue that we have, that there is nobody in the House who recognises more than I do the need for material incentives in all aspects of our national life. Of course, these are not the only incentives which make people work, in all fields of activity, but, on the other hand, they form a very valuable incentive. I must say, to those hon. Members who worry all the time that the Government see as one of our priorities the provision of greater social justice and the discharge of moral obligations to the less privileged members of our community, that one could not possibly succeed in one's material aspirations in modern Britain, and one could not organise or plan or hope to succeed in one's arrangements for sustained prosperity for the country, if one did not also plan for the needs of so many millions of people who, in spite of very general prosperity, have been left behind in the economic race. Whether it is because of old age, or by reason of sickness, or even because of some lack of talent is beside the point.
  We ought to make it clear—I hope that my hon. Friends will bear this in mind, as some of them question the sterner measures which the Government are obliged to take—that the Labour

  1325
  Government were not brought into being to organise a consensus between the opulent and the affluent, and discard unheeded all the millions of people in our society who still have a grim time. I am not saying that any hon. Member wants to organise such a consensus, but we ought not, when there is a good deal of tough talk going around, to ignore that, even on the basis of material achievement, a Labour Government cannot succeed unless we have some regard to these moral obligations.
  Above all, I must emphasise that, when we come to reflate, as will be seen from the list of work which we have done, we will not rely—this was the great weakness of the Tories when they handled this matter—only on fiscal and financial means. The Tories concentrated practically the whole of their reflationary policy either on fiscal or financial steps—relaxations of credit, reductions of taxation, and the like—which are all splendid means for reflating an economy but must be accompanied by an immense range of effort, some indication of which I have given, to make this possible of sustained, uninterrupted achievement.
  I share the desire of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West for making a break-through out of the kind of box in which this country has got itself, but I hope that he will not mind my saying that it is not an oratorical or journalistic break-through which we much achieve. We must tackle the specific problems and take the specific measures along the lines which I have sketched if we are to make this break-through. Mere reflation such as is now demanded, without this preparation and these emphases, will land us in the same trouble which we were in before.
  My right hon. Friend has been criticised for his lack of courage in this Budget. I think that he has shown great courage in bringing in what was an appropriate Budget, and in restraining himself from any temptation of gimmickry or flamboyance which was not relevant to our situation. My old school motto was Sapere aude, which, for the benefit of hon. Members who went to those other schools which are now not so popular on either side of the House, I will translate as "Dare to be wise". I must congratulate my right hon. Friend. He had the courage to be wise and do what he thought to be right, even if it
  1326
  deprived our television commentators of their material, and bore in mind that his chief task was to deal with our financial situation rather than any kind of vaudeville or tendency to turn politics into a spectacle.
  The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), in his untiring pursuit of unattainable objectives, continued to press upon the Government a request for relief from taxation and rather old-fashioned things in other ways. I must confess that in some ways I can share his preference for the ideas of the nineteenth century; what I cannot share is his illusion that that is the century in which we are operating.
  I do not know what his access is to international bankers. They have confided in him that my right hon. Friend is thoroughly and completely in their charge, but I can assure him that there is no foundation for any such supposition. Alas, we could wish sometimes that the international bankers were as systematically in control of our financial policies as is alleged. It would save a good deal of time in the Treasury and the D.E.A., where we labour long hours in pursuit of these policies. Anyone who wishes to retain these somewhat exciting fantasies can continue his demonological oratory and denounce the Government. It does not hurt him and it certainly does not hurt the Government.
  I sympathise in some ways for the hon. Member is on to a point which many have made about the need for incentives. As regards taxation in relation to incentives, the level of our Corporation Tax is lower than that of virtually any of the larger Western countries. Even allowing for Income Tax deducted from dividends, the total taken from profits in this country is well below that taken from most of the Western European countries. Income Tax at the higher grades, except at the very high grades of Surtax on income, is not out of line with what is common in Europe At the higher levels, I agree that that is not so. I do not have time, fortunately perhaps, to go into too many details. I can only tell the hon. Member for Louth that he did not need to declare himself as one of the Chancellor's geese to insure against himself being killed by any hon. Member on this side. We welcome the hon. Member's declaration of

  1327
  rôle and I ask him to assume that it is likely to continue.
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West is, I think, wrong on a small point about Australian investment. He said that the Australians think that our stopping of investment is permanent whereas the Americans' is temporary and that the Americans have been more favourable than we have. That is not so. On portfolios the Americans have imposed a tax on direct investment. The only advantage that the American has over the British investor is that he gets a higher tax relief under the Double Taxation Agreement, but that is because his Corporation Tax is at the higher rate of 50 per cent. as against our 40 per cent. If the hon. Member can persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move our Corporation Tax up to 50 per cent., he will put British investors in the same position in Australia as the Americans.
  I will not go into detail with the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), who has tried to make our flesh and that of the C.B.I. creep at the thought of the Government acquiring economic securities and the like. This will all be explained to the hon. Member tomorrow. I do not have the full details, but his fears of acquisition as a threat to private industry are insubstantial to the point of being a matter for humour rather than for serious contemplation.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) was disappointed with my right hon. Friend, but he was disappointed with all Chancellors of the Exchequer. Why should my right hon. Friend be any exception? Apart from the hon. Member's assertion that the Conservative Party dislike intensely giving women a square deal, there was nothing to which anybody could take exception in his speech.
  I want to deal with one final point, and that is unemployment. It has been asked "What do we regard as a tolerable rate of unemployment?" I am
  1328
  bound to tell my hon. Friends that there is no rate of unemployment that we would regard as tolerable in that sense. I fully sympathise with everything that my hon. Friends feel on the question of unemployment. Any unnecessary unemployment is intolerable.
  The only unemployment which we can accept is the lowest rate of unemployment consistent with steady growth and paying our way in the world. In the long run, that will be the least unemployment that we experience. Merely to drive up employment swiftly at this point to bring another crisis and large scale unemployment upon us would not be to the advantage of the most defenceless members of the community.
  Any fool could bring down unemployment temporarily. We want to bring it down permanently and on a solid, reliable and sustainable basis. My hon. Friends must believe that my right hon. Friend feels—indeed, every member of the Government feels—as strongly about unemployment as they do. I assure my hon. Friends that there are no cynics in the Government.
  Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend repudiating the Paish idea?
  Mr. Lever: I wish that my hon. Friend had had the opportunity of raising the point. I am at the conclusion of my speech and we will, no doubt, have the opportunity to discuss this on more than one occasion. I assure my hon. Friend that there are no cynics in the Government. Our ideals and purposes are intact. Those ideals are the sustained prosperity of the country to economic success and the achievement of a social justice and the moral ideals to which we have all subscribed.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans]—put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  FRAUD INVESTIGATION
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: Large-scale fraud may be said to be today's fastest growing industry. It is perpetrated increasingly on a national scale with national organisation, through subsidiaries of main companies, through national advertising and, in the case of some types of fraud, through branch establishments in the country. It is interesting to note that the Fraud Squad was created after the last war because Servicemen, people without business experience, were returning home with gratuities, and a number of people were determined to devise means to pry those gratuities from them.
  Today, there are no gratuities, but as society grows richer and richer more and more people have substantial savings, and even those who do not have savings often have incomes at a level which makes an oppressive instalment contract worthwhile. Even the housewife is worth attention. Where the war-time gratuities made crooks wet their lips, the crooks positively drool over the thought of this fantastic modern wealth in the hands of so many people who are commercially naïve.
  There is, of course, a willingness in people to believe in get-rich-quick schemes. The modern confidence trickster is often highly educated, or may be a salesman trained in American methods. Subtlety is now used, and a growing variety of schemes have been devised: hair clinics, health clubs, pig breeding schemes, casino betting systems, insurance swindles, laundry and automatic vending frauds, instalment contracts distinctly burdensome false claims for Government subsidies, and now, in some cases, choosing one's mate by computer. There are also company frauds of great complexity, thought of and manipulated by top-class brains. The rewards of fraud can be very high—they come from those who also wish to get rich very quickly. Mr. Maurice Viner, a distinguished barrister, has formulated a new liberty of the citizen—the liberty to be "done". With
  1330
  an increasing population and prosperity we must accept that fraud will continue to increase.
  What are the resources at present being used to deal with fraud? The City of London Fraud Squad is said to have 18 men; the Metropolitan Fraud Squad is said to have rather more. It is said that the investigation department of the Board of Trade has 17 men. It has been said that in the City of London one must defraud someone, or some people, of more than £1 million if one wishes to rate more than a sergeant. The Sunday Times has called the Fraud Squad, the Board of Trade and the Directorate of Public Prosecutions "this old triangular machine"—a machine designed in a bygone age to meet fraud that bears very little resemblance to the scale and complexity of fraud today.
  In the country at large, some police forces have fraud squads, other do not. Those squads that exist tend to be small, undermanned and to be treated badly for promotion. To handle the legal end of fraud, the Director of Public Prosecutions has on his staff 40 lawyers, who handle 6,000 cases a year, many of which are not, of course, cases of fraud. That means that each lawyer deals with about five cases a day. The people working for the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot concentrate on one fraud at a time, no matter how complex it may be. They have to fit in their study and preparations with their other work.
  So far as I know, none of the bodies I have mentioned employs chartered accountants and none has a solicitor specialising in company law. Police officers go to the fraud squads for a period, and then return to their units.
  The police and the Board of Trade officials and those working in the Directorate of Public Prosecutions are able and conscientious and, for their numbers, achieve good results, but at present there is administrative constipation, as one newspaper said. There is a terrible burden on fraud squad officers both physical and mental. In theory they should be able to call in outside professional help. The Fraud Squad is entitled to call on a firm of accountants. Last year the Squad paid £15,000 for the services of accountants, but one does not get much advice for £15,000.

  1331
  The Board of Trade calls in outside inspectors to carry out investigations. A barrister or accountant inspector has to try to fit in inquiries with his usual professional work and this causes great delay. The confidence of a detective might conceivably be impaired if he has strong feelings about social class, because he is dealing sometimes with people of a public school background operating in plush offices and flanked by accountants and lawyers.
  Separate staffing of these different groups results in duplication of work. Inadequate staffing results in long delays in bringing an accused to trial. Overloading can mean a reluctance to take up less weighty frauds although such frauds may be fairly common. The effects of delay are terrible. One knows of cases where there has been five years delay from the discovery of a fraud to its prosecution. The money can have gone, the accused can have disappeared, witnesses may have died, recollections grow hazy among the remaining witnesses so that counsel may have a field day lengthily cross-examining and dilating on the contradictions of those failing memories.
  If the man is innocent he has had a charge hanging over him for many years which may have had serious effects on his health, his peace of mind and his reputation. It was said in Magna Carta:
  "To no one will we deny justice.
  To no one will we delay it."
  But in a case of fraud this often happens and there is the strain of the period of waiting. Delay may also mean that a fraud can continue to be perpetrated on the public longer than ought to happen. The Director of Public Prosecutions does not begin investigations until a case is referred to him by another agency. That might be a long time after the case first comes to light.
  What is required to remedy this situation? I propose a specialised unified body with headquarters in London and branch offices in the regions. It should take over fraud from the Director of Public Prosecutions, company investigations from the Board of Trade and absorb the City and Metropolitan Fraud Squads. It should have on its
  1332
  staff chartered accountants and solicitors with prosecuting experience. There should be enough police officers in the new commission to produce a proper pay structure considerably higher than that for ordinary officers in the police force. There should be reasonable prospects of promotion. It should attract graduates to the police force.
  The Board of Trade could second personnel to the commission for limited periods of time, as other agencies might also do. Officers could also be loaned additionally from other police forces when required. At headquarters top-class accountants should be available to the commission's branches in London and the regions. If this sounds a terribly large-scale operation, it should be remembered that in America the Securities and Exchange Commission employs more than 1,500 professional men. Specialisation should also produce more "know-how" and, therefore, speedier investigation.
  The commission should deal not only with frauds of a complex commercial kind, but also with appropriate consumer frauds, and not only frauds reported to it, but should go out to discover where frauds are, and that is not as difficult as it sounds. S.E.C. seeks to nip fraud in the bud. For example, its officials scrutinise all newspapers and magazines for advertisements. In this country, it could be done with advertisements, news, trade offers and personal columns. All those could be scrutinised to see whether anything looked suspicious and worthy of investigation.
  Another advantage of the commission would be that information about frauds will flow in centrally through the regional offices to headquarters. For example, if at the moment there is a complaint by a Leeds consumer to the Leeds police, the advice that he might get is "It is a civil matter". The Leeds police will not know that a similar complaint has been made by a Birmingham consumer, another by a Cardiff consumer, and so on.
  But if fraud was handled regionally and nationally by one organisation then within a few weeks of a new fraud being perpetrated nationally—for example, in relation to health clinics—enough information would be flowing in centrally

  1333
  for the commission to be aware that there was another national fraud, and it could take action quickly. The channelling of information would be a useful result of the establishment of such a commission. It would be an advantage for it to be known that action could be taken quickly. The terrible thing about frauds in this country is that they can go on for years before there is movement to stop them.
  Another advantage of the commission would be that knowledge of the various frauds would be pooled into fewer hands so that there would be greater knowledge and expertise at the centre. In a real sense, the commission would not only be a scrutineer, with teeth, of business practices but would also, for the first time in this country, fulfil the rôle of an effective consumer watchdog.
  What should the powers of the commission be? In addition to the normal powers of the police and the normal powers of the prosecution department, the commission should be given power to stop advertising when it is reasonable to believe that it is directed to gulling the public into parting with their money.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I presume that all this can be done under present legislation. If he seeks the new powers by legislation, he cannot advocate this on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Lyons: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
  I would advocate for the commission occasional broadcasts on radio and television telling the public about the latest type of fraud so that people would be forewarned. I submit that such broadcasts, if made in good faith, should be exempted from normal actions for defamation; in other words, they should be privileged.
  The members or officers of the commission could, as weights and measures inspectors do, pose as customers and also as investors. They could, one hopes, institute codes of business conduct and codes of doorstep selling and in this way influence in a deterrent fashion switch selling and other vices.
  If it simply becomes an enlarged, effective, well equipped, well manned, modern fraud squad, the commission will
  1334
  be well worth while. But an alternative is open to the commission, and that is to become an organisation to fight not only big-time fraud but consumer fraud so fiercely as to make British commercial life of so high a standard and of such integrity that the world will look at it in admiration. In this modern world we must look to the weapons we use to fight modern criminals operating on an ever-increasing scale. I therefore urge the setting up of such a commission with proper powers and staffing, so that we can protect the public rather better than hitherto.
  9.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) has drawn attention to many kinds of frauds perpetrated by what is, in fact, a minority fringe of so-called businessmen. It is worth pointing out that of the 500,000 or so companies operating in this country the number that could be described as fraudulent is relatively very small, and that the vast majority of businesses in this country are conducted perfectly honestly. We share my hon. Friend's concern about that fringe of dishonesty, which is, perhaps, likely to increase as our complex society becomes more complex and complicated, unless we take adequate steps to deal with it.
  My hon. Friend said that the organisations we have today to investigate frauds and, where need be, prosecute are out of date and thoroughly inadequate. I do not accept all his criticisms of our present organisations—the Board of Trade Investigation Department, the Fraud Squad, and so on. Many of his criticisms in that respect are exaggerated, but I agree that there is a need for improvement in both organisation and methods. Since the present Government came to office we have made many improvements, and have studied how best to create a better fraud investigation system. By this Adjournment debate my hon. Friend has anticipated the announcement of the proposals we shall shortly make.
  Although I was very interested and impressed by his very wide-sweeping proposals we consider that what we shall propose before long will do the job much better. I cannot tonight tell him what our proposals will be, and I think that

  1335
  to do so would be out of order, because a certain amount of legislation will be required. But I assure him that he has not long to wait.
  I wish to deal with one or two points which I think will be in order, particularly concerning his criticisms of our present methods of doing things, and his first suggestion that something like the United States Securities Commission would do the job better here. I understand that the Commission is not so much a fraud investigating unit as a body trying to protect investors in connection with dealings in securities, and so on.
  The work of that Commission was examined by the Jenkins Committee, which looked into company law, and the Committee was not persuaded that a system of control on the United States model would work as well in Great Britain as the more flexible, though perhaps theoretically less perfect, system which has grown up here. There were very good reasons for that.
  The main difference between our two systems is that in the United States there is no single body like the Federation of Stock Exchanges such as we have and, as the American witnesses to the Jenkins Committee pointed out, the size of the United States, its scattered security markets, the existence of 50 different State Governments and the past history of the security business, made strong centralised control in Washington very important.
  The way we deal with this matter—I am talking about the usual run of commercial frauds—is provided for in the Companies Act, 1948. Under Section 164, the Board of Trade can appoint inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company on the application of the requisite number of shareholders, etc., if the applicants have a good reason for investigation. Under Section 165 the Board of Trade must appoint inspectors if the company declares by special resolution that something is going wrong and it wants an investigation. In addition, the Board of Trade can, on its own initiative, if there are circumstances suggesting fraud, misfeasance, and so on, put inspectors into the company.
  Obviously, there are weaknesses, because the Board of Trade must act on
  1336
  information and advice before anything can be done. There are also weaknesses in that the Board of Trade's inspectors are circumscribed in many ways. I will not go into these matters now, because they have been the subject of our inquiries to see if we can find a better way of doing things.
  The investigations, as presently carried out, are necessarily private. The inspectors must make a report to the Board of Trade when the investigation is completed. When the inspectors have made their report, their functions cease. If the report discloses that a criminal offence may have been committed, the Board of Trade, under the Companies Act, has to refer the report, in England to the Director of Public Prosecutions if the Board of Trade considers that a prosecution should be undertaken by him, and in Scotland to the Lord Advocate.
  Because of the way that the information has been given to the Board of Trade's inspectors, the question of taking action for a criminal prosecution must start all over again, because the witnesses who have given information to the Board of Trade under the compulsory powers of the Board of Trade's inspectors must now produce evidence voluntarily on which a criminal prosecution can be substantiated. This is another problem which we have to deal with.
  My hon. Friend went on to describe a very wide-ranging commission, to which he suggested that many more lawyers and accountants should be appointed. I assure him that one of the reasons for delays in dealing with many cases which have come before the public eye—I will not name them; we all have them in mind—is a shortage of manpower in these grades. If my hon. Friend can tell me where to get these lawyers and accountants with the proper qualifications to do this work, I shall be very glad to have discussions with him.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the size of the various bodies which deal with commercial fraud. There are criticisms of the amount of time taken by the Board of Trade's inspectors to complete their investigations. The subject matter of these investigations is frequently very complicated. Moreover, generally speaking, the Board of Trade appoints professional men who are in private practice to do this job—barristers-at-law and accountants. They can hardly be expected to neglect

  1337
  their practices, though in fact—tribute must be paid to them for this—they sometimes do.
  The average time taken in completing and reporting on an investigation is about 16 months. I agree with my hon. Friend that in many cases that is too long. Some of the more complicated cases are likely to take quite a time, anyhow.
  To try to speed things up, the Fraud Squad has recently been strengthened, and it is, therefore, able to deal more expeditiously with cases arising from the reports of Board of Trade inspectors. In addition, the Board of Trade, in order to carry out its functions under the appropriate Sections of the Companies Act, has a small section staffed by accountants, or officers with accountant experience. This section has been recently strengthened, too. We also have another investigation section, staffed by former police officers with investigation experience, many of them from the Fraud Squad. This section has also been extended, and now makes preliminary inquiries in cases of suspected company fraud, which is of considerable help.
  We intend to go on strengthening both the administration of the legal branches concerned with fraud, but the recruitment of the appropriate people with legal or accountancy experience is very difficult indeed.
  On the general proposition that my hon. Friend has put forward, frankly, out of
  1338
  experience, we doubt whether there would be any advantage in merging the branches of the Board of Trade concerned with commercial fraud with the activities of the Fraud Squad and the Director of Public Prosecutions, and so on. Our view is that there is more to be gained by securing much closer co-operation between these bodies, and we will be coming along with proposals very soon to deal with this co-operation and other methods of investigation.
  My hon. Friend went on to talk about widening the powers of the commission that he was talking about to deal with frauds under consumer protection. We have given a great deal of consideration to this in the Board of Trade, and many of us gave a great deal of consideration to it before the change of Government. I am quite convinced, and the more that I look at the problem, at the kind of fraud with which we have to deal, misrepresentation, misleading advertising and all the rest, the more convinced I am that—and this will be my only word on this point, Mr. Speaker—the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill is by far the best way, and the right way, of doing the job. I hope that we will not have long to wait now before that Bill is on the Statute Book, too.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Forces' Family Pensions Scheme
  Forces' Family Pensions Scheme
  Naval Surface Ships (Nuclear Reactors)
  Naval Surface Ships (Nuclear Reactors)
  Army and Royal Air Force Legal Officers (Pay)
  Army and Royal Air Force Legal Officers (Pay)
  Farquhar and Desroches Islands and Chagos Archipelago
  Farquhar and Desroches Islands and Chagos Archipelago
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Aden
  Aden
  Home Battalion (Foreign Exchange Cost)
  Home Battalion (Foreign Exchange Cost)
  Malaysia (Aid Cost)
  Malaysia (Aid Cost)
  Long-Range Weather Forecasts
  Long-Range Weather Forecasts
  Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft
  Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft
  British Service Doctors, Germany
  British Service Doctors, Germany
  "Torrey Canyon" (Bombing)
  "Torrey Canyon" (Bombing)
  F111K Aircraft (Cost)
  F111K Aircraft (Cost)
  British Forces, Thailand
  British Forces, Thailand
  Project Mallard
  Project Mallard
  Far East
  Far East
  Tracked Vehicles (Training Areas)
  Tracked Vehicles (Training Areas)
  Overseas Troops (United Kingdom Accommodation)
  Overseas Troops (United Kingdom Accommodation)
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Royal Navy (V/STOL Aircraft)
  Royal Navy (V/STOL Aircraft)
  South Africa (Defence Equipment and Spares)
  South Africa (Defence Equipment and Spares)
  Foreign Textiles (Departmental Purchases)
  Foreign Textiles (Departmental Purchases)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Phantom and F111 Aircraft (Bombs)
  Phantom and F111 Aircraft (Bombs)
  Transport Command (Costings)
  Transport Command (Costings)
  Trooping (Air Charter Companies)
  Trooping (Air Charter Companies)
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Lighting Working Party
  Vehicle Lighting Working Party
  Motor Vehicles (Granulated Material Loads)
  Motor Vehicles (Granulated Material Loads)
  Safe Driving (Ministerial Television Broadcast)
  Safe Driving (Ministerial Television Broadcast)
  Articulated Vehicles (Length)
  Articulated Vehicles (Length)
  Motor Vehicles (Roadworthiness)
  Motor Vehicles (Roadworthiness)
  Nationalised Freight Services (Rationalisation)
  Nationalised Freight Services (Rationalisation)
ROADS
  M62
  M62
  A142 (Widening)
  A142 (Widening)
  M4 (Crash Barriers)
  M4 (Crash Barriers)
  North Orbital Road
  North Orbital Road
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  A4 (Improvements)
  A4 (Improvements)
  M56 (Order)
  M56 (Order)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Polish Eggs (Dumping)
  Polish Eggs (Dumping)
  Detergents (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  Detergents (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Review)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Review)
  Local Employment Acts (Grants)
  Local Employment Acts (Grants)
  Fire Alarms and Sprinkler Systems, Bradford (Grants)
  Fire Alarms and Sprinkler Systems, Bradford (Grants)
  Aircraft and Ships (Foreign Currency Earnings)
  Aircraft and Ships (Foreign Currency Earnings)
SHIPPING
  "Torrey Canyon"
  "Torrey Canyon"
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beef, Pigmeat and Eggs (Imports)
  Beef, Pigmeat and Eggs (Imports)
  Soil Types and Land Utilisation (Surveys)
  Soil Types and Land Utilisation (Surveys)
  Bacon Curing Industry (Assistance)
  Bacon Curing Industry (Assistance)
SCOTLAND
  Colleges of Education (Building Programme)
  Colleges of Education (Building Programme)
  Cysticercous Bovis
  Cysticercous Bovis
  New Towns (Rent Structures)
  New Towns (Rent Structures)
  Glasgow Schools (Staffing)
  Glasgow Schools (Staffing)
  Hospital Services (North-Eastern Region)
  Hospital Services (North-Eastern Region)
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
  ADEN
  ADEN
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
TECHNOLOGY
  Concord Aircraft
  Concord Aircraft
  F111 Aircraft
  F111 Aircraft
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  St. Vincent (Political Situation)
  St. Vincent (Political Situation)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  National Health Service (Doctor-Patient Ratio)
  National Health Service (Doctor-Patient Ratio)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Cancer (Research Bodies)
  Cancer (Research Bodies)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Dee Estuary (Study)
  Dee Estuary (Study)
HOUSING
  Greater London Council Houses (Cost)
  Greater London Council Houses (Cost)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Industry (Employment, Earnings and Production)
  Industry (Employment, Earnings and Production)
  Textile Industry (Unemployment)
  Textile Industry (Unemployment)
  British Railways (Concessionary Fares)
  British Railways (Concessionary Fares)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Au Pair Girls (Employment)
  Au Pair Girls (Employment)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Developing Countries (Aid)
  Developing Countries (Aid)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Coloured Instruments (Removal Charge)
  Coloured Instruments (Removal Charge)
  Rentals (Instalments)
  Rentals (Instalments)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  B.B.C.2 (Wales)
  B.B.C.2 (Wales)
WALES
  Caeham Libanus (Rest Centre)
  Caeham Libanus (Rest Centre)
  Monmouth-Ross Road (Landslip)
  Monmouth-Ross Road (Landslip)
  Chepstow Inner Relief Road (Objections)
  Chepstow Inner Relief Road (Objections)
COAL
  National Coal Board (Brickworks)
  National Coal Board (Brickworks)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Shipbuilding Industry (Steel Prices)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Steel Prices)

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

PURCHASED DISCHARGES FROM ARMED SERVICES
2.36 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, and if so under what conditions, a sailor, soldier or airman can buy himself, or be bought, out of Her Majesty's service.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the Question is that Servicemen can purchase their discharge under certain conditions. Recruits to the Army and R.A.F. can do so as a right under the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 on payment of a sum of £20 during the first three months of their initial engagement. This right has just been introduced into the Royal Navy and Royal Marines by a regulation under Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1966 which came into force on February 8 this year. After this period, discharge by purchase may be permitted under the conditions laid down in Queen's Regulations and Defence Council Instructions. Broadly, it is necessary for the applicant to have completed a specified term of service (this is in order that the Services can get a fair return for the money invested in training him) before an application can be considered, and then approval depends on whether or not he could be allowed to go without detriment to the manning position in his trade. In the Army and Royal Air Force the period of productive service required is three years, but in undermanned trades a further period would have to be served.
1280
Because of the present manning situation, the Royal Navy is currently unable to consider applications until a man has completed two-thirds of his first engagement.
All the above considerations may be waived in compassionate cases if it is established that the man's presence is essential to relieve hardship or to provide extra assistance in looking after, say, a wife or parent. In these cases, too, the purchase price may be reduced, or waived altogether, if it is more than the man can reasonably be expected to pay.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that full Answer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government will reconsider these conditions, which are often very harsh, particularly in the case of young boys who at 15 years of age sign on until 30 years of age? The three months which they are allowed affords no real opportunity for them to judge the conditions of their Service, and very often discharge by purchase is delayed for a long period.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there are two points to make on my noble friend's question. The first is that I do not think one can compare service in the Armed Forces with civilian life. There must be these special regulations so that the Armed Forces may be manned to carry out their responsibilities. As regards boy service, my noble friend raised this matter in a debate in this House on March 16, and on that occasion my noble friend Lord Shackleton informed him that all relevant points relating to boy service will be taken into account in the investigation which my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration is at this moment undertaking.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could my noble friend explain how he reconciles the fact that a boy of 15 is allowed to contract into the Services for a number of years with the fact that in civil life no individual is allowed to sign a contract under the age of 21?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the boy does not, in fact, contract in himself. He is contracted in with his parents' agreement.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that often this engagement is made not by his parents but by the head of an orphanage from which the boy is very ready to get away as soon as possible, without beginning to understand the commitment which has been entered into in his name?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there is another aspect which I did not mention in my original Answer. The Royal Navy is not an inhuman organisation, not a latter-day press gang. In fact, if a youngster in these circumstances finds himself unhappy in his new position in life, just starting his working life in the Navy, as in the case mentioned by my noble friend, he is allowed out if it is proved that the life is not congenial to him.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, just to keep the records straight, may I ask the Government whether it is not the case—it used to be—that a boy can enter into a contract in Scotland at the age of 14? I think he can do so under Scottish Common Law.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am afraid I am not an expert in Scottish law and I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not answer.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend another question? Take the case of an adolescent boy of 15 who is going through a restless stage which might pass at 16 or 17. Does he consider that that kind of boy would be obstructed by his parents from signing anything?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a factor that will be considered by my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration in the study which he is now undertaking.

THE ROYAL NAVY: RELEASE ON SPECIAL GROUNDS
2.42 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is more difficult for a sailor than for an officer to resign for per
1282
sonal reasons from the Royal Navy; and if so, why.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the legal basis of the service of ratings and officers respectively is very different, the one depending upon Statute and the other upon the Royal prerogative. The difference goes back into history, and it would be trying your Lordships' patience to recount it. But let me assure the noble Lord that in compassionate and certain special cases officers and ratings may leave the Navy with equal facility. Compassionate grounds—say, the need to be available at home to look after a parent or wife—must establish that the individual's presence at home is vital. Special cases cover such reasons for wishing to leave the Service as conscientious objection, or a wish to take Holy Orders or become a Member of Parliament.
When there are no special circumstances the same principles are applied to both officers and ratings, but the rating has to wait longer to leave because the smaller number of officers wishing to go can be more easily spared. The much greater number of ratings involved must be more firmly held to their engagements if the Navy is to be manned to carry out its role.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that very full reply which I wished to elicit because of the public interest in the matter at this moment. I am grateful.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I again ask my noble friend a question? I apologise for doing so. He mentioned conscientious objection. Will the Government reconsider the present system, whereby a conscientious objector has to disobey orders and serve a term of imprisonment before he can go before a tribunal? Will the Government consider the giving of a right to go straight to a tribunal rather than going through that procedure?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will convey my noble friend's point of view to the appropriate Minister.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he thinks that pursuing a different policy for ratings and officers is calculated to improve discipline?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have no evidence that the difference of statutory basis under which the two engagements are made is detrimental to discipline.

WAR PENSIONERS' NEEDS
2.45 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the prospect that widespread salary and wages increases may take place later in the year, and having regard to the rise in the cost of living and the standard of living, Ministers concerned will bear in mind the needs of war pensioners and war widows, so that they do not lag behind in any improvement that may be generally enjoyed and, in particular, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take this contingency into account when planning his use of national resources.]
LORD SHEPHERD: I can assure the noble Lord that the Government have kept, and will continue to keep, the needs of war pensioners and war widows very much in mind.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I thank the Ministers and Members of both Houses and of both Parties for their consideration in this matter over many decades. May I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will have in mind that when there is a little release of financial tension there will be a queue, backed up by powerful industrial interests on both sides; and will they make sure that the ex-Servicemen, who have no such powerful organisations, are in their proper place in the queue?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I can say on behalf of the Government that we have a great deal of sympathy with the approach of the noble Lord. If I may say so, although the number of war pensioners and war widows declines over the course of time, the approach of associations, in which the noble Lord himself plays a very prominent part, would never leave any Government in any doubt as
1284
to the position these people should hold in our thoughts concerning the development of our social system. Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday:
"We have, therefore, in the context of the long-term planning operation announced by the First Secretary last November, launched an exercise to bring our long-term expediture programmes into line with growth prospects up to 1970 as we now see them and to reconsider priorities between the different long-term programmes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 11/4/67; col. 990.]
The question of social security and of looking after the war pensioners and widows is obviously included in that aim.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I thank the noble Lord very much. I hope that it will not be a too long-term matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on be-half 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 leave be given to the Lord Kennet to advance the Committee stage of the Housing Subsidies Bill from Tuesday next to Monday next, and that the Bill be taken before the Fugitive Offenders Bill.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (ELIGIBLE ASSETS) ORDER 1967
2.47 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON) moved, That the Industrial Development (Eligible Assets) Order 1967 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, I admit, is a somewhat technical Order designed to enable the Board of Trade to pay investment grants on assets leased to Northern Ireland. The Industrial Development Act 1966 provides in general for investment grants to be made only for assets to be used in businesses in Great Britain. Northern Ireland has long had its own system of investment incentives, and in fact the Northern Ireland Parliament passed last December the Industrial Investment

1285
(General Assistance) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 the provisions of which are very similar to those in our Act. These enable the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland to make grants to persons carrying on business in Northern Ireland, if the machinery or plant or computers are provided for use in Northern Ireland.
Under the Industrial Development Act in this country the Board of Trade may make grants to persons carrying on business in Great Britain for machinery or plant for use in Great Britain in those processes which qualify, and for computers for use in Great Britain, and for hovercraft. Where the user buys any of these assets there is no problem about making a grant. But there is a growing practice of leasing machinery. This was provided for under Section 4 of the Act. Under this section the Board of Trade may make a grant to the lessor of an asset if it is leased to a person who would have qualified for a grant had he bought the piece of plant or machinery. If the lessee would have qualified for a higher rate of grant because he uses the asset in a development area, then that higher rate is paid to the lessor.
My Lords, if this Order were not made, any assets leased to Northern Ireland would fall between the two systems, that of the Northern Ireland Government and our own. The Board of Trade could not pay the lessor because the lessee is outside Great Britain; and the Ministry of Commerce in Belfast could not pay either, because the lessor is outside Northern Ireland; and grants towards capital expenditure cannot be paid under either Act to lessees, since they are renting their equipment. It was to avoid this anomaly that in another place my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade moved an Amendment to the Industrial Development Bill, which is now Section 7(2) of the Act. It gives the Board of Trade power to make an Order when they are satisfied that reciprocal action has been taken in Northern Ireland. At that time the Northern Ireland legislation had not yet been passed. Now that it has been passed,
1286
and the Northern Ireland Government have made an Order under which the Ministry of Commerce can make grants to lessors in Northern Ireland who hire out assets to Great Britain, we can fulfil our part of the bargain, and make this Order.
I would explain that there is a special provision in Section 4 of our Act for construction plant hire, since this plant is normally hired out for short periods. As a result of this Order, a construction plant hire firm will be able to hire out machinery or plant, on which it is getting grant, anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Article 1 of the Order enables the Board of Trade to make grants under Section 4 of the Act even though the asset is going to be used in a business in Northern Ireland and not in Great Britain, and Article 2 provides that the rate of grant shall be what it would be if Northern Ireland were a development area in Great Britain. Thus, if expenditure were incurred this year or next, the rate would be 45 per cent. for machinery or plant, or for computers which are integrated with machinery or for scientific research, whereas on other computers, hovercraft and on construction plant on short-term hire, the rate would be 25 per cent.
Section 7 of the Industrial Development Act empowers the Board of Trade to make Orders to vary the rate of grant or to make grants for additional assets not hitherto eligible, subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure. Since assets leased to Northern Ireland were not previously eligible for grant, this Order technically provides for the addition of eligible assets, but the number of applications which will benefit from it is likely to be small. The Order will apply to expenditure already incurred since the beginning of the investment grants scheme in both countries, since no grants were paid before this Order came into operation. I ask your Lordships to approve this Order.
Moved, That the Industrial Development (Eligible Assets) Order 1967 be approved.—(Lord Walston).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
2.53 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I beg leave to call attention to the need for reform of this House and its powers, and to move for Papers. And the Papers will be a funny lot, if I ever get them! Many noble Lords are to speak to-day, and I shall try to put my views concisely. They are my own personal views, and while one always hopes for a measure of agreement, they are not, so far as I know, the views of Her Majesty's Government or of anyone else.
I think that the need for reform is widely recognised, and I shall not dwell on it. Over the centuries of our history we have struggled to achieve and apply democracy: the principle that we should govern ourselves. For that purpose we are a Parliamentary democracy and our main instruments are an elected House of Commons, run on a Party system, and a Government responsible to the elected House. In such a set-up any independent legislative powers, at least on matters of general public policy, vested in a Chamber which in the 20th century still contains an appreciable, indeed a high, proportion of hereditary Members, and which nowadays has an inbuilt Tory majority, are an obvious denial of democracy. Such powers have been limited, but they still exist in the form of powers to frustrate, delay and defeat the wishes of the elected Chamber.
In their last Election Manifesto the Labour Party made a promise in the following terms:
"Legislation will be introduced to safeguard measures approved by the House of Commons from frustration by delay or defeat in the House of Lords."
I call your Lordships' attention to two points about that promise. It was a definite, unconditional engagement in no way dependent on your Lordships' conduct, and it went significantly beyond the conditional promises in previous Manifestos, including the 1964 Manifesto. It is also a promise to introduce legislation about the powers of this House, not necessarily about its composition.
The Motion to-day is widely drawn in order to elicit the views of your Lordships on both subjects—powers and composition. In view of what I
1288
have just said, I begin with powers. Your Lordships will remember that it was on powers that the Conference of Party Leaders in 1948, convened at the instance of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and of which he and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, were members, broke down, while reaching and recording a broad measure of agreement on composition. That Conference was convened in connection with the Parliament Bill of 1947 and 1948. That Bill provided the last occasion on which a major Government measure passed by the Commons was rejected on Second Reading by this House and had to be represented, in those days three times, in order to become law.
The power to reject a Government Bill which has passed the Commons is in-defensible in principle and obsolete in practice. It should be withdrawn. Speaking on February 16 on the London Government Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, pointed out that Tory Lords had:
"… allowed a lot of legislation to go through to which they were bitterly opposed and about the effect of which on this country they had the gravest misgivings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 419, 16/2/67.]
They were not going to fight in the last ditch but one. We waited to hear what the actual last ditch would be.
"In the last resort and in quite exceptional circumstances"—
we were told
—"a matter of great constitutional and national importance, on which there was known to be a deep division of opinion in the country or perhaps on which the people's opinion was not known."—[col. 420.]
I cannot recognise the right of a majority opposed to the Government of the day and sitting in a non-elected Chamber to draw the line between legislation about the effect of which on this country they have the gravest misgiving, but which they will let through, and legislation on a matter of great constitutional and national importance, which they will reject; nor, if it is a question of the opinion in the country, do I recognise the right of this House to enforce their views on that in opposition to the views of an elected Chamber.
As to the Constitution, it is flexible and largely unwritten. If something socially good is found to be unconstitutional,

1289
there is ground for changing the Constitution, but not for abandoning the good. In fact this Chamber, fundamentally unrepresentative and with its built-in Tory majority, ought not to be allowed to wait for a convenient occasion on which to provoke a clash with the Commons. If the occasion ever comes, the convenience will be that of the Tory Party under a Labour Government and although, of course, they will believe themselves to be acting in the national interest, that belief will be founded on Tory principles and policy, not on the proper judgment, that of the elected Chamber and of the Government of the day. The longer the occasion is delayed, the longer your Lordships will be hampered by obsolete and indefensible powers, the continued existence of which seems to hamper your Lordships' work and to divert the Chamber from its proper function of discussion, consultation and revision, to the entrancing game of teasing the Commons and the Government of the day.
I turn to Amendments—in the first place to Amendments made in this House to Government Bills which have passed the Commons. The governing principle, I suggest, must be that once any difference of opinion appears between the elected Chamber and your Lordships' House, then in a democratic system, as we now understand it, the will of the elected Chamber must prevail without further ado. The present practice, however, does not work that way. I would not interfere with the right of this House to make any Amendments it chooses, even Amendments involving questions of public money and accordingly privilege; but provided there is a fundamental alteration of the subsequent procedure on those Amendments. Without such a fundamental alteration I should have something to say about money Amendments—a sort of half-forbidden fruit which has a strange attraction to your Lordships.
Nowadays, your Lordships' rights in connection with Amendments matter more in practice than any question of the acceptance or refusal of a Bill. It was by insistence on an Amendment that the Iron and Steel Bill of 1948 and 1949 was delayed in operation, so that the Corporation which took over the industry had not sufficient time to get under way before the General Election of 1951. Just as the Parliament Act 1949 was
1290
the last Government Bill brought from the Commons, refused a Second Reading in the Lords and carried by representation in successive Sessions, so the Iron and Steel Act 1949 was the last Government measure brought from the Commons and, in effect, frustrated, or at least, seriously hampered in its operation, by the Lords' insistence on an Amendment.
To insist on an Amendment at present would be to bring about a clash between the Houses and the political Armageddon or political suicide which we have it on the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, can occur only once before the Lords or their political powers vanish into oblivion. In plain language, the Amendment would be the last ditch.
In accordance with the governing principle that I have suggested, it is for the Commons, and only for the Commons, to decide which Amendments made by this House to a Government Bill originating in the Commons they, the Commons, wish to discuss or to discuss again; for sometimes those Amendments repeat contentions which have already been discussed and defeated in the Commons on the first passage of the Bill. How the Commons make that decision is a matter for them. I suggest, therefore, that all Amendments made by this House to a Government Bill which has come from the Commons should be sent back to the Commons and there should lie on the Table for a suitable period, during which the Commons may select any of them for consideration, and at the end of which any not so selected should lapse and be of no effect. On consideration, the Commons may adopt an Amendment, with or without some derivative Amendment of their own, and the Amendment so adopted, with any derivative Amendment, shall then be made in the Bill. An Amendment with which the Commons disagree shall lapse. There is, and ought to be, no room for any question of insistence on Amendments.
Under the procedure I suggest, the Commons would, in practice, select for consideration some Amendments from this House. Some of them would be Government Amendments introduced here; others, perhaps, Amendments on minor points; but none, I venture to think, Amendments of a wrecking

1291
character, such as your Lordships opposite have from time to time thought fit to move into recent Bills. Fir instance, one such Amendment was the recent one in the Iron and Steel Bill not to take over the debentures of the nationalised companies, a proposal which, if accepted, would have frustrated one of the main purposes of the Bill, and a proposal, too, which had been discussed in the Commons and rejected there on a Division. Your Lordships Amendment was rejected in the Commons on the simple ground that it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons—half-forbidden fruit again, my Lords—and that rejection surprised no one here or in the Commons.
That is only one instance; there have been others in other recent controversial Bills. Your Lordships have not been as moderate and virtuous as is sometimes alleged, and the result has been a considerable waste of Parliamentary time in the elected Chamber. No doubt an Opposition always seeks to waste Government time, but though I have played it myself, it is rather a silly game and, in the long run, I doubt its wisdom. Perhaps one objection to it is the high rate of mortality among Members of Parliament—of all Parties, I hasten to add.
My Lords, Amendments by the Commons to Government Bills originating in and passed by your Lordships' House present little practical difficulty; for such Bills are allocated to this House by the Government of the day and are rarely, if ever, of a seriously controversial character. I am not sure whether it is even worth while to make provision for the immediate and final prevalence of Commons Amendments. After all, if such Amendments are to be considered again by this House, the time so spent will be your Lordships' time, rather than the more scarce commodity, time in the Commons.
I turn to a third major point about powers in connection with Statutory Instruments, which have increased in number and in importance since the days of the Parliament Act. They are made by Ministers, or as Orders in Council, and many of them are subject to Parliamentary review because the particular Statute empowering them to be made calls for Parliamentary approval of a draft Order
1292
or allows Parliament to pray for annulment within a given time after the issue of the Order. The financial privileges of the Commons are preserved, in so far as Statutory Instruments dealing with public money or Supply are made subject only to the review of the Commons; but in the great majority of cases the modern form of clause in the empowering Statute provides either that the draft Instrument must be approved by each House or that, once made, the Instrument is subject to annulment on a Resolution by either House.
I cannot put the resulting point better or more concisely than it was put by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in the debate on February 16 to which I have already referred. I quote from columns 421 and 422 of Hansard. He said:
"We have had more difficulty on Statutory Orders because, as they were a comparatively novel way of legislating and very seldom used when the original Parliament Act was passed, they do not come within the scope of that Act, and therefore, if your Lordships decide to divide against an Order and carry the day, that Order lapses for good and all. It can, of course, be reintroduced in exactly the same terms by the Government, but we can throw it out again and again and it can never become operative, since the House of Lords cannot be overruled. Though I can visualise occasions when your Lordships would wish to vote against an Order, I should have thought that they would be rare indeed."
My Lords, for myself, I cannot see the sort of rare occasion that the noble Lord had in mind. I think he was only reserving, once more, his desire to choose the last ditch to die in.
There are strong and obvious objections to this House keeping its present control. One, for instance, is that these Instruments, in the nature of the case, involve an exercise of ministerial discretion, and almost always the responsible Minister is in the Commons and should answer there. Another, even more serious, is the practical inconvenience that would follow on the rejection or amendment of some of these Instruments by your Lord-ships or at your Lordships' instance
Recently, for instance, we have had a number of Orders, Statutory Instruments, about changes in the structure and boundaries of local government units. One such Order required your Lordships' approval of changes in the West Midlands which had been the subject of discussions, consultations, disputes and inquiries for six years before the Order

1293
came up here. If your Lordships care to look at columns 819 and 820 of Hansard for December 16, 1965, you will find staggering figures of days spent and numbers of witnesses and counsel engaged. One inquiry had been supported after an attempt to invalidate it in the High Court, carried to the Court of Appeal. Two successive Ministers of Housing, of different Parties, had approved the substance of the Order. It raised the usual differences between county councils and borough councils, and in this House 12 of your Lordships divided against it. If they had succeeded, the whole statutory process of consultation and inquiry and the like would have had to take place again before the Minister could make a second Order, doubtless in the same terms as the first.
The trouble in this connection does not come so much from the Front Bench opposite as from the efforts of groups of noble Lords, often small groups, to represent local patriotism, local interests or the views of local authority associations. The groups are odd armies, because they never fight unless they are sure to be defeated. I suggest that a power so exercised, so capable of causing grave inconvenience, not only to the Government of the day but to the ratepayers and inhabitants immediately concerned, and so open to the fundamental criticism that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made, should be abolished. I reject as infinitely laborious and ultimately impracticable any attempt to sort out of the mass of Statutory Instruments some few, if they exist, where the present powers of this House would be appropriate. If provoked, I will read out a draft clause of eight lines which I think would do the trick as regards any Statutory Instruments made after the passing of the legislation I have in mind, whatever the date of the Statute under which those Instruments were made.
My Lords, so far I have tried to keep strictly within the purport of the Election pledge I quoted. I have not mentioned Private Members' Bills originating here or in the other place. I think that the present machinery deals with them effectively. Similarly, I have not mentioned Private Bills. They are dealt with by the two Houses through a system which in general satisfies the promoters, the objectors and the public or Govern-
1294
mental interest. Also I have not mentioned the procedure of this House, partly for reasons of time, partly because it must depend on what is done about powers. I would only say about procedure that, once the question of powers is settled, there seems to me to be some points for consideration. One is how far one can, or should, try to enforce order and relevance; another, whether more use could not be made of ad hoc Committees and Committees on Bills and, in the same connection, whether a power to select Amendments would be useful.
Before I sit down I should like to say two things about the composition of this House. In the first place, the Conference of Party Leaders in 1948 reached such a broad measure of agreement that I would not despair of quite a deal of agreement in such a Conference, probably informed, once the question of powers is settled, as I think it should be without delay. I hope that this debate will give some indication, not only of the views of noble Lords but also of how far they agree, or are willing to agree. In the second place, looking at the conclusions of that Conference, I think that the main difficulty may lie in No. 2, which ran as follows:
"The revised constitution of the House of Lords should be such as to secure as far as practicable that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political Party."
That is not saying that the proportion between noble Lords with Party allegiances should always be the same as it is at the time in the Commons; but the difficulties I foresee may arise in adapting the constitution of this House to successive changes after General Elections. It may well be a not insuperable difficulty, and I hope that noble Lords will take this opportunity to tell us whether they regard the conclusion as broadly right; what, if any, modifications should be made to it, and how best to achieve the result they desire.
Finally, my Lords, my impression is that my Party's Election promise, and what I have suggested to carry it out, may have much more support from all sides of the House now than it would have had directly after the war, when the second Parliament Act was passed. If I may say so with respect, I believe most of us to be public-spirited men and women who wish to serve our country

1295
and our fellow citizens, having various beliefs and various knowledge and experience. We recognise that the will of the electorate must prevail and, imperfect though our democracy may be, that the expression of that will is in and through an elected Chamber, not of delegates but of representatives. On Tuesday last the Guardian had a short leader headed:
"The Lords power to frustrate",
and as regards what I am suggesting today they concluded:
"These changes would achieve the Labour Party's object with the minimum of fuss and the sooner they are made the better."
I adopt those words. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.16 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, this Motion calls attention to the need for reform of your Lordships' House and its powers. I am bound to say that, before I read the Motion on the Order Paper, I was not aware of any widespread feeling that this particular need existed at the present time. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, in a very interesting speech, move the Motion, I remain unconvinced; and I expect that many noble Lords will feel the same. He spoke so swiftly about changes in the procedure with regard to Amendments in this House that I should like to study in Hansard what he said before I comment on it. I thought he had a stronger point when he got on to the question of Statutory Orders. It is rather anomalous that, although we have this power to vote against a Statutory Order, we have never exercised it in a way which has won in the Division Lobbies, and that is certainly, I think, something that might be looked at if there were a need at the present time for a serious review of the powers of your Lordships' House.
It was with some reluctance that I agreed to take part in this debate, since it was only just over one year ago that I first took my seat in your Lordships' House and made my first speech here. I am certainly not qualified to speak from any long experience, or with any authority, about the effectiveness and the efficiency of your Lordships' House in recent years. Perhaps I should just say
1296
here that it had been the intention of my noble friend and Leader, Lord Carrington, to take part in this debate, and he very much regrets that, owing to the fact that he is abroad this week, as I think some of your Lordships know, he is unable to do so. It has therefore been left to me. But in the course of my remarks I shall draw on some of his wisdom, which I think was expressed in the speech to which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has already referred, when he was speaking on the London Government Bill on February 16 of this year.
Whatever else I have to say will be an expresion of my own very tentative views on the Motion before us, and not the considered policy of the Conservative Party in this House; for, quite frankly, not being aware of any urgent need for a change in its composition and its powers, and not being aware that the Government themselves saw the slightest urgency in this matter, the Conservative Party has made no serious attempt to arrive at any agreed policy on this issue at the present time. It would therefore appear that this is an occasion largely for the expression of individual Back-Bench opinion from all quarters of the House, in order that we may see whether many share Lord Mitchison's views about the need for reform, and, if so, whether any consensus exists as to the purpose of such reform and the shape it should take.
It seems to me that if we are to make a sensible appraisal we must ask ourselves: what is the purpose of this Second Chamber; what functions is it called upon to perform? Only then can we ask ourselves whether it is in some way failing in these purposes or is incapable, as now constituted, of carrying out these functions. In his speech of February 16 my noble friend Lord Carrington set out, reasonably briefly and clearly, what he considered to be the purpose of the House of Lords, and I do not think his description was much disputed at the time.
He thought that it had three roles. First, there was the revisionary role, and I need not expand on that this afternoon. Secondly, there was its role as a forum for debate of important and urgent public issues for which time can often not conveniently be found in another place. Then he said, in the passage which has

1297
already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison:
"… but there is a third role. There could arise a matter of great constitutional and national importance, on which there was known to be a deep division of opinion in the country or perhaps on which the people's opinion was not known. In a case of this kind, it seems to me that the House of Lords has a right, and perhaps a duty, to use its powers, not to make a decision, but to accord the people of this country and Members of the House of Commons a period for reflection and time for views to be expressed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 420; 16/2/67.]
Frankly I thought that this, in its broad elements, was the view that was taken by leaders of the Labour Party at the time of the Conference which took place in 1948.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, but if he will look back at the Hansard for the day he mentioned he will see that I did, very clearly and as soon as possible, dispute the third role.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I am coming to what the present position of the Labour Party is and why it should have changed its mind since the passing of the Parliament Act 1949. I think most of your Lordships will find it rather strange that the noble Earl the Leader of the House should have stated a totally different opinion from that held by distinguished members of the Labour Party over a number of years from 1947 up to 1950.
Those roles certainly seem to me to be the roles that are assigned to this House in Parliament as at present constituted, and while, of course, it would be foolish to suggest that there is no room for improvements of a relatively minor character, I have not myself gained the impression that any very radical changes are thought to be urgently necessary by opinion either in this House or in the country at large. I say this as one who, ten or twelve years ago, was a passionate believer in reform of the House of Lords, but that was before the introduction of Life Peerages and before there was any question of payment for attendance in your Lordships' House, and at a time when attendance in this House had fallen to such a low level on occasions that there was serious concern, and possibly a real danger, that it would become incapable of carrying out in a
1298
satisfactory way its role as a Second Chamber within our Constitution.
Indeed, in those days I recall writing what I thought was a powerful article in the Spectator, urging reform of the House of Lords, although I seem to remember that I rather mocked the idea of the Second Chamber providing an effective barrier to totalitarianism in another place. I said that in such a revolutionary situation—which I am happy to think is not very imminent at the present time in this country—your Lordships would be of more use manning the barricades in Whitehall than manning your Benches in the Palace of Westminster. However, it seems to me the situation is very different now, and although it is no doubt useful that we should discuss possible improvements, I think we can do so in a reasonably relaxed manner in the knowledge that until general agreement can be reached on reform, the functioning of Parliament is not likely to be seriously hampered meanwhile.
I, like the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, have been looking back to the Agreed Statement which was issued at the end of the All-Party Conference held on House of Lords reform in the early part of 1948. This seems to me to be an important document because it shows that at that time the three Parties reached agreement on composition, broadly speaking, although, as is well known, they failed to reach agreement about powers. It strikes me that what the Party Leaders then concluded would, with certain minor modifications, find pretty general acceptance in your Lordships' House to-day, and I should like to comment on the main propositions which were set out in paragraph 5 of the Report, to one of which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has already referred.
The first proposition is:
"The Second Chamber should be complementary to and not a rival to the Lower House, and, with this end in view, the reform of the House of Lords should be based on a modification of its existing constitution as opposed to the establishment of a Second Chamber of a completely new type based on some system of election."
I believe that to be right. In those countries where the Second Chamber is elected it usually is only a pale reflection of the First Chamber. It does not really complement it in any way, and in most instances it has a minimal influence in the

1299
country. This is not, of course, true of a federal Constitution like that of the United States of America, but that is not really comparable with the situation we have in this country.
The second proposition, which the noble Lord referred to, says:
"The revised constitution of the House of Lords should be such as to secure as far as practicable that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political Party."
I think this remains a desirable objective, and the chief criticism which could be levelled against your Lordships' House at the present time is that there is a built-in majority for the Conservative Party. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that in this present day and age it is not really a rational basis on which to run a Second Chamber in a democracy.
The third proposition was:
"The present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber."
The fourth proposition rather goes with it. That says:
"Members of the Second Chamber should be styled ' Lords of Parliament' and would be appointed on grounds of personal distinction or public service. They might be drawn either from hereditary Peers, or from commoners who would be created Life Peers."
To some extent of course this has been implemented by the creation of Life Peers, but we have not really grappled with the problem of the hereditary Peers, and perhaps I could say something about that. If we are to achieve a fair balance between the Parties in this House, and if there is to be no permanent majority for any one Party, then clearly this particular nettle will have to be grasped, and I suppose there are a number of ways in which it could be done. It would mean by some means or other limiting the number of hereditary Peers who could sit, or at least vote, in this House. I imagine that it could be done by the hereditary Peerage electing, say, 50 or 75 of their number to sit and vote in this House. But I see very serious snags to such a procedure. In the first place, I think it would inevitably lead to lobbying on behalf of certain candidates. I think it would lead probably to the selection of those who were agreeable to the Party managers, and I think it would make it very difficult indeed for
1300
young Peers, or Peers who had recently succeeded to their titles, ever to gain the attention of their fellow Peers and thus enable them to become an elected hereditary Peer in this House.
It seems to me that a more promising method, which I have heard suggested, might be to limit the numbers by reference to the record of attendance of your Lordships in the previous Session. You could confine the right to vote, although perhaps not the right to speak, to those Peers who had attended a specified number of Sittings of the House in the previous Session, and obviously you could set this limit at a level which would exclude all but, say, 50 or 75 members of the hereditary Peerage. It would mean again, in the case of a young Peer or a Peer who had recently succeeded, that possibly a year would have to go by before he would get his right to vote, but this does not seem to me to be an overwhelming objection. It certainly seems to me to be a method with certain advantages, and I think it is worthy of examination.
In their Agreed Statement the Party leaders put forward as proposition (5):
"Women should be capable of being appointed Lords of Parliament in like manner as men—"
and this proposal has, of course, been put into practice. Proposition (6) says that:
"Provision should be made for the inclusion in the Second Chamber of certain descendants of the Sovereign, certain Lords Spiritual and the Law Lords."
That is the situation to-day. Proposition (7) suggests that:
"In order that persons without private means should not be excluded, some remuneration would be payable to members of the Second Chamber."
That proposal has been implemented to some extent, but if the Government were to decide on some radical reform of Parliament as a whole which required this House to do a good deal more work than it is already doing, then I doubt whether the present system of payment would be sufficient to attract to this House for the kind of hours that would be necessary the calibre of men we should wish to see here.
Proposition (8) was that:
"Peers who were not Lords of Parliament should be entitled to stand for election to the House of Commons, and also to vote at elections in the same manner as other citizens."

1301
In the intervening years since 1948 we have dealt with that point in a rather different manner, and it is now possible for a member of the Peerage to renounce his Peerage and to stand for Parliament, if he so wishes, provided that he decides within one year of succeeding to his title.
Proposition (9) was that:
"Some provision should be made for the disqualification of a member of a Second Chamber who neglects, or becomes no longer able or fitted, to perform his duties as such."
I think this provision would apply only in a reformed Second Chamber: it does not affect our workings with the Chamber as it is at present constituted. Here again, the suggestion that I mentioned earlier by which the right to vote would to some extent be bound up with the record of attendance would largely take care of that particular proposal.
So much, my Lords, for composition. I should like now to turn for a few moments to the question of powers. As was recognised at that time—and I am convinced that the arguments apply with equal force to-day—it would not be right to divorce the question of powers from that of composition. If the Government were now to say that they wished to alter the constitutional powers of the House of Lords, then we on these Benches would demand that we should also have a discussion about the composition of this House. But are there any respect able arguments for attempting to change our powers at the present time? After all, the existing powers are those which a Labour Government, after long and careful deliberation, thought were appropriate in 1948.
Their general philosophy on this subject was set out in paragraph 8 of the Agreed Statement, where they said:
"The Government representatives agreed that it is important that points of dispute between the two Houses should be appreciated by the public, but they considered that the proposals of the Parliament Bill"—
that is, one year delay—
"adequately safeguard constitutional rights in this respect, and afford sufficient time for public opinion (which formulates more rapidly in modern conditions than was the case thirty years ago, to understand and pronounce upon a disputed issue."
During the course of the debates on the Parliament Bill in 1948 the late Lord Addison said:
1302
"I would like to say, in reply to the noble Viscount who has just spoken, that it never entered anybody's head, so far as I have heard, to reduce the period below one year." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 153, col. 745, 2/2/48.]
I am not aware of any events since that time which would lead the Labour Party to change their views. The powers which they then thought right and appropriate have not been abused; and since the introduction of Life Peerages this House has become more representative. What possible reason is there for interfering with those powers at the present time? 1 know of none, my Lords.
To sum up, we on these Benches will always be very ready to discuss proposals for improving this House and the way it does its work.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I intervene?—I am much obliged. The noble Lord did not deal at all with the question of Amendments or the question of Statutory Instruments, and I think that in practice those two questions are more important than the question of the outright acceptance or rejection of a Bill.
LORD HARLECH: I am sorry, but I said at the beginning of my speech that the noble Lord had spoken so fast about the question of Amendments that I should like to study his words before giving my views about it. I conceded that he had a point with regard to Statutory Orders, and I pointed out that over many years now there never has been a vote to defeat the passing of a Statutory Order.
I was saying that we on these Benches would always be very ready to discuss proposals for improving this House and its working, but I am not conscious that there is any general consensus in favour of any radical changes at this moment in our history. If, however, the moment did arise when it seemed right to introduce some constitutional reform, we on this side of the House would consider it wholly wrong for one Party in Parliament to attempt to impose its own ideas on the other Parties. If there were to be changes they would best come about as a result of all-Party agreement, and I do not see why this should prove difficult of achievement. Finally, I would repeat what I said earlier in my speech. We, for our part, believe that all previous experience has shown that the question of

1303
powers and the question of composition are inextricably bound together, and we would wish to discuss them together.
3.40 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that we are indebted to him for initiating this debate. I was surprised at the line which the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, took in saying that he was not convinced of the need for change or, indeed, for debating change in the composition and the powers of your Lordships' House. I should not like that to go out as the image which we in the House of Lords present to the public, because I think that the public feels that there is a good reason for having another look at the House of Lords to see if it is playing its proper part in the Constitution.
I do not think that Lord Mitchison would claim that his speech was startling or radical; nevertheless, I think it gives us an opportunity of debating this matter once again. I think he is absolutely right in saying that we should not wait for a real clash to be provoked between the two Houses before we tackle this problem. To my mind, this is a most serious danger, particularly as the Labour Party, as Lord Mitchison reminded us, has committed itself to some form of legislation, possibly in this Parliament. I think it would be true to say that Parliamentary democracy has survived as it has in this country because we have usually been prepared to meet these problems and to accept changes in our practices and our institutions when we felt that they were necessary.
The reform of the House of Lords has been a subject of frequent debate, and as the debates have gone on I think different aspects of the problem have become clearer and, on analysis, have pointed in certain directions for solution. In the Liberal Party there is a strong feeling that further changes in the powers and composition of the Lords are needed, and that they should take place within the next five to ten years if we are to do the job properly. We shall be setting up a committee of Liberal Members in the Commons and the Lords and from outside Parliament to see whether we can come forward with more comprehen-
1304
sive proposals than the Parties have been able to do in the recent past. In the meantime, I should like to suggest some of the areas where I believe there is a certain amount of agreement and some of the directions in which we might look in this area of reform.
In the first place, I believe—I think this is an important change—that support for the abolition of the Upper House is now far less than it was just after the war, when the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and I and others in this House were in the House of Commons. I believe the vast majority of people want a two-Chamber system. I think the points of contention are, as both noble Lords have said, the functions, the composition and the powers; but the bone of contention is not the existence of the House. I think that is accepted.
I think, also, there is much support for the view that the Upper House must not be in competition with the Lower House—rather that it should be complementary to it. If this is accepted, then I think that the case for the whole of the Upper House being directly elected, which many people are putting forward, falls to the ground. There might be a case for part of the House being elected from multi-Member constituencies in the regions by proportional representation, but, as one noble Lord said, election from single-Member constituencies duplicates the Lower House and it becomes merely a pale reflection of the properly elected Chamber.
On functions, I believe that the main consideration here is that the Lords should perform, and be seen to perform, a useful function, indeed, a helpful function, in the national interest. Its function should certainly not be to obstruct the Government of the day in carrying out policies on which the voters have pronounced at an Election, or which the majority of the Lower House support. On the other hand—this I think, is where I may be differing with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison—if the Upper House has no sanction at all at its disposal the tendency of the Lower House must surely be progressively to ignore the Upper House. Some delaying and amending power is therefore, in my view, essential if this House is to keep its own self-respect and to be respected by the House of Commons.

1305
As to functions, I doubt if there is much that needs radically to be changed. The House initiates legislation, quite often more progressive legislation than Members of the other place are prepared to sponsor at that particular time; it acts as a useful revising Chamber, and it affords—this, I think, is most important—an opportunity for airing publicly problems which the Lower House may wish to avoid as being inconvenient to the Government or to the Members. If this House needs an additional task, there is a great deal that it could do in examining the efficiency or inefficiency of the Government administration and the way in which we perform the administration of our Civil Service.
I think the criticism which can be justified is that the House does not, on the whole, perform its present functions as efficiently as it could, although it makes a far better showing than it is given credit for in many quarters. We tend to rely too much on the dedicated services of a relatively few Members who can find the time, for instance, to tackle the details of the Committee stage of Bills. I think those who turn up do a wonderful job, and we should be grateful to them, but, looked at from an efficiency point of view, it is a pretty haphazard arrangement and one, I think, which could bear further study.
This points to some considerations concerning the composition of the House. If the House is to be useful, there must surely be a strong cadre of Members able to do the work of the House efficiently. That means that this basic group should be limited. The figure I have in mind is something like 400 strong, if we are to have an efficient working group. I do not think the number can be unlimited, but this is a matter upon which noble Lords of course differ. I believe that this cadre will have to be properly paid if they are to do the job properly. They must also be provided with adequate facilities for carrying out an efficient job. As a digression, may I say that I wish there were more emphasis on the fact that membership of this House is an appointment to a place in a law-making institution and far less an honour for services which have been rendered, or not rendered, to the nation. We need Peers who are able to attend and to do a good job of work.
1306
If we are to get them, I think we shall have to pay for them.
However, the point is, how to get a good working group and from where should they be selected? I think the general acceptance of the need both for a degree of regionalism in this country and the desire for devolution which is strong in Wales and Scotland, as the by-elections have shown recently, provides a good reason for a proportion of the formed House to be appointed from the regions, from Scotland and from Wales and from Northern Ireland. In the case of Scotland and Wales, this would not be an alternative to those nations having their own Parliaments, for which many of them have struggled for so long. But it might well be that out of a House of about 400 Members one-quarter might be appointed in this way from the regions, from Scotland and Wales and also from Northern Ireland. I think this is something which we ought to consider in a reformed House.
If election by proportional representation in the regions is not accepted, as I think it should be, such Peers would have to be nominated by the Parties in the regions, and the allocation would be according to the votes cast in the previous Election; or, if there were proportional representation, it could be based in proportion to the Members who have been returned in those regions. I think those people would have to be nominated for a fairly long term, say nine to twelve years, and one-third or one-quarter would have to be newly nominated or re-nominated every three or four years.
As to the rest of the House one thing is clear to me. I do not think that in future membership can possibly be based on the hereditary principle. In many ways it has served very well indeed, but it is out of keeping with modern democratic ideas, no matter how highly we may regard the holders of hereditary titles with whom we have worked in this House in past years. I do not want in any way to lose the contribution of the hereditary Peers who are with us now and who have been regular attenders and have made great contributions to the working of this House. I believe that the proper thing to do with those who are regular attenders is to make them Life Peers in the reformed House. In addition, I believe a place must be found in the Upper House for a

1307
number of distinguished Peers who may not be able to attend regularly but whose occasional contributions are of the highest quality in specialist fields. But if the House is to be a working organisation, obviously we shall have to limit the number of those independent Peers who are unable to attend regularly to help in the routine work of the House.
The major problem, as I see it, is how the basic House is to be appointed or nominated if it is to perform a useful and objective function. Coupled with this is the delaying and amending power which the House needs if it is not to become a mere cipher. I think a properly constituted House, from which the fear of the unheralded descent of the Backwoodsmen has been eliminated, would need a delaying power of not more than something like three months, but I believe that it must have a delaying power if its amending power is to be of any value. I believe that to-day the period of one year, which we all agreed to in 1948, is probably too long. It is the one-year delay which can really undo Government legislation and which makes everybody in the House frightened of imposing any delay at all, whereas a three months' delay is something which is reasonable. If the Government insist on getting their business through without any further delay, then they can give in on some of the points which the House of Lords has made; otherwise they will accept the three months' delay. But without any delay at all, I do not see that this House would have the power to perform a useful function in the Parliamentary democracy which we possess. There may be a case for having the three months' delay in the first four Sessions of a Parliament and a rather longer delay of perhaps six months in the last Session of a Parliament, although one should remember that there is an opposing view that the tendency is for a Government to need prodding, rather than delaying, in the last year of its life. However, if the House is to preserve a useful function it may be that towards the end of a Parliament it will want to hold up legislation until the electorate can again pronounce on it.
May I revert to composition and how Peers should be appointed? I have mentioned the possibility of the regional, Scots, Welsh and Northern Ireland Peers.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on a point of clarification? The noble Lord said that perhaps a quarter of his House of 400 would emerge from the regions, and he has mentioned Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Surely 100 out of the new House would not come from those areas alone—or would they come from all the regions of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make it clear. One has to be careful here. We must remember that Scotland and Wales are not regions; they are countries. They are nations, and they may well have within them their own regions. To make it specific, I would say from the regions of England, and from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But I hope that I shall not be criticised for implying that those great countries are in any way small regions, for they are not. As I have said, we should have these regional and national members.
The appointment of the remainder presents a real problem and I do not propose to put forward concrete suggestions to-day. I would say that the other 300 obviously cannot be in the gift of the Prime Minister of the day. In my view, the Prime Minister has far too much patronage already. What we want to see is a well-balanced House broadly representative of the strength of the Parties in the country, but including a substantial number of Independents. This is the strength of the House. The method of appointing a House of fixed numbers is extremely difficult, but it is important that we should tackle it.
In addition to the regional Members, one assumes that all the Life Peers would be nominated to the House and that the remainder of the House would, in the first place, be drawn from the remaining hereditary Peers now in the House. I think that the Independents could initially be agreed upon between the Parties and the Prime Minister of the day, and thereafter as vacancies occurred the Prime Minister could fill them. The aim, however, should be to get a House which broadly represents the strength of the Parties in the country but which includes within it the sort of Independents who we all know make a very important contribution.

1309
One hesitates before putting forward these ideas as concrete proposals because there are so many details which have to be thought out. There are such matters as the term of office of regional members, which I have mentioned. The very real problem, if one gets rid of the hereditary principle, is that of trying to find a young age group in the House, which is very important unless we are all to become a lot of "squares" of retiring age. I think we must get down to something definitive in the way of reform in the next year or so. I believe there is a perfectly good starting point, as the noble Lord, Lord Harlech said, but it is only a starting point; and that is the Agreed Statement at the conclusion of the Conference of Party Leaders in February to April, 1948. I found myself involved in this as the then Chief Whip of the Liberal Party in the Commons. We thought that we had got real agreement between the three Parties at that time, and I think I may say that we were extremely sorry and disappointed that we could not get that document accepted. It shows how close the Parties were, and I think we could move on from there. I would ask the Government to ensure that there is proper consultation on this matter between the Parties and between the Houses before they bring forward legislation.
3.56 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, more particularly because I regret that I shall not be able to stay until the end, and for that I apologise to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. But discovering this morning that no Member from the Cross Benches had put down his name to speak it seemed to me to be only right that there should he at any rate one voice from these Benches. On these occasions one can only throw one's personal ideas into the pool. That is what I propose to do, as shortly as I can. In view of the large number of speakers I shall be brief.
There are still, although the noble Lord, Lord Byers, does not think that this idea is now very strongly supported, root-and-branch men who would like to abolish the Second Chamber altogether. One reason is that they object to Second Chambers as such. Another reason is that they would like our Second Chamber to be of a totally different kind. As to those ideas I would say this. A single omni
1310
competent Chamber without the safeguard of a Written Constitution would be highly dangerous, and I think that that is now generally accepted. Secondly, I doubt whether, short of a revolution, we are likely to see such root-and-branch changes. That is not the way we do things in this country.
Short of abolition, there are ideas for drastic modifications in the matter of composition. One such idea would be for a House on the present model but purged of the hereditary element. By some, the hereditary element is held to be objectionable in itself. By others, it is objected to because it leads to a built-in majority for one of the two main Parties. I have not much sympathy for the first objection. The hereditary principle is deeply rooted in our history: in the past the hereditary Peerage has made a notable contribution to our affairs, and it makes a notable contribution to-day. I should not, therefore, be in favour of the total elimination from this House of Peers who have succeeded their fathers. But some limitation of their numbers would be of advantage.
There have been perfectly respectable propositions to this end which have received a fair degree of assent, and the noble Lords, Lord Mitchison, Lord Harlech and Lord Byers, have all referred with approval to those all-Party propositions. I would agree with them that that is the basis on which we ought to work from now onwards. With the existing power to appoint Life Peers—and that power has come into being since 1948—it should now be possible, in combination with a process of selection among Peers by succession, to adjust the balance of the Parties, and to do so in a way which would still bring some younger men into this House. Both the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, made some extremely interesting suggestions about various possible ways by which this objective might be achieved.
I should not myself be in favour of reproducing accurately in this House the Party structure of the other place as it is after each Election. What would be worth consideration would be a reasonable balance between the two main Parties. The two Parties could then, if I may venture to say so, compete for the votes of the Liberal Party and the Independent Peers. This would add, I think, to the significance of our debates. It

1311
would also add to the status of this House as a legislative body.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us what form the competition would take?
LORD STRANG: What could happen would be what happens now sometimes. There is one member of the Government Front Bench who, when he is facing a difficult Division, turns and faces the Cross Benches—the only place where he can hope to win votes. As I was saying, in that event the House would be no more likely than at present to insist on its views vis-à-vis the Commons, and its proceedings would no longer bear the stigma of Party unfairness. That is all I have to say about composition. I do not have time to go into all the details of the possible methods of selection. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, have both made some extremely useful suggestions, with a great number of which I agree. So much for composition.
Now a word about powers. The present extent of the delaying power of this House in the matter of the passage of Government Bills rests upon an Act passed during the time of the first post-War Labour Government. I believe that some delaying power should be retained. In this I agree with both the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers. It would be all the more justifiable, it seems to me, to retain the delaying power if the composition of the House could be reviewed, in point of Party balance, in the way I have suggested, and on this I am inclined to agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. In the first place, the exercise of the delaying power would be based not upon a purely Party vote but upon a wider consensus, with a substantial independent element. I am grateful for the importance which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, attaches to those Peers who sit on these Benches. We are very jealous of the contribution which we can make to the House, and we are much touched when this is recognised in other parts of the House.
In the second place, while this may not be accepted, it seems to me to be a mistake to assume that it would be only a Right-Wing opposition in this House
1312
which would wish, if the case arose, to resort to the delaying power. No one can foresee how our political life will develop. It seems to me quite conceivable that in some future circumstances it might be a Left-Wing Opposition which would wish to delay some measure of a Right-Wing Government, and with the new composition which I suggest those two alternatives would be perfectly possible. In this matter, the present practice, as has been emphasised, is not to abuse the delaying power in the passage of Bills. Its abuse would be still less likely in the new circumstances than it is at present if we had a House with a revised composition. My conclusion is that the retention of the delaying power in some measure would provide in some degree a safeguard against possible Government legislative irresponsibility.
There is one reform in the matter of powers which might be considered, and to this the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has referred. In the matter of Orders, as distinct from Government Bills, this House possesses not merely a delaying power but an independent power of rejection. I think that this power needs to be reviewed. It seems to me that the fate of Orders should perhaps be the joint concern of the two Houses and not of each House severally.
Finally, there is the question of procedure in the field of legislation. I do not have much sympathy with some of the current proposals to tamper with our procedure. The House works extremely smoothly and flexibly, and in its work on Bills performs a most useful service. Tributes to this effect are paid from time to time in another place, even by members of the Labour Party. But the most powerful encomium upon the utility and efficiency of this House as a legislative Chamber was expressed some four years ago by the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who could speak with great authority. Speaking on March 7, 1963, on the concluding stage of the Water Resources Bill, a Bill which started its course in this House, the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth said—and with your Lordships' permission I should like to quote a few passages from his speech. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7/3/63, cols. 548–550.]:
"The point to which I wish to draw attention is that some people object to there being

1313
two Houses of Parliament. They believe their views are progressive, and I quite understand their feelings. But if there were not two Houses of Parliament, the output of legislation would inevitably be much less than it is…When I was Leader of the House of Commons, one of the things which impressed me was that if there were no Second Chamber—which we call the House of Lords—then that great programme of legislative output could never have been achieved."
A little later he said:
"… if there were no Second Chamber…If this House, with all its perfections—and, let me add, its imperfections—did not exist (it is not perfect, and I should like to see some com- position changes: I do not want changes in its powers, because it has its virtues) the capacity to handle Bills and tidy them up would be greatly curtailed."
A little further on he used these words:
"If we had not this Second Chamber we should have to invent another stage, if not two more stages, in the House of Commons, in order to get the necessary detailed examination of Bills…I would say, therefore, that this institution is time-saving. It is a good Chamber at revision, and it does the work in a businesslike way.
"I have never forgotten a Road Traffic Bill which I as Minister of Transport, introduced in another place in 1930…They nearly killed me in another place on that Bill, whereas here it went with expedition. As I say the House of Lords is a time-saving institution. It contributes to the perfect drafting and wording of Bills; and so, to quote the words of Sir Alan Herbert, in his play Big Ben:
"There's a lot to be said for the Lords."
So much for Lord Morrison of Lambeth.
On the matter of procedure, there is one further point that I should like to make. In the case of non-controversial, non-political, less important Bills, it might be useful for the Committee stage to be taken upstairs rather than on the Floor of the House. I think that earlier speakers have made the same point, and it seems to me to be quite an important one.
Finally, on quite a different point, it may be that sooner or later, and as I would think for better or for worse, we shall sign the Treaty of Rome and join the European Economic Community. That would be a most momentous step, which would have very great consequences for the status and the scope of operation of Parliament. No-one can yet foresee, I think, what those changes would be, but it seems to me that, if we are thinking of reforming Parliament, we had better wait and see whether we get into the Common Market, and what effect that would have on Parliament, before we start reforming Parliament. I believe
1314
that those changes would be much greater than most people imagine.
4.12 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I would congratulate my noble friend Lord Mitchison on introducing this Motion and upon his well-prepared and carefully thought-out speech. It has already produced three speeches, besides his own, well worthy of the attention of the House. Whether this debate will produce any consensus of opinion I very much doubt, but certainly it is worth while and right that we should from time to time consider the matters which are now before us.
I will try to keep personal considerations out of anything that I say here this afternoon, for I cannot think of any change which might take place in the composition of this House which might exclude me, at my age, from it—and as the House knows perfectly well I thoroughly enjoy being a Member of your Lordships' House. I admit to hating losing my seat in the other place, and to feeling deprived during the period when I was no longer attendant at Westminster. I felt that I was away from the centre of things, for once a man or a woman is injected with the drug of Westminster, for ever after he or she is an addict; and I myself am an addict.
Trying to keep all my personal feelings outside what I will say, what is now my approach to this House, to its composition, to its duties and powers? Its value, as I see it, and as my experience here has taught me, is that as a legislation revising Chamber it does an excellent job in the main, with purely Party considerations on Amendments to Bills obtruding themselves only on the rarest of occasions. It is a valuable sounding board of opinions, which I find, as I am sure the Government do, of very great value, although in the main I am bound to admit that they are the opinions of the more conservative—and I use the word "conservative" here with a small "c"—elements of our nation. They are, in fact, mostly the opinions of the "squares", as Lord Byers called them, and many of us.
I cannot pretend that I regard this as a debating Chamber of the highest class for debating as such, but it is a Chamber in which individual speeches are at times,

1315
in the quality of their content, their thought and contribution to subjects often highly specialised and expert, unsurpassed in any Chamber of which I have any knowledge. We know that these speeches but rarely have an immediate effect—which is also true, of course, of speeches which are made in the other Chamber—but they help to change climates of opinion both inside and outside Governmental circles. If this were not so, I am sure that on most days when a Motion is under discussion here most of the distinguished Lords who come specially for the purpose of participating in debate would not give up their precious and valuable time.
Although the majority of Peers who sit here have a Party affiliation, there is this strong Cross-Bench element, to which reference has already been made; and I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in paying tribute to the excellence and high calibre—of which we have had an example this afternoon in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strang—of this element within this Chamber of ours, and to its participation in our work. Indeed, the Cross-Benches have been considerably strengthened in recent years. I am glad about this in some ways, though of course, I am still something of a Party animal. This Chamber has also the supreme advantage of never being likely to vie in public esteem with the other Chamber.
What are my objections to this House in its present form and with its present composition? The radical in me strongly objects to a system in which a man or a woman has any right to participate in government merely on the grounds that he or she was born a Peer, although I immediately concede that many of those who come here as a result of their inheritance are of a quality which would justify their selection or election to any legislative Chamber. I must add that the system of inheritance has an advantage in so far as it results in young men coming in; and it is also true, I think, that in any process of selection the tendency would inevitably be to bring here mostly the "grey-beards". I cannot see any other way in which you might achieve any other result.
I am positive, as a member of the Labour Party, that an inbuilt Conservative
1316
majority is an offence to every democratic principle of which I can think. In my very early life I hated a system which gave the country as part of its Government what Mr. Lloyd-George called, "Mr. Balfour's poodle". To-day, if I felt in the same sort of mood as I was in then—and this is many years ago—I would call it, "Mr. Heath's organ", even though, judging by Lord Carrington's recent speech, he is playing it pianissimo. But the fact is, my Lords, that by a process of what someone has called" a kind of happy evolution common in British institutions", a second Chamber has evolved which caused the late Viscount Esher to say with some truth:
"We are fortunate to have inherited an institution which we certainly should never have had the intelligence to create".
Some of your Lordships will remember his words on that occasion.
My Lords, we have a Second Chamber which by no stretch of the imagination is ever likely to compete in prestige with the elected Chamber; but this Chamber brings to its counsels a large number of wise men from the professions and many other walks of life. Its powers are rightly limited but, as I have said before, I believe that it has considerable influence on Governments and on public opinion. It is an essential revising Chamber, for we can here take our decisions free from the pressures and fears of the personal effects that might result. When I speak here—and I am sure that this applies to practically every other Member of the House—I am not looking over my shoulder at what my constituents might think about what I say, or whether they might call me to account on my next visit to my constituency; and I am not looking over my shoulder to a trade union and wondering what they will think of it. When I speak from these Benches—but not from the Government Benches—I speak as I think and feel. I believe this to be a very great advantage.
But having said that in favour of this House, I believe, with my noble friend Lord Mitchison, that the time has come to make some modification of its powers. There is a gap in the limitation of our powers which was clearly not foreseen at the time of the 1911 Act; namely, the growth of Statutory Orders under various Acts of Parliament. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, admit

1317
this, and say that he thought perhaps we might have a look at this and do something about it. This House can delay Bills for a period which, although we talk about twelve months, really boils down to a delay of some five or six months; if you work out the timetable of a Bill which might have to be forced through, I think it might be found to be a delay of five or six months rather than of twelve. This is not a very long period for most Bills and does not do much to frustrate the will of the elected House. But this House could, if it were determined, completely frustrate the will of the other House on Statutory Orders, whether they be of the Affirmative or the other kind, by refusing to pass them or by rejecting them on a Prayer. I am of the opinion that this power should be taken away from us. I am sure also that we should have the right to express our opinion on them, but that the Government of the day should be able to get their way after they have considered our views on any such orders.
My Lords, despite all I have said in favour of this House, as at present constituted, I would end the system that gives it a built-in majority; I would end the hereditary system which is repugnant to me—although I have admitted some of its advantages—but, like so many who have considered what sort of Second Chamber we should have, I cannot make up my mind what we should put in its place. Every system that I have been able to study—and I have looked at quite a lot—seems to me to have disadvantages which far outweigh its advantages. That is my difficulty. It is also the case that when I see something that works fairly well I tend to say: "Leave it alone. Do not change it for the sake of change."
I have yet to be convinced that change, except in the limited aspect of Statutory Orders, is either desirable or necessary. To many of my friends, both inside and outside this House, this will seem a very negative and a not very "with it" approach. But my attitude stems from some 20 years of Parliamentary experience, from five and a half years here during which there was a period in which as Deputy Leader of the House I suppose I spent as much or perhaps more time watching every aspect of its work than any other Member, from the Lord Chancellor downwards. That is my honest opinion. I am here this afternoon to
1318
give that opinion, as, I am sure, is every other speaker.
4.25 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to, and to follow, the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I was one of those who greatly admired his geniality and courtesy at the Dispatch Box, and I am glad that he now has the opportunity, in an independent position, of contributing to our debates. I am sorry in some ways that he is not still at the Dispatch Box; but I have the consolation of knowing that if he were still on the Front Bench he might by now be airborne for Aden.
We have had from the noble Lord, Lord Byers, a detailed forecast, presumably, of the survey of the problem which the Liberal Party is to undertake. I cannot find myself convinced, either by what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said or by what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said that there is any particular advantage in the introduction of an elected element into this House over the existing advantages—which are widely accepted—of nomination. What would be the point in adding an elected element, which, so far as I can make out from the Liberal proposals, would consist of 100 superannuated county aldermen who would be injected into the membership of this House?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but would the noble Lord allow me to state that I did not suggest anything of the kind.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I was at that moment referring to the proposals which I understood had been made by the new Leader of the Liberal Party in this House.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to put the blame on me, and not on Lord Mitchison.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I was about to come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. I personally am indebted to him on two grounds for initiating this debate. In the first place, he has enabled me to make a speech in this House which in other circumstances I saw no prospect of being able to make for at least a year or so. He has also assumed, though in a modest way, I thought, some of the responsibility and

1319
some of the opprobrium of suggesting to your Lordships that this House might be of greater service to the nation if it approached its tasks in a somewhat different way. He began by giving us a classic description of the social democratic approach to an Upper Chamber that was based on the hereditary principle; but I thought the conclusions he drew as to the changes which were necessary were confined almost exclusively to a relatively limited aspect of our procedure. But I am grateful to him for any support that he may feel able to give in the future for the reform of certain aspects of our procedure which I personally believe to be essential.
As your Lordships will remember, I invited this House last year to agree to appoint a Select Committee to examine our procedure—as indeed has already been done by the House of Commons. In doing so, I drew on my head the rebukes of many of my noble friends on this side; and not least from my noble friend Lord Conesford. I was accused of discourtesy to the distinguished personalities whom we have on our existing Procedure Committee. The Lord Chairman of Committees assured the House that any suggestion that I made came within the terms of reference of that Committee. At the end the noble Earl the Leader of the House suggested that in his view it might be a good thing if the membership of the Procedure Committee were widened. Perhaps it will be possible for me at this point to ask him whether his proposal has, in fact, been put to the Committee; if so, whether it has been accepted, and when this change in the composition of the Procedure Committee will be brought into operation.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt at this point, in case the noble Lord and other noble Lords are not here when I come to reply? The proposal has certainly come before the Procedure Committee and is being closely studied.
LORD ALPORT: All I would say is that, while I am sure they will give careful study to it, it seems to me that such a modest proposal should not, perhaps, take the greater part of a year to consider before a definite decision is made on it. It seems to me that this proves the point
1320
I made: that this particular Committee, because of its origin and its distinction, is not an appropriate body to carry through a programme, even a limited programme, of reform.
I realise very well that most of your Lordships who are active Members of this House do not think that any reform of this House or of its procedure is necessary. This is apparently the conclusion which has been drawn from the recent survey made by a body outside this House of the opinion of your Lordships. But if there is anyone, apart from myself, who sees in a reform of the procedure of our House a chance of ensuring that your Lordships make a more useful contribution to the government of Britain, I hope that he will give the House the benefit of his views on this occasion. We must realise, my Lords—and I certainly do—that there are powerful and established forces seeking to preserve your Lordships' House in its present form and its present impotence.
Not long ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has already indicated—and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, also referred to it—the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave a very frank and honest statement of opinion during the course of our discussions on the 1967 London Government Bill. What he said was, I think, in its essence a severe criticism of the House in its present form and with its present powers. I would draw your attention to one passage in what my noble friend said:
"… it has always been my view that the House of Lords will only be able to use its delaying powers once. Members of the Party opposite"—
that was, of course, the Labour Party—
"in another place will, I am sure, make certain either that this House is abolished or that its remaining powers are removed, if there is a direct confrontation of this kind between the two Houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/2/67, col. 422.]
This, my Lords, is the doctrine of the one bisque. A dauntless Conservative majority in this House has the power once, and once only, to frustrate a decision by a dictatorial Labour Government possessing a majority in the House of Commons. And, apparently, having made this gesture in defence of the Constitution, we should then be required to queue up to be carted off in the tumbrils to have our heads cut off on Tower Hill

1321
or to be bundled into a gas chamber in Smith Square. And thus an outraged Labour House of Commons, supported by public opinion, would wipe your Lordships off the face of the earth for ever—to the accompaniment, of course, of tears and groans from true patriots.
This is magnificent in theory, but it does not seem to me to be politics. I wonder whether it has been considered what would be the position, and how different would be the position of your Lordships' House, if it could be assumed that a majority in this House of Lords could frustrate a decision of a Government relying on a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. Such a possibility, naturally, does not often cross the minds of noble Lords here, but my noble friend, Lord Carrington, did say that it was the "built-in" Conservative majority here which was at the root of the weakness of your Lordships' position. He said, in the same speech to which I have referred (col. 419):
"The composition of your Lordships' House can be held up to ridicule.…"
The fact is, my Lords, that it is to this that we owe our impotence as a Parliamentary institution. It is due to this that we have in Britain to-day, whether in this House we admit it or not, a single-Chamber Parliament. It is due to this, in my view, that, at any rate in some degree, the institution of Parliament in Britain has fallen into disrepute and inefficiency. It may well be that the recent survey to which I have already referred is right in showing that an overwhelming majority of your Lordships are satisfied with the present composition, powers and functions of this House. I must admit—and I think that perhaps your Lordships have already guessed it —that I am not. I think the present alignment of this House, with the Party confrontation in the House of Commons, is bad for the Conservative Party; is bad for the House of Lords; is bad for Parliament and is contrary to the interests of good government in Britain.
During my lifetime I have acquired a passionate belief in the ability of the British people to adapt, to temper their political and social institutions to meet the needs of the times. I referred earlier to the powerful and established forces seeking to preserve your Lordships'
1322
House in its present form and its present impotence. The Conservative Party and the Labour Party in the House of Commons both form part of these forces: the Conservatives because they rely on a built-in majority as a tactical instrument in the Party struggle, and Labour because they prefer a one-Chamber Parliament, knowing that in anything that matters this House will give way to the elected Chamber.
But, my Lords, it is my belief—I may be wrong—that, slow to rouse as they may be, the political instincts of the people of this country make them realise that, in the tumultuous generation which separates us from September, 1939, the tremendous changes which have taken place in the status which we occupy, and in the problems which we face as a country, must involve the adaptation of our institutions, including this Upper Chamber of Parliament, to cope with the new situation. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Strang, is right; that in considering this new situation not only must we consider our position as we find it politically and economically at the present time, but we shall also, within a relatively short time, have to consider it also as a member of the European Economic Community.
It may be that some Members of this House will feel that the progressive emasculation of our powers since 1911, the extension of the Peerage for life beyond the ranks of the Judiciary and Episcopacy, and the addition of women Peers, involved sufficient change, in all conscience, to meet the needs of the times. Yet, as my noble friend Lord Carrington made clear in his speech, the present position of this House is impotent, unbalanced and liable to ridicule—apart from the myth of the one bisque.
I have not tried to suggest to your Lordships what sort of reform is required. As a result of my previous excursions into this field I have learned that our first problem is not to establish how this House can serve the nation better, but simply that there is a convincing case for seeking ways and means of doing so. Of this I personally have no doubt. Further, I believe that nothing would confer a greater distinction upon your Lordships' House than the fact that the initiative in achieving such reform was

1323
not forced on us by an impatient Government or by a critical public, but was taken by us ourselves.
I therefore regret that any offence or misunderstanding that I may have caused may have misled any noble Lords to oppose in the past something which anyone, I should have thought, with political realism and public spirit would realise is vital to the future welfare of Parliament and to good government here in Britain. By this I mean the taking of the initiative by your Lordships' House in introducing a measure of reform designed to enable it to play a more constructive role in the Parliamentary life of the nation. I hope, in fact, that I shall have your Lordships' support for a Bill which at some appropriate date in the future I hope to introduce into this House to give effect to the reforms that I have in mind.
4.40 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Mitchison, not only for introducing this Motion and for the speech which he made in support of it but also for promoting the speeches which have since followed. This is an unusual occasion for this House, because we all have indulged in a certain amount of introspection and have spoken our true minds, free from the views which we are supposed to hold. The result has been somewhat surprising. I could hardly believe my own ears when I heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Champion; but, as he said, he was speaking his mind. I hope that I shall not shock noble Lords when I express my own views, which, let me say at once, will be rather different from the views of my noble friend Lord Champion.
My noble friend Lord Mitchison outlined the powers of the Chamber he had in mind and what changes he would make, and I would broadly agree with him, except in two respects. First, if we had the kind of Chamber he visualises I think it would be rather humiliating if any Amendments we made to legislation should merely lie on the Table of another place and that it should be left to them to decide which of them they would condescend to discuss. I do not think that we could submit to that. In the kind of Chamber I visualise—and I am going to describe it—I would assume that any
1324
Amendments we put forward would be worthy of consideration and discussion. I hope that my noble friend will not persist in that idea.
The other aspect is this. Having heard the speeches to-day, I am not so sure that a certain amount of power of delay would not be an advantage. I agree with my noble friend Lord Champion that in practice this does not amount to twelve months; it is a matter of a few months. My difficulty is that it in fact gives this House power to prevent legislation in the last year of the life of a Parliament. If some means could be devised to get over that difficulty, then I should certainly not be opposed to the idea of a certain power of delay.
I hope, whatever happens, that we shall never so alter our machinery and procedure as to prevent the kind of discussion we are having to-day. Perhaps this is the most valuable part of our work, possibly every bit as valuable as the power to amend legislation. But I do not wish to pursue to-day the matter of the powers of this Chamber. I think they have been discussed adequately. I want to say something about two aspects of the Second Chamber which my noble friend Lord Mitchison did not have time to deal with fully. The first is procedure, which nobody has touched on except the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who I know is keen on this subject, and the second is composition.
We should all agree that the first essetial of a Second Chamber is that it should be effective and businesslike. In my view, and I know that this is not going to be very popular, the essential for conducting an effective, efficient and workmanlike body is to have, and even more to observe, ordinary rules of debate. In this House many compliments have been paid about the way in which we conduct ourselves, but if we are honest with ourselves we must admit that speeches are not always relevant to the issues that are before the House, and there is no effective check. Occasionally my noble friend the Leader of the House stands up and gently comments on a speech, with greater or less effect; but that is not the way in which a Chamber should be conducted. It may be nice to he able to ramble on irrelevantly and reminisce, and to do so without being checked, but it does not add to the stature of the House or to the value of its discussions.

1325
Then Amendments are often put down which in another place would be completely out of order, which are irrelevant, which sometimes are even beyond our jurisdiction as we now accept it, and which in many cases have been so fully discussed in another place that any discussion here is mere tedious repetition. And there is no power to prevent such Amendments going down or being discussed. Many of those Amendments are discussed at great length, even though, as I say, they have been fully discussed in another place and in many cases the arguments disposed of.
Again, in spite of what my noble friend Lord Champion said, I believe that some Amendments go down purely for the purpose of obstruction, simply because noble Lords do not like the measure before the House and want to delay and frustrate it as much as possible. This is not something which is confined to any Party. I admit freely that I have been as much responsible for putting down obstructive Amendments as anybody in your Lordships' House. For nine or ten years I was Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in the days when, I regret to say, there were few noble Lords who could or were willing to do the job, and much of the burden fell on my shoulders. I know that on a number of measures we were objecting to, Amendments were put down which were purely destructive and obstructive. I should not like to assume that that does not happen to-day.
There is no-one who can stop this practice, but it ought to be stopped. It quite inefficient and wrong, and it certainly lowers our stature and our dignity. Therefore, some time ago I had the temerity to suggest that there ought to be some person above Party who would be able to deal with those Amendments, to pick out those that were out of order or which no longer needed further discussion and reject them. And this same person ought to be able, as the Speaker in another place does, to deal with speeches which are becoming irrelevant and straying beyond what is reasonable. Of course, there is not anybody. I hope that my noble and learned friend will not mind my referring to him, but we have the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack. If he were able to do this it would be ideal, but he cannot. He might be called upon at any moment to make a controversial speech in the debate, and it would
1326
hardly be appropriate, and I am sure it would not be acceptable, that he should also be in a position to tell speakers in the same debate that they were out of order. The same applies to the Leader of the House.
Therefore, once we are considering changes in this House—changes in composition, and changes in powers—one of the matters we ought to consider is the question of procedure and also the appointment of somebody who would have the power to deal with irrelevancies or the selecting of Amendments. I know that this does not appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Strang, who gave the impression that he would fight to the death against it. But that is one of the difficulties that we have to face in this House: so many people are tied down to the past and object to any kind of change; they are prepared to put up with what exists today even at the expense of a certain amount of inefficiency. In passing, I may say that I would not necessarily rule out all Amendments which have been rejected in another place. There may be some that are worth considering once more, and I would leave that to the discretion of the Chairman of Committees, whoever he might be.
If our procedure is improved along the lines that I have suggested, I think we should be capable of dealing with many more important Bills in this House. I know that from time to time we introduce measures here, but certainly not the most important or the most controversial measures. With an improved procedure and an improved composition (and I will deal with that later), I think we ought to be able to deal with Bills of importance and have them introduced in this House as early in the Session as possible. Those noble Lords who have experience will know that this would prevent the terrible congestion at the end of the Session, when we get Bill after Bill in this House and are under tremendous pressure to get them through with a minimum of discussion and amendment. To that extent, we are really frustrating the avowed object for which we are here. We are supposed to be a revising Chamber, but that it is the last thing we are in the months of June and July each year: we are just a piece of machinery for accepting what has been done in another place.

1327
I am sure that one way of avoiding this would be that we should, to a much greater extent, exercise our right to introduce legislation in the first instance in this House.
There is one other matter of procedure that I wish to mention. A number of noble Lords have referred to the question of Private Bills. It seems to me rather anomalous, and certainly time consuming and expensive, that a Private Bill should have to go through both Houses of Parliament. I have in mind a particular Bill which took 19 days in the other place and, I think, 16 days here. A large number of expensive counsel represented interested parties in each place, and the result was very much the same at the end of the day. But it had involved an enormous amount of expenditure and delay. I should have thought that it was possible for these Bills to be dealt with by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It would be a relatively small change in our procedure, but I am sure that it would be well worth while. This is not a comprehensive list of the changes that I would make in the procedure of this House with a view to making it more efficient, but simply some of the more important ones.
I want to turn now to the question of composition. I noticed that every noble Lord who has spoken has to a large extent ducked this question. I know there are difficulties; but if one is putting forward proposals for changes in the composition, then one should be a little more concrete than anybody has been up to now. While I myself am not going to to make really concrete suggestions, I think it might be useful if I put forward a number of principles, not by way of a blueprint, but principles which I think ought to be followed in the provision of a new Chamber.
A number of noble Lords have already referred to the hereditary system. I am convinced that it has no place in a legislative assembly or in a modern and efficient Constitution. I realise as much as anybody that it has produced some excellent young men, unite fortuitously, through the premature death of their predecessors. This is something which we cannot control, and to rely on that happening in order to get young people here is surely a purely fortuitous affair. I do not think that anybody to-day could
1328
justify a Constitution in which the hereditary system plays such an important part.
The second principle is that the Government of the day must be reasonably certain of being able to carry their policy, and should be able to rely on a majority. I do not think anybody would for ever tolerate a permanent majority of any one Party. Indeed, I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harlech (who made what, with all respect, I would say was a very tolerant and reasonable speech), say that he did not feel able to justify a permanent Conservative majority. Some means must be found for ensuring that in the last resort the Government of the day are able to enforce their policy.
Then, as I think nearly every speaker has said, there ought to be a place in this House for men and women with expert knowledge and experience, even if they come here only occasionally to give us the benefit of their wisdom. It would be invidious to mention names, but we have people in this House who are of national and even international repute, and any Chamber of this kind ought to be able to find room for them. I agree with those noble Lords who have emphasised the need for having a number of Members of independent views, who do not owe allegiance to any political Party.
I now come to two sections of this House which I have not yet mentioned. One (fortunately, none of them are here) is the Bench of Bishops. I have grave doubts, first, as to whether they have a real part to play in a modern legislative assembly. I am in a difficulty. I like them all as individuals. They have shown themselves very progressive in recent years, and one hesitates to say anything about people who have rendered service. But, to my mind, they really have no place in a modern institution, and it would be well worth considering whether in revising our composition there would be room for a Bishops' Bench. Apart from that, they represent only one section of religion in this country. I hesitate to say—I am not an authority—whether they represent the majority. I should doubt it. But certainly they represent only one section. If we are to have a religious Bench I think it ought to be much more widely representative than the existing one.

1329
I am even more hesitant about the other section I have in mind, and that is the Law Lords. I am not quite sure what their place is in a Legislative Assembly. They are really acting in a dual capacity. Their function is to interpret the law, and although they may be useful occasionally in commenting on laws which are about to be made, the fact is that by the very nature of their occupation they are not able to be here very much. Mostly they are sitting in a judicial capacity and frequently they are not able to come here when this House meets. In any case, I should think that in considering composition we ought to give serious thought to the question of whether we want Law Lords to form part of our Chamber.
I agree with those noble Lords who have referred to the fact that we ought to have a limited number of Peers sitting in this House. Ideas have ranged from 400 downwards. I myself have in mind a figure of between 250 and 300, which is about the number who come to this House when we have a very good attendance. I think that number is quite adequate, especially if they sit through the debate.
The implementation of these principles is not going to be easy; it would have to be gradual. I am not suggesting that hereditary Peers should cease to come here as from January 1, nineteen hundred and something or other. Many of the hereditary Peers have given their lives to this House, and it would be cruel, inhuman and wrong to deprive them of what has been in many cases their life's work. In any case, we do not carry out revolutions in this country in this way. It would have to be a gradual process, and, in my view, if we do abolish the hereditary system, it would be by way of successors to noble Lords not having the right to come here. In other words, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, hereditary Peers would in practice become Life Peers.
I think I should retain the Life Peerage system. That would enable us to appoint independent people and people of outstanding capacity such as those to whom I have referred. But I should in addition allow—and this would be my machinery for ensuring a permanent majority for the Government in office—by agreement with
1330
the two Parties, the appointment of Members for the life of the existing Parliament; and it would be in such proportions as to ensure a majority for the Government in office. It would naturally cut both ways. At the end of the Parliament those particular Members would go out of office and would be subject to reappointment; but, again, naturally, if the fortunes of the Government in office changed, so would the relative proportions change, and some would have to go.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, because he may have said something he did not intend to say? If all existing hereditary Peers became Life Peers we should have a Chamber very much bigger than the one he has in mind.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I also interrupt to correct the noble Lord, as he referred to me? I referred to hereditary Peers who were regular attenders being in the new limited House.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I was not as cruel as the noble Lord. I would take them all. Then, in answer to my noble friend, I believe that my arithmetic is as good as his is. It would involve more than 400 at the outset. I spoke of 250 to 300 Members, but I was speaking of what I regard as the ultimate kind of Chamber that we should have. Of course it would take many years to achieve this, and I think that that is quite in accordance with our tradition that we move slowly, but we should be moving in the right direction. The process might outlast certainly the lives of many of us in this House to-day, but I should not mind that, especially in view of the fact that many people think that there is no great harm in the House as it stands at present.
Of course, people who are appointed for the life of a Parliament would, if they went out of office, be entitled to stand for election to another place. I hope that we should not nominate only people who are of high repute, but also young people as well. Here the Leaders of the Parties would have the opportunity, if they so chose, to appoint promising young people who would serve for the lifetime of the Parliament and show what they were made of, and it would give

1331
them the experience which would enable them possibly to stand for election elsewhere.
I am not in favour of election; I think few of us would be in favour of election of any Members at all. But the Members of a Second Chamber constituted along the lines I have suggested should be paid a proper remuneration if we are to attract the right people. We must ensure that nobody is deterred from serving through lack of means. I suggest that the proper remuneration would be about half what the Members of the other place are getting having regard to the fact that we should not be giving much more than half the time they do. But we should have to make provision for ensuring that people who are paid put in a reasonable amount of time.
Having said all this, I want to confess that there is a conflict in my own mind. I love this House. Some of the happiest times of my political life have been spent here. An easy-going, friendly atmosphere exists here, and it can be said that it should not be destroyed. Some people might say, "It works. Why interfere?" But I must confess that this is an emotional reaction, and I do not think it can be allowed to interfere with our consideration of the matter if we are out to achieve the most effective and efficient kind of Second Chamber. The fact is that the present composition is quite indefensible on any logical or rational grounds as an instrument for efficient Government. It is tending to get into disrepute among thinking people, and we are not being taken quite seriously.
Moreover, the position of this House is rather frustrating. We are constantly having to exercise restraint. Things which noble Lords opposite think they ought to do they cannot do without fear of the consequences—fear that they will incite another place to take action. That is not a satisfactory basis on which to carry on our work. This House has been under a threat of abolition ever since 1911, and I think that, once and for all, we ought to get a satisfactory Chamber, properly constituted, rather than live in a state of suspended animation. Incidentally, there is no other country in the world which has a hereditary Chamber, except possibly (and I am not
1332
sure about this) Japan, which is not a precedent that we should necessarily wish to emulate.
Finally, I agree that changes of this kind should be carried out only after prolonged discussion between the Parties. Certainly I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that it would be quite wrong for either Party to impose its views on the other. Having regard to the negotiations in 1948, when it appears that all Parties acted in the most reasonable way and nearly came to an agreement, there is every reason to hope that an agreement could be arrived at which would be mutually satisfactory. I agree that my own proposals would require a great deal of consideration, and I am quite sure that at this moment the majority of your Lordships would not accept them. But time is on my side, and I believe that eventually we shall be forced into something of this kind. I have thrown these ideas into the general pool, and I hope that they may be of some ultimate value. Whatever happens, I pray that the friendly, tolerant and, on the whole, progressive atmosphere and outlook of this House will always remain with us, and that, whatever alterations we make, these will not be changed.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I should like to ask him a question. I have listened to him with great care, interest and agreement, and I assure him that there is nothing personal in this question. There may be some difficulty in this, but has he considered whether there might be a gain by having a retiring age?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, certainly there might be, and I am sure that my wife would be delighted.
5.14 p.m.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARN BURY: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes because the Liberal view has been so admirably stated by our Leader, Lord Byers, and every one of us on these Benches wholeheartedly supports him. There is only one matter that I should like to pinpoint, and that is the composition of your Lordships' House. But, before I do so, may I dissent—and dissent strongly—from the view which has just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the presence of

1333
the Bishops on the Benches opposite. To my mind, the Bishops are the most modern and progressive influence in this House. They are the spearhead of reform. When the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says they are not modern I think that he must be thinking of their sleeves, or some outward and visible sign; because certainly in their views they are one of the boldest and most progressive elements. I very much hope that there will be no question of dispensing with the Bishops, however much we approve of a reform of the House.
I have been surprised by the atmosphere of—what shall I say?—rather cosy complacency in a good many of the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon. For instance, I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, say he was quite unaware that there was any need for reform of this House. He must lead a very sheltered life—far more sheltered than my own.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness, in order to explain that I said I did not detect any great feeling of urgency for reform; and when the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said that his reforms might come in about five to ten years I thought that that rather indicated a lack of urgency.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARN-BURY: My Lords, I took down the words uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, because they surprised me so much, and I have quoted them correctly. He said he was unaware that there was any need for reform. I was even more surprised when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Champion, express the rather sombre view that any change would probably be for the worse. I have heard this view expressed in many circumstances and from many quarters, but I never thought to hear it from the Labour Front Bench. I disagree with both. I believe that if this House is to be taken seriously, and as a new and loyal Member of this House I want it to be taken seriously, then it must reform itself; and that without any delay.
Nowhere else in the whole wide world, from China to Peru, does there exist an organ of Government mainly—almost wholly—composed of hereditary legislators. The composition of this House is a unique phenomenon, and as a result
1334
it produces a chronic ideological unbalance. I ask your Lordships for one moment to analyse its anatomy. Of its 1,020 Members only 120 are Life Peers —a mere drop in the ocean. The remaining 900 owe their right to sit and speak and vote here solely to the merits—or, in some cases, the demerits—of their ancestors, some remote and others not so remote. An American visitor, who had just been confronted with the first Lord Riddell, asked: "Is he an ivy-clad Peer?". Well, my Lords, some hereditary Peers are more ivy-clad than others, but whether ivy-clad or not, nine-tenths of them owe their right to sit and speak and vote here solely to the accident of birth
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? Although it will not make much difference to her argument, I think the noble Lady has overlooked those Peers who are of first creation in their own right.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARN-BURY: Even if they are subtracted, there will still be debit balance on the other side.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think the figure is 130.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARN-BURY: My Lords, I leave the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to do the bookkeeping. I am not suggesting for one moment that many of these hereditary Peers are not admirably qualified to discharge their duties on their own merits. Of course they are; but nobody can possibly justify such a dispensation, and to my mind the fact that it has survived to this day can be explained only by the desire of many people to preserve the composition of this House in a wholly indefensible and unjustifiable form, and therefore reduce it to impotence or, better still, to non-existence.
I want this House to survive, and I want it to inspire public respect and confidence. I believe that it has a vital function to perform, not only in revision and delay; not only by putting on the brake, but by applying the spur, by blazing new trails, by initiating urgent reforms—a task for which it has proved in the last few years it has an admirable capacity.

1335
Therefore I want it transformed into a shape which will command respect and confidence, and credibility, and will commend itself to reason. I do not want it to remain as it is at present, one vast and highly vulnerable Achilles' heel. This does not necessarily mean a holocaust of hereditary Peers—"ivy-clad" or otherwise—many of whom are among the most assiduous and most essential Members of this House. As my noble friend Lord Byers has suggested, these can be translated by a stroke of the pen into Life Peers.
But the chronic absentee Peers—I return to this charge—some 500 to 700 strong, who have not applied for Leave of Absence, should be deprived, once and for all, of their rights to sit and vote here —rights which they are now perfectly free to exercise if and when the spirit moves them. When I last made this suggestion (I think it was on a Motion for reform introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alport) the noble Earl, Lord Arran, went one better, or one worse, as you may think. He suggested that these chronic absentees should be divested of their titles. I do not plead for any such savage and Draconian remedies—and, incidentally, such sanctions might lead to the return of some of them, which would not ease the task of reform. We are not concerned here with what they call themselves, but with the performance, or non-performance, of their functions in this House. What matters is to make this House a perfect, competent legislative instrument, which makes sense, not only to ourselves but to the nation. It must cease to be a bundle of anomalies, anachronisms and absurdities. It must not only work but be seen to work. May I suggest to your Lordships that only by such drastic surgery as this will public opinion support us in retaining such powers as we have?
5.23 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, like the noble Baroness who has just spoken, I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time. I feel rather like the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, in that I am a recent arrival in your Lordships' House, and it was with some trepidation that I decided to take part in this debate. On the other hand, I have sat in the other House, beginning in 1923, and even before that my memory goes back to the con-
1336
troversy of the Parliament Act 1911, and I think it is impossible to overlook the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I must say that in the time I have been here I have come to consider it a privilege to be a Member. The courtesy and tolerance that characterises Members on both sides of the House, and the high level certainly of individual speeches that characterises most of our debates, I think justifies anyone who takes his place in this Chamber in having a good deal of pride in the House.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is not here, because like myself he is a comparatively new Member, and he suggested that the House of Lords was impotent. That is a nice phrase, but I do not think it is correct. It is not what we would like to see it. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is possible and highly desirable, so long as we are to have a Second Chamber, to ensure that it carries more influence perhaps than it does to-day. We were given some figures the other day with regard to the Iron and Steel Act; 43 Amendments from this House were accepted in the other place. I do not know what the statistics are in relation to the Bills that have passed through this House, but I imagine that quite a large number of Amendments in the aggregate have been passed by this House and accepted by the other House. Therefore, do not let us overpaint the picture, because it seems to me to indicate something of the development on the part of some noble Lords of an inferiority complex.
I must join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, when he referred to the fact that there appears to be no urgency about the problem we are discussing to-day. I do not think that is the test. I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Silkin said, and indeed my noble friend Lord Champion, that any reforms that are likely to take place will not come about in the very near future. That is no reason why we should not look at and discuss the problem; and if we do not do that I very much doubt whether we will make any progress at all. I personally should like to follow up the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Silkin, perhaps putting it a little more formally. I should like to take up the problems of the powers and the composition of the House of Lords from

1337
the place where it was left in 1948. In other words, I should like to see another all-Party conference representing the three Parties in the State. I have very strong views, perhaps stronger than either of my noble friends, on what should be done. I should not wish to see it done on a Party basis. I do not think you can amend, drastically at any rate, the Constitution of our country, even though it is an unwritten Constitution, on a purely Party basis. Therefore, I should like to see this all-Party conference established, and I would very shortly suggest what I think they might consider.
As regards the composition of the House of Lords, I think it is very difficult to argue the question of powers divorced from the question of composition. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said that it is difficult to understand why there should be any objection—and indeed it was echoed by one of my own noble friends—to 6 months, 9 months or 12 months delay. The reason there is this objection is because of the composition of the House of Lords.
Like many other noble Lords, I have been a Member of the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, was in the House of Commons with me thirty or more years ago, and while he would not agree with what I am about to say, he knows what the problem was. There has been this bitter resentment on the part of the Labour Party, inherited to some extent from the bitterness felt by the Liberal Party before the 1914 War. The father of the noble Baroness who has just spoken and my own father were both concerned, one as Prime Minister, and the other as Leader of the Labour Party for part of the time when this bitter controversy took place over the Parliament Act and the action of the House of Lords at that time. Therefore, there is this psychology which has been created and manifests itself in the bitter resentment that there should be 1,100 Peers about 900 of whom have inherited their peerages; although, according to information I have, out of the 1,100 Peers available to sit in this House only about 650 have taken their seats during this Parliament. Therefore there are something like 400 Peers who are entitled to sit in the House of Lords, but who never come near the place. In my humble submission, that is a farcical posi-
1338
tion. It certainly is an untidy position constitutionally. It is one of the problems that has to be faced up to, not this week or next week, or even next year. It ought to be something that the political leaders of our country are getting their minds on to with a view to securing some sort of solution.
At one time I was rather attracted to the idea of a single Chamber. Some noble Lords may know that in Norway they have a single Chamber, the Storting. What they do is to delegate about 20 per cent. of their Members of Parliament to act as the revisionary Chamber. Norway has a population of two or three million, and the volume of legislation that goes through the Storting is, I was going to say, using the Americanism, "chicken feed". Certainly it is much smaller than the great volume of complicated and controversial legislation which goes through our own Parliament. Therefore, somewhat reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that I have to change my views. I believe, as the noble Baroness said, that there is a strong case for an effective Second Chamber.
The problem we have to face up to is, how are we to arrange its composition? That is something in regard to which some of us have tried to put forward suggestions. Whether it can be done by nomination, or whether it should be for 5 years, 8 years or 12 years, are details that have to be worked out once the principles are accepted. I should have thought that there was general agreement throughout this House that we must end the hereditary right to be called to take part and to vote in this House.
As regards powers, I would put forward another aspect that has not been put to-day. The reason why many people want to reduce the twelve months' delay —either to wipe it out altogether or to handle it in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, proposes—is because it operates, and is only of importance, when there is a Labour Government. It does not mean anything when there is a Conservative Government. That, I think, is in accordance with the facts of life.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it is a fact that I can remember a number of occasions on which the

1339
House of Lords has rejected measures brought forward by Conservative Governments.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl would let me have those details in due course. Certainly I was not aware of that fact. I do not know whether it is generally agreed in the Conservative Party that when there has been a Conservative Government on a number of occasions Conservative Bills have been rejected, and finally disposed of by the votes of their own Back Benchers. That is the other side of the coin. There is this resentment, that whenever there is a Conservative Government the question of delay does not matter; it arises only when there is a Labour Government. At the Conference in 1948 the basis on which the Conservative Leaders put their case for the retention of the 18 month's delay was for no other reason than that we should give the people time to reflect.
Radio and television have developed to a great extent since that Conference in 1948. Surely no-one is going to suggest that, with the television appearances that all Party Leaders make—whether they make too many or not enough is another matter, but they make them—the position has not drastically changed, and that public opinion is educated as a result of the controversies that characterise the passage of certain major Bills through both Houses of Parliament. I would say only this, that I believe we have to look at the situation as we find it. If we believe that there is a need for change, it does not mean that we are advocating that it should take place in the near future, but that we are rather pointing the way to modernising our House, the House of Lords, and bringing it into relation with the modern concepts of society. I believe that Lord Mitchison has done a great service by introducing this Motion this afternoon. I think that it is another proof of the great value that is to be attached to this Chamber, that there is a system whereby a noble Lord can call attention to this or that problem apart from the Whips and apart from Party considerations, and we can have an objective discussion. This, I think, makes a great contribution to the political health of this country.
5.37 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as a Life Peer of the first vintage I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and to every speech that followed. I frankly confess that I did not expect that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, would attract such a weight of interesting speeches. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, I was not aware of any great feeling of urgency in the matter of proceeding as of now with the reform of the House of Lords.
LORD CONESFORD: Not "as of now".
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I feel that I have a contribution to make, from an angle which is uncommon on these Benches; namely, that of a Life Peer who has not been in the House of Commons. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, I got the impression, from the terms and the extent of the reforms which he urged, and the speed with which he thought they should be brought about, that he was rather overstressing the position. Indeed, I was more impressed, in terms of the need for some immediate approach to the matter, by what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said. Over a number of years now I have watched this House change. I have watched it with the eye of one who never sought a place in Parliament but who, nevertheless, believes passionately in Parliament, and as one who has come to hold in the highest regard the system as practised here. Indeed, I am an addict such as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, described, although perhaps not incurable, as I may later suggest.
At the same time, it is fair to say that when I came here in 1958 I was certainly of the opinion that the hereditary system was on the way out. The fact is that it did not take me long to reverse that opinion entirely. It is a fact that, the system works. Regarding what the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, said, while I admit that there may be hundreds of hereditary Peers who take no interest in this place (of course, we take no interest in them), it is conceivable that from them may stem Parliamentarians of the future. In regard to those who work in this place, whether hereditary or otherwise, I am greatly struck by the deep sense of duty which

1341
actuates all who take part in our proceedings. If there is that sense of duty, as I believe there is, as a characteristic of this House, I think it is our duty not to be battered too much by the verbal bludgeonings of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison.
The fact is, my Lords, that the House has changed down the centuries, and it is changing fast now—and I use "changing fast" as a comparative term. Take, for instance, the large number of Cross-Benchers—and reference was made to this matter by the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. In these circumstances, I doubt whether there is any need to accelerate that change beyond the pace at which it is now going, as I have seen with my own eyes in a very few years. That is not to say, and I should not dream of saying it, that the process of change should be arrested. Far from it. I feel that what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, wants is a swift, "chop-chop", root-and-branch, bag-and-bag-gage sort of change. For such radical change I see no need. Indeed, it may be said that what is required is a period in which this House can settle down in the new form which derives from the Life Peerages Act 1958—because the implementation of that Act still needs very careful handling.
It is impracticable to apply the Life Peerages Act to young men, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said. It therefore follows that, unless this is to become an eventide home, the hereditary system is the best for injecting young blood into it. No one could have said it in more courteous and polite terms than the noble Lord, Lord Champion, did when he asked, "What other way is there of doing this?" It is recognised that Life Peers have invigorated the House and I am not suggesting that those who come from the House of Commons do not make a tremendous contribution to our work. But I think that a greater proportion of Life Peers on this side of the House should be from outwith the other place—I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has left the Chamber. This may be difficult, especially as some such Life Peers already created under the Act have not attended as often as they might.
Having listened to Lord Silkin's ideas, and also to some of the suggestions made
1342
by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I was struck by the question of the supply of Life Peers. It must be remembered that Life Peers who are not already "addicts", such as those who come here from the other place, may be very delicate plants. They might be difficult to get for short periods, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested. Again, I feel that if the wings of the House of Lords were to be clipped there are men of mind and spirit who would not be prepared to accept a Life Peerage if it meant being a rubber stamp for life.
I come to another matter in connection with Life Peerages. Can we not get away from classing Life Peerages as honours? This matter has already been mentioned from the Liberal Benches. I suggest, with respect, that the creation of Life Peerages should not be announced as part of one of the ritual Honours Lists. I make this specific suggestion because it is important, to my mind, that the public should appreciate that a Life Peerage is not just an honour. It is, of course, an honour to serve your Lordships' House, but with it goes a duty which does not accompany the other degrees which take their place in a ritual Honours List.
One question that occurs to me in regard to the creation of Life Peerages is whether the terms of such invitations as they receive are specific enough as to what is expected of them and what the acceptance of the title means. I do not know. Times may have changed since I was approached. That they should be elected, or even appointed, as representative of regions, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is to my mind a very complex matter. I feel that it would be undesirable, because any element of election, any feeling of looking over one's shoulder, such as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, mentioned was his impression when moving from one set of Benches to another, would, I think, impair the almost delicate texture of this place—a House which stands, and has stood, as a curtain-wall between the people and dictatorship, whether by the Monarch or by the many-headed. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said about Scotland, and I look forward to returning to the matter on another occasion. I must say that

1343
I am not in agreement with him in what he said about hereditary Peers.
I believe that the need for reform is not so widely recognised as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said, although I am greatly impressed by what has been said here to-day. But what do the public themselves think? Indeed, what do the public know? I put it like that because, as for public opinion, it should be borne in mind in this place that thanks to the—I was going to use the word "neglect"; but I will say the near-neglect, by the Press and broadcasting services, the people as a whole know little or nothing of the part this House plays in the process of Parliament. I think this is an important matter which is worth bearing closely in mind. If Lord Mitchison's ideas were to prevail, the number of individuals of mind and spirit willing to accept Life Peerages might be restricted.
My Lords, one organisation which has my address on its mailing list adds the letters "L.P." after my name. I rather accept this as a regular reminder not to be a "long player", so I do not propose to engage your Lordships much longer; nor to refer to the matter of the Church to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred, especially as I come from North of the Border. In conclusion, I would say that the present pace of change, as I see it, is fast enough. If it is not, I suggest that whatever we do, we should not hasten unduly lest we stumble.
5.50 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not in the House for that part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in which he made reference to the Bishops, but it was reported to me. Whether or not we are useful it is not for me to say; though one noble Lord opposite said to me a few weeks ago: "We do not by any means always agree with the Bishops, but you set us one very good example". Whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would approve of this example, I would not know. Of course, the noble Lord then went on to say: "You Bishops are accustomed to say what you have to say and want to say within a quarter of an hour, otherwise your congregation gets up and goes out. Your speeches in this
1344
House are often models of brevity." Whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would think that this was a good example, I would not know.
In any discussion about the future of this House it is right that those who sit on these Benches should be interested, for the Bishops, in their capacity as Lords Spiritual, have been involved in the history of your Lordships' House from its earliest days. However, I should make it clear that I speak for nobody but myself. So far as I am aware, there is no official Lambeth policy, still less a Lambeth Whip. From what has already been said, there seems to be a measure of agreement in many parts of the House with regard to the two questions which have to be faced. If I listened aright, here they are. First, what should be the function of this House; and, secondly, what should be the composition of this House? When we have made up our minds what we are supposed to be doing, then we can go on to consider the changes which may be necessary to enable us to discharge our duties adequately.
I come to the function of this House. It has changed many times, just as the function of the House of Commons has changed. To-day Parliament is often spoken of as the bastion of our democracy. Perhaps it is to-day, but Parliament was in existence long before we had anything remotely resembling a democracy. There were Parliaments in Plantagenet times and Parliaments in Tudor times, but there was no such thing as Parliamentary Government then. Parliament was an accessory to a monarchical system, and even when Parliamentary Government came to life in the 18th century Parliament was not the servant of democracy, but an accessory to an aristocratic and hierarchical system. During the past century the function of Parliament has continued to change. To what extent it is now the tool of the Prime Minister and the Government of the day is a matter of opinion, though Mr. Harold Macmillan said some years back, no doubt with his tongue in his cheek, that the Constitution had developed in such a way that, when it came to a Government debate demanding a decision, it might be more sensible to vote first and have the discussion afterwards.
In this debate we are concerned not with Parliament in general but with this

1345
House in particular, and my contention is that the function of your Lordships' House is different to-day from what it has been in the past. Our task is no longer to interfere with the processes of Government, but to offer advice, whether or not it is heeded. We can do this in many ways, but especially by initiating legislation on matters of public importance which are not Party political issues, and by putting down Amendments to Bills on the clear understanding that the Amendments are advisory only, and that it is left to the discretion of another place after those Amendments have been fully and properly discussed to accept or reject them.
If this contention is admitted, then we shall no longer be over-concerned with our suspensory powers. Those days are, I think, over. Our function to-day is different. We advise, but we do not interfere. Not only is this sensible in the light of Parliamentary development, but if we try to retain those powers we may create such opposition that we shall no longer be tolerated. I do not believe that this is any longer an argument between Right and Left as such. The fact is that times have changed and no adult society, whether its sympathies are Conservative, Liberal or Socialist, will allow a non-elected House to interfere with the decisions of a democratically-elected House. We may think that we in this House have a greater wisdom, are less partisan and are more in tune with the mood of the country—all of which, if true, may entitle us to delay legislation and place a brake upon Government—but I doubt whether such arguments would be accepted in another place or by any political Party of any colour.
I said that we could not discuss the composition of this House until we had made up our minds about its function. The reason is obvious. If our task is to interfere with the processes of Government, what we need are armies of partisan gladiators who will engage in battle at the crack of a whip. But if our task is to stimulate a wise public opinion, to initiate certain types of legislation, to advise and to revise, then we need something quite different. I should have thought that the way forward was to take as a basis for discussion the proposals of 1948.
1346
Here again there seems to be a developing consensus of opinion in all parts of this House, for these proposals are typical of the way we usually do things in this country. They aim to adapt an existing institution rather than to bring to birth a new one. Moreover, the proposals grasp the nettle of hereditary Peers and suggest a solution which appeals to me, and it would seem to many noble Lords as well. Members of this Chamber are to be styled Lords of Parliament. While hereditary Peers may be among them yet—and here I quote from the proposals:
"The present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber. Members … would be appointed on grounds of personal distinction or public service. They might be drawn either from Hereditary Peers or from commoners who would be created Life Peers."
I find it difficult to think of a more satisfactory solution to a very complicated problem.
These proposals make provision for the inclusion of certain Lords Spiritual, and so long as we have an Established Church in this country that seems to me to be both fair and right. If this country and Parliament should decide that an Established Church is no longer desirable, then that is another matter. But so long as we have an Established Church, I am glad of the inclusion of the Bishops in your Lordships' House for two reasons: first, it is an admission that the Church should concern itself with the day-to-day problems of the nation.
In Communist countries religion is treated as a private hobby, and Churchmen must confine their activities to a spiritual ghetto quite unrelated to the affairs of daily living. That, I am glad to say, is not the tradition in this country. In Britain, Church and State have often been awkward partners, and not infrequently there have been head-on collisions when heads have toppled. But the mere presence of Bishops in this House is, I think, a recognition that religion must always seek to relate itself to life, and that Christians must try to be active in the service of their fellows for the wellbeing of the community.
I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that I do not suggest for a moment that the representation of the Churches should be limited to the Bishops

1347
of the Established Church. Perhaps in a reformed House wider provision can be made, though I appreciate the difficulties as in most cases the moderators, presidents and heads of Free Churches remain in office for only a year. Meanwhile, it is heartening to find that the position is already being rectified by the conferring of Life Peerages on distinguished members of other denominations, and I am sure that all Members of the Bishops' Bench would be delighted to welcome more of them to this House.
A second reason for welcoming the provision for the inclusion of the Lords Spiritual is that it admits the principle (which I have not heard mentioned this afternoon), not of a Life Peerage but of what I might call a "Work Peerage". One noble Lord referred to the Bishops as Life Peers. We are not. The Bishops are, I believe, the only Members of this House whose membership is limited to their office. If a Bishop resigns his See and returns to private life, he ceases to be a Member of your Lordships' House unless, as in the case of Lord Fisher of Lambeth, a new Peerage is conferred upon him.
As I say, this principle of a "Work Peerage" has been recognised by this House for centuries in the case of the Lords Spiritual. Would it not be wise to extend this principle to the Lords Temporal? Does it necessarily follow that, once a Member, then you must always be a Member? And might it not be true that some eminent men who have no wish to be Peers for life might be willing to contribute to the discussions in this House while they held certain offices? After all, that is already the custom in another place. If our role is to be advisory, we want to attract to this House able men from all walks of life, even if their sojourn with us might be limited.
Before sitting down, may I express the hope that if there are to be changes in this House and in its affairs we should take a close look at our procedure? Surely there is too much waste of time; and we cannot expect busy men to be enthusiastic about serving here while this waste continues. I give one example, that is all. Is it really necessary for the Committee stage of a Bill to be dealt with independently in both Houses? Years
1348
ago Lord Altrincham suggested that Bills should be introduced simultaneously in both Houses, and that the Committee stage should be held upstairs in joint session, with the Lords submitting opinions but not voting. As it is, there are so many obstacles and hindrances that laws which ought to reach the Statute Book in a Session never get there. As Mr. Quintin Hogg remarked when he was a Member of this House:
"Year by year I have seen legislation delayed, or worse still, left to die uncompleted, for want of Parliamentary time."
This state of affairs could, I think, be partly brought to an end if we rationalised our procedure in the way I have suggested.
My Lords, I put forward these suggestions with regard to function, composition and procedure in the hope that they may contribute constructively, and in a non-partisan way, to a debate which, as I understand it, has as its object the marriage of the aristocratic machinery of government with the spirit of modern democracy.
6.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am speaking, first, as one of the two hereditary Peers who have so far addressed your Lordships, and, secondly, as someone who has been a Member here for a very long time. In fact, it was with some sense of shock that I learned that I have probably been here longer than any other noble Lord who normally attends at all regularly. Like an elderly "square", I naturally enough revert to other debates to which I have listened on this subject, which I think now number something like 17 or 18. I feel that the would-be reformer of this House might start by discovering why, after this orgy, almost, of self-criticism and after some rather dubious remarks have been made about the House itself, so many of your Lordships come to it. Your Lordships do come here, practically every evening. You sit to what, in the old days, we should have called an unreasonably late hour; and, in fact, we have debated one Motion aimed at reducing the time—at least, the time of the speeches. I am sure your Lordships would not have come here in this way unless you had felt that there was some real point in your doing so.
Another question that might be asked is why, after so many proposals have been made for the reform of this House, many

1349
of which have been recapitulated to-day, none of them have been adopted and none of them have made any difference at all except one, which is embodied in the Life Peerages Act. I am not the least surprised that that is the only proposal that has made any headway here, because it was the only proposal which was intended to improve the everyday working of your Lordships' House and had no real concern about the possibility of a constitutional crisis. I confess that I have always been somewhat amazed at the concern so many of your Lordships have shown—and it has been shown to-day—about this question of a constitutional crisis. There was a constitutional crisis in 1911. The whole time I have been a Member of this House there has never been a constitutional crisis. In 1947 I think we acted entirely in accordance with the agreed constitution of the House. I suppose there may be one at any time, but I feel tolerably certain that if there were a constitutional crisis it would arise in quite a different way from that in which anyone has yet foreseen; and I think that something which can happen only once in fifty years, or even longer, can really look after itself.
I suppose those taking part in this debate should perhaps state the general premises on which they approach this question. I, for my part, take the view that we are living to-day under a form of Government which has been called, in between Elections, "an elected dictatorship". Furthermore, I believe that that is inevitable. The very size of the Government machine does something to bring that about. It now takes four times as many pages of Whitaker's Almanack as did the governmental machine of 1911. A second and most important reason, which has only just been touched on, and that by the noble Lord, Lord Strang, is that we seem to be getting more and more concerned with international bodies and organisations, with the initials of which we are familiar although not all of us could pass an examination in what they stand for.
My Lords, I cannot see that any Government charged with these enormous responsibilities could carry on at all if they were to be subjected to frequent interruption, either from this House, however composed, or, indeed, from another place. Therefore, I am not particularly
1350
sympathetic to those elaborate, root-and-branch proposals which seem to aim at giving this House some logically-sounding authority to enable it to do just that. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and unlike some noble Lords who have spoken, I believe that we ought to have some residual powers to make ourselves a nuisance to the Government, but that is simply for the purpose of ensuring that no Government should treat this House in a perfectly perfunctory way. If that happened, I believe there would either be an explosion or your Lordships would, like old soldiers, merely fade away—and I think that would be an unfortunate end to this House.
I agree that there is very little evidence that it is happening now, but I can remember, as my noble friend Lord Harlech said, that there were times when it was more possible. I recall many years ago coming to this House on a dull, foggy, November evening to find myself listening to a very long speech from a very senior noble Lord with a very thin House, with whom he was discussing the deposits at the bottom of the Dead Sea. Possibly, it was that concentration of gloom that led a noble relative of mine, a Cabinet Minister of great experience, to say that he thought the future sittings of this House would probably consist of the Lord Chancellor, the Bishops, one or two Whips of either side and nobody else. It has not happened; he has been proved quite wrong. But I think the possibility of that happening would be enhanced if, in Whitehall, Ministers and civil servants became aware that we really could do nothing whatever except talk. Apart from that one power, I think, with other speakers, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, that we should seek to influence rather than control Government thinking.
The only thing that really matters, it seems to me, is that there should be here a sufficiency of Peers whose personal qualifications rather than Party affiliations entitle their views to consideration. To my mind, this means that apart from a comparatively small core of professional whole-timers, the bulk of the House ought to consist of part-timers of distinction who are willing and able to work in this House. And this is more or less what is happening to-day. There are a number

1351
of such Peers. We do influence Government thinking when there is a general all-Party support for a particular proposition. Incidentally, in my long experience here I have never known a proposition put forward and voted on, purely on Party lines, which got anywhere at all against the Government of the day. Equally, I have never known any proposition supported from all sides of the House that failed to make some impact on Government thinking. A recent illustration of that (not one to which I am particularly sympathetic) is Lord Arran's recent Bill. Not only his eloquence but the degree to which he received all-Party support seemed to influence the Government and another place, and will probably lead to that Bill's being on the Statute Book.
My Lords, it would be a mistake to think that this sort of influence always went against the Government of the day. Perhaps one of the most effective speeches I have ever heard in this House was that delivered by the late Lord Keynes, speaking from the Liberal Benches in support of a Conservative Government who were then engaged in negotiations for the American loan against, I may say, quite a large number of Conservatives who did not agree.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. Surely the noble Viscount's recollection is not quite correct. Lord Keynes was then supporting the Labour Government.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I stand corrected: I made a mistake. I know that it was an important measure, and that there was unofficial Conservative opposition to it. But the fact is that Lord Keynes's speech influenced the whole House and, indeed, the country. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, made some suggestion about a proportion of the House being experts who did not regularly attend; and that, I thought, provided a very good illustration of the part-time Peer who speaks with great authority but cannot regularly attend.
I should like to see this non-Party influence extended, if only to offset what I believe to be—and I suppose that here I should speak with great deference—almost an excess of Party influence on various matters of legislation. Let me put it this way. I believe that there are num-
1352
bers of Bills, which are really connected with long-term administration and, because all the ultimate objectives are agreed, not really Party issues at all. But it seems to me that, owing to Party pressure, a succession of Governments feel it almost a point of honour to have a new approach to such problems, whatever disruption that may cause. I think that is a pity. It is just conceivable that a House which is distinguished more by its qualities and professional competence than by Party affiliations might have some influence on a succession of Governments to approach these problems in a more bi-partisan attitude (with very beneficial results) and would, I believe, get considerable support in the country. We must also fall in with the people's will—though I have found very often that the people's will is very difficult to understand; and occasionally, particularly after elections, it jumps about like a grasshopper.
But whether the House would have an influence in that or in any other way depends on a number of imponderables which could not be put into the words of an Act of Parliament. I think that a great deal depends on the relationships between the Government of the day and this House, and on the Leader of the House and the Leaders of the Parties. Their personal views may play a part. I can testify to this. When Lord Addison was Leader in this House of the Labour Party, in the early Labour Administration, he seemed to have a high standing in the Cabinet and a belief in this House. All I can say is that he managed somehow to convey to humble Back-Benchers that if only they talked sense—of which, of course, he was the judge—their views would receive proper consideration. That had a very good effect on the morale of the House. That was perhaps just as well, for a considerable quantity of legislation was arriving from the other place which, owing to the operation of the guillotine, had never been considered there at all.
With an unwritten Constitution a great deal is bound to depend on these imponderables. Very few of the basic facts of our political life, such as the two-Party system, the rigid Party discipline in another place, or the predominance of the Government and the Government machine, have their origin in legislation.

1353
They have just evolved. Similarly we have our traditions here. We have a tradition of service and of high-quality debate; we also have a tradition of liberty to come to work and vote as we please. That would be a very difficult tradition to change under any scheme, unless we reverted to the mediæval practice of fining and imprisoning Peers for non-attendance. I believe that new measures which conform with the traditions of this House, as did the Life Peerages Act, will succeed; but I believe that other schemes of a much more root-and-branch type will probably fail, or at least produce some quite unforeseeable complications. It is not possible to invent a new tradition overnight by passing an Act of Parliament.
My Lords, I want to say one final thing about the hereditary Peers, of whom I am one. Of course, one or two things are sometimes forgotten by would-be reformers. The first is that I am in very respectable company. The Leader of my own party and the Deputy Leader and Chief Whip all sit here by hereditary right. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, if he had succeeded a little earlier, would have sat here by virtue of heredity; and the Chief Whip already does so. Then there is the point about youth. I quite agree that the hereditary principle is the only thing that enables us to get young people to this House. Nevertheless, very little provision has been made for youth in any scheme that I have seen so far. But the most important matter is one that is often forgotten—and I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, should have spoken as he did, because so far the real protagonists of the unrestricted attendance of hereditary Peers have been the leaders of the Labour Party, and not the rank-and-file in another place who always go through what one might call the ritual incantations against the hereditary principle.
Lord Morrison of Lambeth brought this out very clearly when he wrote his book. The argument simply was that because of the hereditary element the House would never be what he described as a danger to the democratic House, which is another way of saying that they would never be a nuisance to the Government. Some people may think that is the very reason why the hereditary element
1354
should be abolished: that it is too vulnerable and has too little influence.
I must confess that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that, if that ever was a sine qua non, the simplest way, and the way that would best fit in with our traditions, would be to proclaim that, as from a certain date, all Peers who have a present right to attend Parliament should become Life Peers. I do not think I agree that this is quite the time to do that. But, my Lords, despite everything that has been said by some of the more radical Members of this House, I doubt whether the time has come to do anything of a dramatic nature. I may be wrong about this, and, now that betting is legal, I should be quite interested in any proposition which suggested that there would be a large measure of reform of your Lordships' House in the next three years.
6.25 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, perhaps I may preface my three or three and a half minute contribution with a quotation, "Whence cometh this passion for change?" We all know "the wind of change" and the source from which that celebrated saying came, but as your Lordships know that was in a very different and far wider context than arises in the situation which we are discussing to-day. Criticisms of the House of Lords, its composition and its powers, emanate almost invariably not from those who have the longest memory and experience of its workings, who have watched and listened and taken occasional part in its varying activities over the years; who have appreciated the wealth of knowledge and experience, yes, and judgment, that are brought to bear on almost any subject of general interest and importance that comes up for debate and discussion; not from those who are proud of its traditions and history and achievements, and doubly proud at having the honour of belonging to this company of privileged participants in its day-to-day activities. No, these criticisms hail from those like the noble Lord opposite, the mover of this Motion, a comparative newcomer to your Lordships House, whose work on the Front Bench opposite was distinguished by a uniformly high standard, if I may be allowed to say so; whose eloquence I greatly admire and vastly envy, but who since his retirement

1355
to the Back Benches seems to have assumed something akin to the mantle of a reforming zealot, and I sometimes think, perhaps unfairly, a somewhat disgruntled one at that. I hope I am not being unkind. I certainly bear nothing but goodwill towards the noble Lord.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am not disgruntled.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I withdraw that at once; I gave my mere impression; I have immensely enjoyed many of the noble Lord's contributions. Being an addict like the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I agree with him that if a thing, and a good thing, works, leave it alone. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and others who appear to be equally determined to alter (I almost said destroy, but that is a little too strong) the present fabric of your Lordships' House and its deliberations to hold hard and cease to advocate these changes in your Lordships constitution and powers—unless indeed it be in the direction of restoring some of those powers that have been wrested from us so unhappily and, in my opinion, so unwisely. That is all I wish to say, and if my few words are dubbed as those of a hopeless reactionary then, my Lords, I am old enough cheerfully and willingly to shoulder that sobriquet.
6.29 p.m.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, I do not think that I am as old as the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, but I must say I wish I had made his speech. When I came here this morning I had a coherent speech, but you will be delighted to hear that as I have listened to your Lordships I have crossed out sentence after sentence, and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I jump about a bit.
About 320 years ago a large and very angry mob surrounded your Lordships' House, making life very difficult and dangerous even for those within, and making it practically impossible to leave your Lordships' House. The mob were all shouting, "No Bishops, no Popish Lords"—and of course in these days our right reverend Prelates and the noble Earl the Leader of the House would be ex-
1356
cluded on that basis. In those days, of course, it was "with it" to be Protestant. If you were a Popish Lord you were right out, and if you were a Bishop you were fairly unpopular. That was the trend of the time. Now we have come to a completely different trend. In those days, if you were a Papist you were liable to be hanged; but to-day as hereditary Peers we do not stand in the same danger—not yet.
I think that the main point of attack on your Lordships' House is that it is hereditary. Generally speaking, I do not see that there is anything else which has been attacked. The question has been asked: "By what possible right can an hereditary Peer sit in your Lordships' House?". I suppose that according to the beliefs we have to-day it could be said, "None at all". On the other hand, I think that hereditary Peers have a useful part to play. They do not have to please people or to push themselves forwards, to represent a constituency or to be frightfully clever. They have merely to be born in wedlock. I have met many politicians in your Lordships' House and I must say that on the whole I like them. I can say that there are not any I do not like. But one fault of democracy could be that we are likely to be governed exclusively by people of a particular kind, people who are by nature pushing and aggressive. Your Lordships' House gives an opportunity for people who are perfectly ordinary and not likely to be any more clever or any more stupid than anybody else, purely by accident to have a seat in the British Parliament. I agree with the fundamental statement of Conservative belief: When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.
Of the evils prevalent in 1967 I would put your Lordships' House fairly low down on the list. The rising crime rate, the rack renting of slums, the almost uncontrolled gambling and all the beastly things that go with it—I cannot think of a single evil that is attributable to your Lordships' House. It has not been guilty of the irresponsible exercise of arbitrary power or of the unjust persecution of individuals. Of how many Parliamentary assemblies in the world can one say that, or, so far as that goes, of how many respected institutions—the Press, broadcasting channels, the large and powerful

1357
companies and trade unions? None of these can claim to be guiltless of these practices.
In fact, I think that the powers of your Lordships' House are about right for to-day. We have evolved the category of Life Peers. Since they came into the House they seem to have revived a corpse, if we can believe some noble Lords about the attendance in the House before that happened. But obviously the coming of Life Peers and their growing number are excellent things. In 1964, when I first took my seat, it was somewhat embarrassing to be on the Government side because the Government Benches were packed and there was practically nobody on the other side. Now the balance has been redressed to a large extent and I hope that it will be redressed even more.
As has been said, your Lordships' House has the highest standard of debate of any Legislative Assembly in the world. It has performed a unique and valuable service for hundreds of years. It has wisdom, tolerance and common sense in high degree. It is highly civilised and courteous. For which of these crimes are we going to change it, cut it to pieces? With the greatest respect, I believe that the sort of assembly which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and other noble Lords, an assembly of Life Peers only, would not impress the British people. Though many noble Lords think it would, I believe that, were it to come about, it would be so difficult to decide who was going to be in it and how to stop it from being merely an assembly of elderly people nominated in the Honours List, that it could easily fall into ridicule.
I want finally to comment on one point which has been made frequently in your Lordships' House, about noble Lords who do not attend. Sometimes your Lordships are a little unfair to some of us who live far away and have full time jobs, to which we have of necessity to give the majority of our time. It is not easy for us to attend your Lordships' House frequently. But we attend as often as possible. Although some noble Lords do not want to attend, there are others who are good on some particular subjects and who may make a more valuable contribution by attending on one day than
1358
some noble Lords who sit here consistently for a year. I thank your Lordships.
6.36 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, were here, because, if the noble Lord, Lord Champion, surprised her, I am going to surprise her even more. Before I had the honour, or even dreamed of the honour, of sitting on these Benches, I had the privilege of listening to three debates from behind the Bar. The first was on January 10, 1918, when the matter under discussion was that clause in the Representation of the People Bill which conferred the vote on women over 30. An Amendment was moved to remove that clause from the Bill.
It was an interesting debate. There was a full House. It went on for a long time. There were many speeches in favour of the Amendment and therefore against women's suffrage. My impression was that the mass of thought in the House was against it. One could tell from the reception given to the speeches—that curious muted noise which your Lordships make when you approve or disapprove of what is said. At the end of the debate, Lord Curzon, the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House, got up to speak. He had been a leading and powerful opponent of women's suffrage. He made a long speech in which he used what were, to many of us, the familiar arguments against enfranchising women. I looked up some of those phrases. He said that the Bill was "opening the floodgates", because if they enfranchised a limited number the time would come when they would have to enfranchise all women—something which in fact has happened. He also said that it opened the gates to a very dangerous influence, which in the end would be a stimulus to Socialism. He described it as a "catastrophic change". He used all the usual arguments against bringing women into the political arena. Then he paused, and said that if he voted for the wrecking Amendment he might be accused of precipitating a conflict
"from which your Lordships' House would not emerge with regard".
That was really the end of it. A Division was taken. Lord Curzon and a large number of noble Lords sat still on

1359
their Benches while the Division was taken and the Amendment was defeated by a substantial majority. Over the whole of the debate there hung the shadow of the other House and the fact that there was a considerable body of opinion in favour of the clause. I have no doubt that there also hung over the House the shadow of what had happened in 1832 and in 1911, and of what might happen again. The moral of that is that this House was extremely chary of running counter to the opinion which had been expressed in a democratically elected Parliament.
The second debate that I heard occurred on April 28, 1926, when Lord Buckmaster introduced a Motion calling upon the Ministry of Health to remove a prohibition against the giving of birth control information by local authorities to mothers who required it for health reasons. The legislation was opposed by the Government—it was opposed by Lord Cave, the Lord Chancellor—but the House on the whole were in favour of it, and it was carried against the Government by a majority of 57 to 44 votes.
In that debate, the House of Lords, I think, acted as what the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, described as a spur, because in the matter of birth control and local health authorities it was far in advance of the House of Commons, which at that time had not dared to touch the question: indeed, it was in polite society almost a dirty word. The moral of that is that here you have a House which is not always looking over its shoulder to see what is happening in the constituencies and what may happen in the next General Election, and, therefore, on a great issue of that sort, because it involved important matters of principle, was able to vote on a non-Party question well in advance—and it was well in advance then—of public opinion.
The third debate which I attended was on May 11, 1960, when the late Lord Simon of Wythenshawe moved for Papers to discuss higher education, not only in universities but in technical colleges and colleges of further education, and put forward a proposal for the appointment of a committee, with wide terms of reference, to examine all the possibilities
1360
of expansion in those directions. There again, it was a full House—perhaps some noble Lords here present to-day were present at that debate, too. It was an extremely well-informed debate there was not a single speaker who did not know his subject. There were several former members of the University Grants Committee, who knew the financial implications of what was being proposed; and there were several heads of colleges. The debate was extremely well-informed and of a very high quality. As a result of that debate, the Government, shortly after, appointed just the type of committee which Lord Simon of Wythenshawe had advocated, the Robbins Committee, which has had a considerable effect on higher education in this country. The moral of that is that you can get a debate of supremely good quality by well-informed specialists in this House which, in fact, affects what the Government do.
If you put those three morals together, you get quite a good case for the House of Lords as at present constituted, with the powers which it now possesses. I suggest that it is only a matter of time before we go a long way towards achieving many of the reforms that have been suggested this afternoon. If you take the question of susceptibility to what is happening in another place, we have had a good example of this recently—I think it has been mentioned by several noble Lords—in connection with the London Government Bill.
Consider the position of hereditary Peers and Life Peers. It will be known that the present Prime Minister has announced that he does not intend to make any new hereditary Peers. I think it is unlikely that future Prime Ministers will create new hereditary Peerages, and I believe that in due course the proportion between Life Peers and hereditary Peers will move in favour of Life Peers, because, after all, from time to time Peerages become extinct. Meanwhile, successive Prime Ministers have shown that in appointing Life Peers they are not necessarily impelled by Party considerations. Both the present Prime Minister and recent Prime Ministers, in creating Life Peers, have shown great independence in adding to this House persons of quality, of independent mind, and perhaps addicted to Parties other than that of the Prime Minister who

1361
appoints them. So time is on our side in the reform of the House of Lords. And the moral of that is: leave well alone, and it will work itself out.
There is one specific reform which I must say I should very much like to see carried, though it may violate some venerable, historic, symbolic precedent, and it is this. I should like to see the Lord Chancellor relieved of the tedium of the many hours which he spends on that rather uncomfortable Woolsack listening to our orations, in a position in which he is not even able to do a crossword puzzle or read a novel.
6.47 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I shall not speak for long, and I apologise to your Lordships for having to leave the Chamber immediately I have finished speaking. It is not because I do not want to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, but because I have an engagement downstairs. I should like to start by agreeing very much with what was said by my noble friend Lord Ailwyn; namely, that those who criticise this House are in the main those who have little knowledge of how it works.
I can illustrate this fact by an incident that occurred a few weeks ago, when a small party of sixth form girls from a well-known school, who were members of a history group, came up to the House to be shown around. They had lunch, and then came in to listen to part of the debate. I had some most appreciative letters from them afterwards, one of which was most interesting. It said:
"I had for many years many ambitious ideas for reforming the House of Lords, but now that I have seen it in action, I think I prefer it as it is."
This was from a young and, presumably, unbiased person, and evidently the House—it was not, so far as I remember, a particularly interesting day—must have made a very good impression upon her.
I am afraid I cannot share the reverence which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has for an elected Chamber and the democratic system. Democracy, after all, has its shortcomings. When one considers that the electorate consists to quite a major degree of people who have not the faintest idea of what they are voting for or why they are voting, and merely put a cross to a list because
1362
presumably it is going to do them some good, one realises that democracy has its shortcomings.
In the same way, the hereditary system has its advantages. I agree that there are shortcomings there, too, but there are advantages in an hereditary system. One of them is this—a very obvious one, and it is true of heredity in any profession. When you have been brought up in the atmosphere of that particular profession and have learned to cultivate an interest in it from boyhood and have, as is the case, of course, with heirs of hereditary Peers, the opportunity of being able to hear and listen to debates, and have heard your father talk about the more interesting subjects, you acquire a considerable knowledge of what is going on in the country before you even succeed. That is, I think, a great advantage of the hereditary system.
I am not saying that it is without disadvantages. It certainly has them, and I think most certainly that something should be done to stop this (as it has been called) built-in majority for the Conservative Party. But I think that that could be done in more than one way. It could be done by creating more Labour Life Peers; it could be done by a control of the membership of this House by limiting it to those who have attended for a certain percentage of the Sittings, or by some other method like that. As to the backwoodsmen, those who never have come near the place, some of whom have not bothered even to take their seats, I do not think we really need bother about them. They will not come, and we need not worry about them. Many of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, said, are busy earning their own living.
As to the powers of the House, I agree that one cannot discuss the constitution of the House without thinking of its powers as well. I agree that it should not have absolute power over the elected House, but I think that the powers which have been taken from this House and which were not absolute could be restored. I do not think there is any point at all in having a Second Chamber—and I think we are all agreed on the fact that we should have a Second Chamber—which is completely powerless. I think also that the insistence of this House on its Amendments, which power has never

1363
been exercised so far as I can remember while I have been here—and that is 14 years—could be exercised a little more often. As many noble Lords have said, I think that this House functions very well, and we should really think twice before trying to reform it simply because we have a theoretical objection to a system which works very well, and a theoretical adherence to some other system which might not work nearly so well.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would explain a little more fully what he meant when he said that the powers that had been taken from the House of Lords should be restored to it. A great many powers have been taken from the House during this century; for example, the power of control over finance, the power to reject a Bill outright, and so on. Was it his intention that all these powers should be restored, or only the ones taken since the last war?
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, by no means all of them, of course. I was referring to the ones taken more recently: for instance, a reduction of the delaying power from two years to one, and certain other minor powers. By no means all of them, no.
6.54 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, in view of what has been said during the debate this afternoon, I feel that I am expected to present the "with it" view of this particular problem, and I must say that this puts me in an embarrassing position. I think my only option is to make a speech which is either so devastatingly Left Wing or so shockingly bad that your Lordships will conclude that the House would be better off without me. Because, as your Lordships may know, I do not want to have any part of this system which enables me to be here. In fact, I rather mistrust this "young man" argument. I believe it to be a last-ditch argument put up by the Conservative Party in wanting to retain the privileges of their aristocracy.
They have argued in the past that hereditary Peers are fitted by their breeding to sit here. They have now abandoned that argument. They have argued that the aristocracy represents the best in
1364
society. They have abandoned that. They have argued that a Peer is uniquely capable of interpreting the popular will. They have abandoned that. Now they throw at us who wish to reform the House the argument, "What kind of a system can you think of which would allow young men to attend?", and they do so with such success that my poor noble friend Lord Champion is forced to admit that he cannot think of one. My Lords, I say, "Let us axe the 'young man'". Our contribution is very small compared to the volume of work done by older men. Not every one is a grey-beard here; the noble Baroness is no grey-beard, and many other noble Lords are no greybeards; and I am sure my noble friend Lord Champion has nothing to worry about if the hereditary young men in this House no longer appear here.
I want to go straight into the question of composition, because I believe that this is the really relevant subject of our debate this afternoon. Power is rather an academic question. The House of Lords has no effective power at the moment, as recent debates have shown. What really matters is who should sit here, and the really urgent reform which is needed is the removal of the blight of the hereditary element. I have heard many noble Lords talk of the respect and the love which they have for this House. My position is that, while I respect the ability and the contributions of many of the individuals who sit in this House, in so far as this House is on an hereditary basis (and here I hope I speak as Lord Champion would have spoken when he was my age), I abominate this House; I find it repugnant, and I am ashamed that it should be part of the British Parliament. I hear my noble friend asking me why I come here. I hope that I can take some part in improving it.
I should have thought that members of all Parties should be vying with each other in making proposals for the removal of the anomalous and unrepresentative element and I am very glad that the Liberal Party, at least, is stepping in and saying firmly that reform of the composition is necessary. The present composition does no credit to this country or to Parliament, and I should have thought it cannot be considered desirable by the Conservative Party that all the influence which this House can command by reason of the

1365
distinguished nominated membership is utterly emasculated by the existence of the hereditary vote.
Members of the Party opposite—indeed, members of all Parties—like to talk of what this House does and what this House thinks. My Lords, this House collectively has no influence at all. Everybody knows that when this House expresses its view by vote, the size of the Labour Party's defeat depends merely on the number of hereditary Conservative Peers who happen to be attending. The result is that when people read in the papers about a Government defeat in the Lords, they laugh; they attach no meaning to it. A further result is that the House of Commons is unwilling to entrust this House with further responsibilities and further functions which it might well want to entrust to a more representative Chamber. If this House is a laughing stock, and if it is not thought fitted to take on further responsibilities, surely we should all wish to make reforms to it.
Some of my noble friends will say (they have not said it to-day, but I have heard it said): "Let the House be a laughing stock; then the House of Commons can carry on its work untrammelled." I find this a wrong-headed and narrow-minded view. I cannot see how a Second Chamber composed much as this one is at present, but without the hereditary element—and with, of course, many of the hereditary Members who would be appointed Life Peers—without any powers of suspension or veto, entrusted by the Commons with useful and mainly non-controversial work for which the House of Commons has no time, a House in which the governing Party would hold at least a relative majority, would pose the slightest threat to the Commons or to the Labour Party. On the contrary, believing as I do that any objective person must recognise that Labour policies are right, I think that such a Chamber would disapprove of Tory measures far more often than Labour.
There is another factor which my noble friends seem to have forgotten. Can our Party really tolerate for much longer the presence of the aristocracy in the Legislature of this country? I can appreciate that reform of the Lords occupies a low priority on the Government's list, and it is right that there are many other things far more worthy of being reformed. But
1366
looking ahead, perhaps, to the next Labour Manifesto, are we honestly prepared to admit that we can think of nothing better than what we have at the moment, and that we are obliged to bolster up the prestige of the upper classes? I do not think so. I thought that one of the inspirations of the Labour movement was its determination to fight against privilege. The fight is not over, and if the Labour Government would face up to this problem I believe that it would redound to their credit all over the country and would take us one step further towards the kind of society we want to see.
I have already indicated the kind of Chamber that I should like to see, and I believe it could be very simply arrived at. It would retain all the good features of the present House, and, indeed, would be similar to it. Three years ago, in a debate on this subject, I said that about two-thirds of the work of this House was done by people who would be members of a reformed Chamber, and with the ending of the creation of hereditary Peers this percentage is going up every year. It may be that an independent body will be necessary to secure certain limits of Party representation. It might be that as time went on further variations would be thought right. For instance, it might be considered right to introduce Members sitting for the life of a Parliament only—even young Members. It might be that, as a transitional measure, those hereditary Peers who now attend could continue to attend, perhaps deprived of the vote. But surely in this kind of thinking there is scope for the type of reform which, in the best conservative traditions of the English Constitution (and here I am not being revolutionary at all) creates a new institution by building on what is best in the old one.
If that were to be done, then the really important and constructive reforms of the functions of this House could well be considered. If this House were to become a body really worthy of respect, and seen to be worthy of respect by reason of its composition, with Members paid a reasonable remuneration for their services, then more of the work of Parliament could be entrusted to it. Public interest demands that Parliament does its work effectively, and with the growing complexity and power of the Executive

1367
it will be increasingly necessary for a Second Chamber to play its full part. For instance, there are possibilities in the realm of scrutinising legislation and administration. But to-night I will simply say this: that so long as the House of Lords retains its present composition it will remain merely a sleeping partner of the House of Commons, unable to serve the public interest as it should.
7.5 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAK-RIDGE: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for putting this Motion on our Order Paper. Ever since I entered this Chamber I have longed to hear a good debate on the constitution and powers of the House of Lords, and I have certainly listened to a good debate this afternoon. It has been particularly good in that the speeches have been short, and I will not spoil matters by making a long speech. In point of fact I have not had the time to think out a long speech.
I intend to start by making a remark which I hope will not offend my many friends on all sides of the House. During my life I have constantly been surprised by the rather large number of men in political life whose political judgment is not as good as it ought to be. I once spoke with the Permanent Secretary of one of our Ministries. We were talking about his Minister and, after a moment of silence, he said, "The Minister makes all his decisions for political reasons; the trouble is his political judgment is nearly always wrong". This remark is certainly not directed at anybody here this afternoon, but we are all liable to make remarks which we should not make if we thought the matter out politically a little more deeply.
I am going to be so bold as to say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has made a mistake when he said that there is no urgency in this matter. He does not sense any public demand for any urgent action. I think that was a mistaken thing to say. In fact, I do not think he really believes it himself. If the Conservative Party is going to maintain over the years an attitude of "nothing is to be changed", then one day they will wake up and find that a very big change has been made with which they are most uncomfortable.
1368
There is one point I think we ought to remember when we talk about public opinion. What is public opinion? The majority of little boys and little girls are "born into this world alive", either ardent supporters of the Labour or Liberal Parties, or they are "little Conservatives". But there is a section of the population which is not like that; a section of men and women who think things out for themselves and who, at various periods in our history, have suddenly intervened with great and drastic effect. This question of the House of Lords is such a one, and it is important that the political Parties should think it out carefully.
As to my own view on the subject, I will give it briefly. I think the essentials are, first of all, that we need a Second Chamber. We need a Second Chamber that is held in high esteem in the country and which has some real effect upon the decisions of the Government. Secondly, the in-built majority of the Tory Party is, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said (and I think I was in 100 per cent. agreement with his speech) a source of great weakness to this House and a great weakness to the Conservative Party. That ought to be recognised and something done about it. I also think it is a mistake to imagine that the country would accept a House that was a mere gasholder. The people to whom I have referred, who stand in the middle of politics, who think things out for themselves, are the sort of people who know—rightly, as I believe—that a single-Chamber Legislature is a very dangerous thing and that to adopt it is to put one's foot on the slippery slope of dictatorship. Many of these people, I believe, are saying already to-day, "Our Government is not rightly constructed; there is too much power in the hands of too few men"; and if that were made even worse, I believe they would speak their minds and tell us exactly what they think in no uncertain terms.
During my short membership of the House the esteem in which this House has been held has gone up enormously, and that is owing mainly to the introduction of Life Peerages. A fellow called Bagehot, who wrote a hundred years ago, said of this House:
"The House of Lords would become a good second Chamber if it did away with proxy

1369
voting. It would become the best second Chamber in any Parliament if it adopted the principle of Life Peers."
That was a hundred years ago, and the measure has been adopted with wonderfully good effect; and I personally agree with the policy of the present Government in their creation of Peerages.
Those are the only thoughts I want to put to your Lordships to-night. I think this is a matter which should be thought out carefully, to which the answer can be come only after consultation between the political Parties, with, I hope, a slight representation from the Independents, and that we should not move with precipitation, but we should move.
7.13 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in rising to make the last speech from this side of the House, I know that there is no chance of my developing all my considered thoughts on the subject of this House. When I saw that I should be immediately followed by the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, my mind went back to a debate on December 5, 1957, which was also a debate about the House of Lords, in which he immediately followed me. I like to think that there are certain things we have in common: a love of this House, I think, and a love of Parliament. I think I am the eighth speaker to-day who has served both in another place and here. I may say I also spoke more recently in the debate on the Motion of my noble friend, Lord Alport, on July 4 of last year.
One of the things that astonishes me most about this debate is the number of noble Lords who have spoken about what is desirable for this House but not of what is desirable for Parliament. Of course, there have been exceptions to that. But my approach is to consider what is good for Parliamentary Government, and I would assure noble Lords in all quarters that I shall say nothing for this House which I do not believe to be in the interests of Parliament as a whole. In this country Parliamentary Government has a long and splendid history. I served some twenty years in the Commons, and I have served some twelve years in this House. If some noble Lords who have spoken are correct, I have entirely wasted the last twelve years of my life, in which House, in which I imagined, perhaps quite my principal activity has been in this
1370
wrongly, that I was serving worthy public causes.
The first and most obvious fact about the subject that we are considering is that the composition and powers of this House are indissolubly connected. You cannot separate, if you are to make any useful contribution to our discussion, the question of composition and the question of powers. I shall not endeavour to give my own proof of that proposition, because it was the unanimous conclusion of all three Parties who took part in the discussion which culminated in the White Paper of 1948, to which much reference has been made. That discussion broke down because they were all agreed that powers and composition were indissolubly connected, and, since they could not come to an agreed decision on powers, they could not come to agreement on anything. It is perfectly true—and here I do not question the use made of the document by noble Lords—that we know, if they had been able to agree about powers, how far they had gone in agreement on composition. But we really cannot consider one without the other.
Let me assume, and I am going to assume it for the moment, that with certain possible exceptions noble Lords in this House are agreed that there ought to be a Second Chamber with some powers. There is a Party in the State that does not take that view. The Communist Party thinks that this House ought to be abolished, and members of other Parties who share that view ought to observe the company they are keeping. It is a perfectly tenable view, though I do not share it, that we ought to have single-Chamber government. But if you reject that view, as I believe the immense majority of people in this country do, then you must face the intimate connection between composition and powers.
The fact about the House of Lords is that of all the celebrated Second Chambers throughout the world it now has the smallest powers. Almost the solitary power that it possesses is the power of limited delay. It can so delay matters that legislation, apart from Money Bills, can only be carried in defiance of the House of Lords, if the same Bill is introduced in two Sessions and a period of at least a year elapses between the date of the Second Reading in the House of

1371
Commons in the first Session and the date of the Third Reading in that House in the second. That is the only power that this House possesses.
I am not myself an advocate of increased powers for this House, but what I think every serious student knows is this; that, if you changed the composition, you would almost certainly increase the powers. I am not in favour of that; but there was a unanimous conclusion of all Parties that these two problems are indissolubly connected, and I invite the attention of this House to the fact that of all Second Chambers in the world, this House has the smallest powers.
It is sometimes assumed, quite wrongly, that this House, as it exists at present, is indefensible in the country. As I ventured to point out in the debate in 1957, this is always asserted either by those who have no experience at all of the hustings, or by those who in another place sat for a safe seat. I never sat for a safe seat, but in twenty years' experience in the House of Commons never once was I embarrassed on a public platform by any heckling on the subject of the powers, the composition or the performance of the House of Lords.
May I give a slightly comic story that is true and that I gave to the House on a previous occasion? I was once heckled by a Socialist who said that a most deplorable nationalisation Bill, introduced by the Socialist Government, had passed into law, and asked why the House of Lords had not stopped it. I had to explain that the House of Lords did not consider it as its duty to stop the enactment of laws for which the country had voted at a General Election. I do not know whether he was satisfied, but at any rate we remained on friendly terms.
If this House is to be valuable at all, its powers must not be limited to revision. As the late Lord Samuel often said in eloquent speeches, it must be in every sense a House of Parliament. I once ventured to quote the celebrated line of Terence: "Homo sum; humani nil a me alienum puto." Roughly adapted, that means: "We are a House of Parliament; we can discuss anything under the sun." We can discuss these things quite usefully.
1372
I have taken part in many debates initiated by Members on all sides of the House, many of which had their immediate influence on current events. In view of the late hour, I shall not quote them. Of one of them I was reminded in to-day's issue of The Times—William Holford's plan for the surroundings of St. Paul's. I do not believe that that plan would ever have been carried out but for a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in which I and several others took part. We were unanimous against an attempt which was then about to be made, to secure that that plan should not be carried out. I could mention many other subjects. It happens that I am greatly concerned with amenities, architecture, the preservation of the countryside and many other subjects, on which this House has not proved at all impotent.
But the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, comes down with a quite simple proposal this afternoon; namely, "Let us abolish all its remaining powers. Let us sweep them away." The first thing that strikes me about that is the extraordinary lack of any modesty. After all, the British Constitution is a rather famous Constitution. The British Parliament is perhaps the most famous in the world. In a phrase, often misquoted, England was described by John Bright as "the Mother of Parliaments". That phrase is often inaccurately attributed to the Parliament of Westminster itself, of which of course it is not a description. A well-known captain of the Oppidans, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, is, might, I think, show a little more modesty in proposing to throw out the British Constitution just because it has caused him some temporary inconvenience.
I am delighted that some sense has been talked in this debate from both sides of the House. There was the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and a speech that gave me great pleasure from the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks. Perhaps her speech gave me particular pleasure, because 21 years ago we were opponents at an election for the House of Commons. There were several candidates, but I had the good fortune to win, she being the runner-up. I think it was on the occasion of the count at the Combined English Universities by-election that we first met, and it is one of the joys of life in this

1373
House that, although we are on opposite sides, I have as a colleague in this House so admirable a former opponent and so good a Parliamentarian.
On the contribution of this House as at present constituted to the great debates of the day I shall say nothing, because it is well-known to every section of the House. If the noble Earl the Leader of the House will permit me to say so, when he was in Opposition we owed him a great debt for the number of useful debates that he initiated, using our good formula of moving for Papers.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, proposes to abolish all the remaining powers of this House. I will examine in a moment the reasons for this, but let me say that, with one possible exception, I am wholly opposed to everything he proposes. One of the things he proposed was that if we passed an Amendment to a Statute, the House of Commons should not even have to consider or debate it. If I understood him correctly, although they might sometimes accept an Amendment which we in this House had passed and which was lying on the Table, they might think fit to substitute an Amendment of their own which they thought was on the same subject, and which I gather we should never have any opportunity of considering at all. That, I understand, is the noble Lord's proposal.
LORD MITCHISON: No, that is not quite right; and let us get it right. There are derivative Amendments at present. Although they are not always called that, it is a convenient word, and I meant no more than that.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord may not have meant any more than that; but the House has not got the slightest conception of what he means by it.
LORD MITCHISON: Then noble Lords had better read Erskine May.
LORD CONESFORD: Well, it is a pretty stout volume. I have studied numerous passages in Erskine May on many occasions. I understand the noble Lord's proposal is that, if the House of Commons makes what it considers to be a derivative Amendment, then this House shall have no opportunity whatever of considering whether it is good
1374
or bad, if the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, says that that is not his proposal, he can either interrupt me now or subsequently; otherwise the House will justly conclude that what I have said is true.
Then he gave various rules as to the way this House should behave. With some of his propositions I was in some agreement; but, of course, what he described is the exact opposite of what his Party habitually practise. He said that we should never divide against the Second Reading of a Bill passed by the House of Commons. The only occasion that I remember such a thing being done in this House was when the Labour Opposition divided against the London Government Bill in 1963. That, so far as I know, is the only attempt in this House in recent years to thwart the will of the Commons on the Second Reading of a Bill. But the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, assumes that it is only the Tories who are guilty of this sort of conduct. In the eleven or twelve years in which I have been a Member of the House the solitary attempt on these lines has been made by the Labour Party.
Then he mentioned with disapproval an Amendment on something connected with money which I carried in this House, an Amendment dealing with debentures when the Iron and Steel Bill was before this House. I wonder whether he is aware that in the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949 the Amendments which made possible the prescription charges were introduced by the Socialist Government in this House. Those were not unimportant Amendments. They were Amendments on the strength of which the present Prime Minister and the late Mr. Bevan resigned. I think we should have a little less from the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, suggesting that the pretensions in this House to have some powers were always raised by the Tories and never by his Party.
If I may now deal with the question of the composition of the House, surely the question is not whether we like the hereditary principle, or would introduce it if it were not already there, but are the alternatives suggested better or worse? One alternative was raised in this debate, in the first instance, I think, by Lord Byers (and as this is the first time I have spoken since he has been made Leader

1375
of his Party, perhaps I can add my congratulations, since he is an old personal friend of mine from House of Commons days) when he suggested that, for at any rate part of the House, it should be subject to elections. I am wholly against that, and for a very simple reason: nothing would be more resented by the House of Commons. There is no possible form of election that would not make this House a rival of the House of Commons in some way in which it is not at present. I think that the idea of any form of election is completely wrong.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, while thanking him very much for his congratulations, not to misinterpret what I said? What I said was in the context of the development of regionalism and the natural aspirations of the Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish to be represented here. Therefore, there is, I think, a case for some part of this House having people from these regions either, I said, by election or by nomination—by election only if there were proportional representation.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for interrupting me to correct any misunderstanding of my words, but I am wholly against this House representing anything but itself, for the simple reason, which was well given by the noble Lord, Lord Champion: that this is the one Second Chamber in the world in which nobody who rises to speak is even tempted not to be honest. There is no reason at all in this House why we should not always say what we think. That is something of the very greatest value.
If we exclude election, I wonder why we should necessarily condemn the present system. This system of a certain number of hereditary Peers has something in common with sheer chance. We choose our juries by chance. The use of chance does not necessarily give one a very bad result. Perhaps I might remind the House (I hope your Lordships will forgive an old classical scholar quoting this example) that in the year 487 B.C. the Athenian democracy introduced the use of the lot as an improvement in democracy for the purpose of electing their Archons.
Naturally, I am not suggesting for one moment that this House is not capable
1376
of being improved. Of course it is. It would be a much better place if we were all better men; but it would not be improved, I think, by altering our procedure in any important way. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was absolutely wrong when he suggested that it would be a good idea for somebody on the Woolsack or elsewhere to have a power to call to order for irrelevance. It is perfectly true that some noble Lords are at times irrelevant. Nobody knows that better than the noble and learned Lord who sits so patiently on the Woolsack; but perhaps he will accept a fact from me, based on twenty years' experience in the House of Commons, that much more time is wasted in the House of Commons by points of Order on whether a Member is or is not in order, than is spent in this House by a noble Lord being at times irrelevant.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, rose to reply to a noble Lord on this side of the House and said that he was not at all disgruntled. That may have been true, but we all know that he was by no means "gruntled", to use that glorious expression of Mr. P. G. Wodehouse. The powers of the House of Lords are to him what King Charles's head was to Mr. Dick, and I often think that Charles Dickens showed extraordinary foresight in naming that character "Mr. Dick".
7.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it is always a joy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I shall be taking up one, at least, of his large themes sympathetically later on, but meanwhile I should like to thank him for attributing to me a love of this House which I share with him. Certainly there are a number of us here who love this House. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, showed a deep love of the House, as did many other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, but I hope we shall all agree that there is a good deal to be said for somebody speaking to us who does not particularly love the House as an institution, though I am sure that he loves us all as fellow human beings. I think we would all agree—and the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, implied it—that possibly our one grave fault here is a tendency to mutual admiration, and it is very salutary when some young Peer comes along and says that he

1377
does not think this is the most wonderful place, and that he does not regard it as a unique privilege to be among us. It is just possible that his opinion might be at least as valuable as that of anybody else.
I feel that this qualification, which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and particularly with the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, is not necessarily the only one. This House may or may not be the wisest; we agree that it is not the strongest Chamber in the world, but it seems to be the most seductive. When people have been here a few years they undoubtedly fall deeply in love with the place, and we know the consequence of that. But at any rate I was very glad—I think we must all be particularly glad—to hear what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and I hope he speaks to us very often, even if his sentiments are not those of most Members of the House.
We are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for initiating this debate, and for the way he spoke—so ripe in experience, so youthful in spirit, so gentle and yet so deadly. I felt that he had got under the skin of some noble Lords when the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, described him as disgruntled, and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said that he was far from gruntled. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn (who I realise has been here a good many years longer than I have, and I have been here over twenty), that I feel that noble Lords are entitled to criticise this place the first day they arrive. I do not believe that one has to wait, as in my case, twenty years or, as in the case of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, longer still, before one offers any thoughts at all about the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, modestly suggested that he might be regarded as a hopeless reactionary. Since he went on to tell us that he was looking forward to the day when some of the lost powers were restored to the House of Lords, I would call him a very hopeful traditionalist. I think I would leave the argument there between him and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, discounted the idea that there was any urgency to be attached to this subject, and he was rebuked, I thought quite justly, by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson
1378
of Oakridge. But if I may respectfully put it in this way to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, I thought that although he apparently claimed that the Conservative Party had not given much attention to the question which we are discussing, he had given a lot of thought to it himself and he adopted a far from reactionary line. I would not say that he went all the way with some of us, but I think that when his speech is read it will seem quite radical and that eyebrows will be raised in many quarters. I think his speech showed a very hopeful trend. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, is clearly pursuing this subject even more actively on behalf of his Party than the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. He is setting up a committee and pushing very hard for a Liberal policy. I have very great hopes of what may come out of it, though again there were differences between my point of view and his.
It may be asked: How do the Government approach this debate? From the point of view of the Government, it may fairly be described as a "look and listen" debate. That will not prevent my speaking at some length but that is, at any rate, the angle from which we approach it. We do not come here with totally fixed ideas. Certainly this debate has not been promoted by the Government with a view to making some new or definitive statement of Government policy. I very much welcome the debate, but it springs from the unaided initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison.
I would, however, remind the House—which is hardly necessary, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, referred to it, though not many other speakers did—that rather more than a year ago this Government were elected with a large majority on a Manifesto which included one specific reference to this House.
"Legislation"—
we were told—
"will be introduced to safeguard measures approved by the House of Commons from frustration by delay or defeat in the House of Lords."
As we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that is what we said at the time of the Election, and that is what we say to-day.
It is an obvious inference that, in some sense or other, reform of this House will once again be embarked upon during

1379
the present Parliament. I am not able to-day to go into any details, but it would be rather strange, in view of the Election promise, if nothing were done in that direction. May I remind noble Lords opposite that the House was certainly not left unchanged during the years of Conservative rule.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, may I put to him a point which I raised in my speech? Will there be consultation with the Parties before the legislation is introduced?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I shall make sure that anything that was said to-day on those matters is carefully studied. I think we can all agree that great constitutional reforms are all the more satisfactory if there is agreement, but I cannot say any more until the remarks of noble Lords have been studied. I say in the most friendly way, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that when, for example, the very beneficent change, as I think it now is, of Life Peers was introduced it was not an agreed measure. That was introduced by the Government of the day. I say that just to show that one must be careful before giving pledges when standing at the Box. But I quite agree about the desirability of the widest possible measure of agreement.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I do not want to press the noble Earl into a firm statement, but in 1948 the Labour Party did the right thing, in our view, of calling the Parties into consultation before legislation was brought forward.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, as I say, I am sure I can promise that what has been said will be studied with special care. But I am sure—and I must just add this—that the reforms which are brought forward will owe a great deal to what has been said or implied in our discussion to-day.
I repeat my gratitude for all the suggestions, and I am sorry that I missed most of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. But if we take that particular concrete suggestion which he made, that the Life Peerages should be separated from the other Honours, I will see that it is given particular attention.
1380
My own emphasis is comparatively novel, though I will not pretend that it differs in all respects from what has been said by other speakers. I can illustrate my emphasis, perhaps, from the writings of Dr. Bernard Crick which have aroused a good deal of well-merited attention in the last few years. Dr. Crick makes two points in particular, though they go closely together. In the first place, he insists—and here I am quoting him—that:
"no real progress can be made in clarifying or reforming the relationship between the Executive and Parliament until Parliament is looked at as a whole and not just the House of Commons"
—which he was then setting out to discuss. That is what I meant when I said just now that I was very much in sympathy with one of the larger themes developed by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford.
Secondly, Dr. Crick asserts-and here again I am quoting him—that:
"the key to any worthwhile reform of the Lords is no longer the question of its powers, even of its composition, but primarily of its true function. Argument about powers…is over; and argument about composition can only be fruitful if it is first made clear what is the nature of the task for which people are needed".
Until we know what we want the Peers to do, we cannot really agree on the kind of quality which we desire of them.
I must not commit the Government to anything new at this point, but I feel able to express a strong personal sympathy for both propositions. I accept, first, the need for considering the reform of Parliament as a whole, not just taking one Chamber in isolation from another. Also, I look upon it as our overriding duty to consider the proper functions of our Second Chamber, in addition to its powers and composition. The Election Manifesto, to which I referred just now, said that we would
"improve and modernise the work of Parliament"
in order to
"reinforce the democratic element in modern Government ".
We have been witnessing an impressive list of reforms, actual or projected, in another place. I mention, for example, the setting up of Select Committees on Agriculture and on Science and Technology, and the experiment of morning sittings; and there is much else.

1381
We in this House have agreed to experiment in one field where, up to now, the other place has hesitated to tread. We have agreed to an experiment, at any rate, in the televising of our proceedings. But otherwise we seem, in our two-and a-half years of Government, content with our old ways. We still attempt, for example, to do all our Business on the Floor of the House, when perhaps we could do some of it, at least, more efficiently in Committee upstairs. I am always ready to agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and with my noble friend Lord Silkin, and with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who has left us, that we must give unremitting attention to our procedure, but I will not say more about that to-night.
I do say one thing, however, to the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarn-bury: that there is a limit to what we can do on our own in these matters. She made a very striking speech, which I much admired, but she said at one point, I think, that we must try to set our own House in order. We can go some way along that line, but, of course, it must become part of a general policy for Parliament as a whole. Nevertheless, every Member of this House clearly has a right and a duty to offer his thoughts to the best advantage.
My Lords, the last great attempt at reform by general agreement was made, as we have heard several times to-day, at the All-Party Conference of 1948. The Conference broke down over the period of delay—that is, on powers; although the actual difference was not very large. It is usually said to have been three months, although there is sometimes a little argument on that point. But, looking back, it is striking to observe—and various speakers have made this point —how much tentative agreement was reached on composition. I do not think one can talk as though hard and fast agreement was reached, because really all that was reached was a basis for further exploration; but still, it is remarkable how far they got towards agreement. And to-day we have heard from various speakers—for example, Lord Byers, Lord Strang and the right reverend Prelate—
that 1948 would seem to make a good starting point for new talks.
1382
I will quote some of the proposals which the Party representatives wished to use as a basis for discussions if the matter of powers had been resolvable. First of all, it was agreed that the Second Chamber should be complementary, and not a rival, to the lower House; and secondly, that the revised constitution should be such as to secure as far as practicable that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political Party. That point in particular was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. Thirdly, it was agreed that the present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber. Fourthly, it was agreed that Members of the Second Chamber should be styled "Lords of Parliament" and should be appointed on grounds of personal distinction or public service. They might be drawn either from hereditary Peers or from commoners who would be created Life Peers.
I will come back to those fundamental propositions, which have governed quite a section of this debate; but may I point out, before doing so, that some of the other reforms suggested by the Conference have been adopted? We have benefited delightfully from the presence of women. They have admirably improved our style and our elegance, and have greatly strengthened our knowledge of social questions. Then there has been the renunciation of Peerages. That has deprived us of some outstanding Members who are in the fond recollection of all of us, but I suppose we must see it as a step in the direction of human liberty, and certainly it is in line with what was proposed by the Conference of 1948.
But if we are going to claim, as can be done fairly enough, that this House to-day is substantially altered from the House of that time—say, twenty years ago—we must find certainly the main explanation in the coming of Life Peers under the Life Peerages Act 1958. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, speaks with especial authority. I gather he can be regarded rather as unofficial "Father of the House." He put in a claim to that, and I am myself very happy to join in awarding it to him. I therefore think that his opinion is of especial value, not only for that reason but for all the disinterested service he has done in this House over so

1383
many years. But it was important that he should have reached that conclusion, that Life Peers had made this vast difference.
My Lords, accepting that, what of the House to-day? I will not attempt to assess the atmosphere or the culture of the House in these latter days. It is generally regarded as much more liberal, which is usually understood to be a complimentary word. In my eyes it is complimentary when applied to the attitude of the House in recent times to hanging and homo-sexualism, but not when applied to abortion. One really has to pick and Choose what is and what is not liberal.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, that is religious prejudice.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: It may be, but religion is not a bad thing occasionally. It is not necessarily a vice. At any rate, I think we should all agree that the House has moved on and is generally regarded to be far more progressive to-day than it was in past years.
But let me deal with hard facts, which are less open to dispute—and no one will accuse me, I am sure, of introducing theology into these. In the first place, let us take our attendance. Many more of us come here. For example, in the Session 1954–55 the average daily attendance was 92, whereas in this period it is 194. It is twice as high. Last week it was over 200, and to-day it is 225. That is two-and-ahalf times what it was in the Session 1954–55. So this represents an important change. In the same ten years, the number of your Lordships who spoke at least once during a Session rose from 263 to 363—a rise of over a third. The number of Starred Questions, which I suppose we can regard as an index of vitality, rose from 203 to 370.
Let us then take a look at the composition of the House. At present, we have rather over 1,000 potential Members. Of these, 739 are Peers by succession, 130 are hereditary Peers but of the first creation, 138 are Life Peers (including 17 Law Lords and ex-Law Lords), while the Bishops remain at a constant 26. Here I hope I shall not be accused of religious prejudice if I turn aside to pay my tribute to the Bishops, who have, I think, made
1384
a magnificent contribution—an evermore magnificent contribution, if I may say so—as the years go by. Fortunately, perhaps, for those of us who attend regularly, these figures are not borne out by the actual attendance. That has gone up a great deal. Out of the total of rather more than 1,000, about 100 are without Writs of Summons for one reason or another, and another 190 or so are on Leave of Absence, and this reduces the House to 746. This can still be regarded as the upper maximum. The daily attendance, as I was saying just now, is in the 190s.
I am often asked—and I expect other noble Lords who perhaps speak about the House are asked—what proportion of the House regularly attend. I do not think it is possible to answer that question precisely, but it may be of interest if I say that during the last complete Session, 177 Peers attended 50 per cent. of the Sittings and 222 Peers came on a third of the possible occasions. But in giving these figures, I should certainly not like to give the impression that I am in any way critical of those who do not come here or speak very often. It is my firm belief that many of the occasional speakers are among the most valuable Members of the House, and I should always be nervous—and I was a little nervous when the noble Lord, Lord Byers, dealt with this related aspect—if the test of attendance were taken as a kind of measure of virtue. I think one should be very careful before adopting that particular criterion.
LORD BYERS: I would accept that; but there must obviously be a number of Peers who do attend. One could not have a House of those who attend only once every two or three years in their own specialist field. This is the balance that I feel one has to get in the House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I do not want to pursue this. Obviously, "balance" is the key word. At the moment leaning towards two hereditary Peers, if we take two hereditary Peers who have gone from us, the late Lord Halifax and the late Lord Feversham, I cannot imagine applying some test which would have ruled them out because they did not come very often from Yorkshire. When they did come, the whole House was most anxious to hear them. I am not dealing

1385
with the whole of the hereditary question, but I am pointing out the difficulties of taking too sharply the test of attendance.
My Lords, let us take the division by Parties. At present, the approximate division of the Parties is of this kind on paper. It is not easy to say, for example, how you rank the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who I believe sits on the Cross Benches. I do not know what Whip he receives or in what form he receives any news of the proceedings of the House. There are noble Lords on the Cross Benches whose sympathies for the Labour Party are extremely well-known. But giving approximate figures, I would offer these: Conservatives, 350; Labour, 100; Liberal, 40—all these are approximate figures—and Communist, 1. That seems to be a definite figure, the others are approximate. Of the rest, the following are identifiable: Independents, about 96; Law Lords and ex-Law Lords, 17; Bishops, as I have said, 26. That makes a total of 632 in all. That suggests that the figure of 746 which I offered the House earlier cannot all be accounted for. In practice, if we are talking about the working membership of the House, then 630 or thereabouts would be a reasonable figure.
The predominance of the Conservative Party—and now I come to an issue of great importance—in the routine divisions is less remarkable than those figures suggest. The figures I gave were Conservative, 350, Labour, 100. If we take the voting on the Defence Estimates in March, 1966—a pretty straightforward well-organised Party demonstration, I think we might call it, on both sides—the voting against the Government was 107 to 55, with the Liberals voting in their own fashion; that is, two to one. On the Rent Bill, the numbers were much closer—I am taking the voting on some Amendments—they were 62 to 54 on one occasion and 54 to 49 and 56 to 35 on another. But more recently the gap has been wider, though this may be fortuitous. On the London Government Bill, the Conservatives won by 86 to 61; on the Iron and Steel Bill by 39 to 26; and on the Agriculture Bill by 89 to 42 and by 66 to 37. So no-one can deny that there is still a clear gap. I would say that the gap had narrowed. If you pick up a Division List on the Iron and
1386
Steel Bill in 1945 you find, for example, that 23 votes were cast for the Government and 86 votes against. The difference is not quite so pronounced now.
Nevertheless, the overwhelming fact remains—and I think that all Members of the House looking at this dispassionately (as I am sure does the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, as he is much concerned with this issue) realise this—that if the Conservatives in this House want to beat the Government they can still always do so. That is the clear fact. There is no getting away from that or thinking that it could be easily overcome by a small adjustment here. It would reed a large adjustment to alter that situation. This domination will never he altered while this remains in any sense a Chamber where all hereditary Peers, by virtue solely of their inherited titles, can come and vote. There is only one way to alter that—in my opinion it is a fantastic way—and that is to swamp the hereditary Peers by a vast creation of new Peers. But in any practical sense the proposition that I have laid down must, it seems to me, be accepted.
To take one simple illustration of the difference that the presence of hereditary Peers makes—I am not saying a word against them personally; for as the House knows I am myself an ambidexterous figure along with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in this discussion—let us take the Defence Division to which I referred, where the Opposition defeated the Government by 107 to 55 votes. If the voting had been confined to first creations, if hereditary Peers had not voted at all, the Government would have won by 44 votes to 29. That shows the difference on a well-organised Party occasion. While I have not any very carefully worked-out figures, in this case the hereditary Peers represented a good deal more than half the total vote. Roughly speaking, day in and day out, the hereditary Peers represent about half of those who go into the Division Lobbies on one side or another.
My Lords, returning for a moment to the proposition agreed as a basis in 1948, let me point out that we are still far from achieving the most fundamental aims that were laid down there. We are still far from ending the permanent majority of one Party. Although we have introduced

1387
Life Peers in the meanwhile, in the last resort the influence of the hereditary Peers is still decisive, when the Conservative Party wish to use it. The ultimate control by the Conservative Party and the continued predominance of the hereditary principle go hand-in-hand. This is a simple fact, and no one can deny that it is a fact. In my opinion it does not reflect on any individual whatever; it is just in the nature of things.
I was much struck by the clear statement of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that, so long as there is a built-in Conservative majority, this House does not possess a rational basis. He quoted the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to the same effect. I thought it was certainly very valuable to have that from him. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, went further and said that this fact, the predominance of one Party was the cause of our impotence. But whether that is an overstatement or not, I think it was very notable that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, in discussing a form of composition, started from the proposition that the predominance of one Party was barely defensible, if it was defensible at all.
My Lords, I was referring just now to domination in the Division Lobbies. In terms of speechifying, oratory, the position is totally different. I am still talking entirely of quantities and not of quality, either way. The majority of the speaking is certainly done by the first-creation Peers. In the Session, 1964–65, for example, there were over 5,000 interventions by first-creation Peers against 3,300 interventions by Peers by inheritance. If you take three recent debates in this House you find, for example, that first-creation Peers (I use the term to include both those who were given hereditary Peerages and those who were given Life Peerages) were responsible for 14 speeches out of 20 in the debate on the Press; they were responsible for 13 out of 21 in the debate on economic growth and for 11 out of 15 on the Plowden Report. I have eliminated myself and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, from both lists because we are, as I said, ambidextrous—some people would call us hermaphrodites. At any rate, I have left us both out. One would not be far wrong if one said that in the main debate, two-thirds of the speaking is done by first
1388
creation Peers. I am trying to give a little picture, for the benefit of noble Lords and others outside, of the House of Lords as it stands to-day.
May I now come back to reform? Nothing was said in the Manifesto about the composition of the House, though from both sides to-day the point has been strongly made that the composition and powers must be taken together. My noble friend Lord Rowley, from our side, argued that strongly; the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and other speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, argued it from the Conservative Benches. As nothing is said in the Manifesto about composition, I must beg all those who note my words to understand that nothing should be read into my remarks which might suggest a new development of policy. It is certainly strange, to put it mildly, in 1967 to find a Second Chamber of potentially more than 1,000 people of whom more than 700 acquired their titles by inheritance. There is nothing remotely comparable to it in the world to-day. If we were starting afresh, beginning from scratch, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would hardly say that he would have concocted a Chamber of this kind; and to me it is hardly credible that if we were making a new start we should devise any such Chamber, whatever our political persuasion.
It is just as incredible that the country would welcome or tolerate the establishment of a body of this sort, and with those thoughts in mind, my noble friend Lord Rowley referred to bitterness, and my noble friend Lord Champion agreed that there was still a strong radical within him when he thought of these facts. But what of this hereditary principle? I am sorry that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is not with us: I hope that he is not unwell. I am sorry that he is not with us—
LORD CONESFORD: He is abroad.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: —because he has spoken so eloquently in past years on the hereditary principle. To-day the hereditary principle was defended ingeniously along a new line, that it was the best way really of casting lots. The noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, told us that on the whole the hereditary Peers were perhaps more typical than all these nominated people. I am not caricaturing

1389
unkindly, but he implied that, on the whole, nominated men would be rather a pushing crowd, that they fought their way there, and were not like the ordinary, genial, benevolent citizens of the country; arid that one could get a better cross-section by the sheer accident of the hereditary process.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, cast a kind of Greek clothing over this by saying that there was something to be said for the process of the lot. Of course, we could have a Gallup Poll. I do not think the market research people would regard this as a very representative sample. I do not think they would take the view that the representative Peers were, in any known sense, typical of the country. If you wanted to draw lots, you could collect 700 people chosen by a lucky dip, but you would he unlikely to arrive at 700 hereditary Peers.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for yielding. I agree with him, of course, that this Chamber is unique among Second Chambers in this hereditary principle, but it is also unique in two other respects. First, no other Second Chamber in the world, so far as I know, has a higher reputation; and, secondly, no other Second Chamber in the world has such limited powers. What I was suggesting was that for the very limited powers, namely delay, the hereditary principle was the best until something better was suggested.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Well, my Lords, the last point is harmless enough. I am always in favour of suggesting something better before I try to destroy something which is there.
But it is difficult to know in what sense this is an hereditary Chamber until it comes to the vote. Two-thirds of the speaking is done by people who have been selected on other grounds, so that if this House enjoys this vast reputation in the world, as I should like to think that it does, we have to bear in mind that we have all sorts of distinguished people here—great experts, professors, business leaders and all the rest—for whom there is no parallel, so far as I know, in any Second Chamber in the world. The peculiar fact about this House is that we have, on the one hand, hereditaries and, on the other, all these
1390
nominated experts. Most Second Chambers are full of somewhat elderly politicians, so undoubtedly this is a very strange place.
Let us take just the hereditary principle—and I will not argue it at any length now. Certainly Labour and Liberal sympathisers, who still cover rather more than half the country, and a great many others who would not be included in their ranks, as well as, I should think, a good many Conservatives (though that is not for me to say) would presumably tell us, if they were asked, that they were strongly opposed to the idea of an hereditary element as a permanent feature of the British Second Chamber. I think that would be the opinion of everybody in the Labour and Liberal Parties, and a good many others besides.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I should like to know from the noble Earl whether or not he has any sympathy with the view expressed by Lord Morrison of Lambeth: that it was necessary from the Labour point of view that there should be an hereditary element in order to act as a sort of guarantee that this House would not seriously challange what he called the democratic principle though I think he meant the Government.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I have sympathy with every other view that I can recollect having been expressed by Lord Morrison of Lambeth, except that one. I hope that that makes my position plain enough. But that is not the same thing as saying that all these people who regard themselves as progressive would wish, or would necessarily agree, to eliminate this element to-morrow. It is one thing to say that it ought to go, and another to agree on what should be put in its place. Clearly, that would depend on their decision. I do not think, and the noble Viscount the Father of the House has told us—
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I must correct this. I think the noble Earl said that he would look upon me as the unofficial Father of the House, which is a somewhat dubious reputation. In point of fact, there are five Peers who have longer service but who hardly ever come to your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: At any rate, I would refer to the noble Viscount as the acting Father of the House.
I certainly do not set too high a value on the argument that the more irrational the composition of this House, the better. There are people who, frankly, want it to be as indefensible as possible; they think that then it cannot be dangerous. For myself—and in a great deal of this I am, naturally, speaking for myself—I have no use at all for that argument in trying to make real sense of our two-Chamber Parliament. I cannot believe that kind of reasoning will prevail, once the problem of a two-Chamber Parliament is approached in an adult fashion and taken, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would have us take it, as a whole. If we provisionally agree to set aside the hereditary principle as a basis of the Second Chamber, then clearly we must be ready to put something in its place. I should hesitate to say at this moment that a consensus has emerged or that public discussion has really got under way on this question, though in a sense I can say that it is being inaugurated this evening in this House.
Some of us have had the duty of studying all available foreign experience, and this demonstrates that the basic choices are few and fairly simple. I leave out the role of a Second Chamber in a federal constitution, which is not relevant here. If we abandon the hereditary principle, the Second Chamber would be elected, directly or indirectly. Is it to be elected through the regions or is it to be nominated? Or we could have a combination of the two principles. But basically that is the cardinal issue, though there are many possible refinements. I would say that there is little doubt about how that issue will be settled in broad outline in this country.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—considering that I disagree with his viewpoint as a whole, it is amazing how much I agree with him on particular aspects—that any elected Chamber would be regarded as a rival by the House of Commons. I cannot believe that anything we could call an elected Chamber would ever be established here or tolerated. The logic of all this points inescapably to a nominated House.
1392
What, then, of the hereditary Peers? Clearly some would emerge as fully fledged nominated Peers. I am not talking of any number or in terms of voting strength, but only of personal distinction. It is inconceivable that noble Lords like Lord Harlech and Lord Carrington and the Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Shepherd, would not receive whatever was necessary to establish themselves in full fig in the new Chamber. Obviously a number of Peers would be nominated on the ground of personal distinction. That was foreseen in the 1948 Agreement. If the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, will forgive me, I am not following him into numbers but would rather study what he and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said in conjunction with my colleagues.
But what of the vast majority of hereditary Peers who could not qualify in this way? I do not think that we can get round this as some people think. They assume that we could trim the edges of the hereditary Peerage to comply with the principle that no one Party is to have a clear majority. I think we need a large change to meet the requirement the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, accepted. As my noble friend Lord Silkin suggested, we do not want to be brutal to the hereditary Peers, many of whom have done yeoman service in the House in many different ways and few of whom would be young enough to embark on a career in the House of Commons. I think it would be quite inadequate to tell them that they cannot come here and that they should go for another place. That would be derisory. We have to pay great attention to their individual positions and to the services they can render to the House.
If we accept the proposition that in the long run hereditary Peers must disappear totally from the House, is there any transitional arrangement which could overcome the position of the existing hereditary Peers? I am not going to commit the Government this evening. Various transitional arrangements could be worked out. I mention only one, which I recommended when I was in Opposition, which has been supported by my noble friend Lord Gifford, and which I also detailed in a book of memoirs. It is usually referred to as the two-writ plan. Under my interpretation of it, hereditary

1393
Peers would be allowed to come and speak as now, but not to vote unless a special voting writ was conferred on them.
May I draw the attention of the House to the special advantage of this plan? On the one hand, we should remove the extraordinary anachronism in this year of Grace, 1967, of a legislative House still dominated in the last resort by the hereditary principle, and, on the other, the life, the spirit, the tradition, the attractiveness, the special ethos, the rather remarkable courtesy and friendliness of this House, would be fully preserved. I submit that our views would be more effective in future because they would no longer be associated in the public mind, fairly or unfairly, with one particular layer of society and one particular Party. My noble friend Lord Gifford put it more strongly than someone my age would put it, when he said that people do not take our decisions seriously because they are the opinions of a body nominated in a particular way. I think that the influence of the House would be considerably enhanced by a proposal of this kind. However, I am speaking only for myself and do not want anyone to suppose that this is a governmental proposal.
There are other questions of far from negligible importance into which I will not go now. If Peers are to be nominated, are they to be nominated for life or for a period of years or for one Parliament? Do we want full-time Peers or mostly Peers who would be part-time, with some full-time Peers? Who, if anyone, will be paid, and how much? And in making nominations should we not consider regional nominations, not only for Britain and Northern Ireland but also for the Commonwealth? Clearly there are many issues here and I have only opened them up to-day.
But as I draw towards a close, it is time to turn to powers and functions, taking them together, because I do not think that we can draw an absolute line in this discussion between powers and functions. By powers I mean what the House can insist on doing and by functions I mean the service which the House would ordinarily render. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington—I fully understand the reason for
1394
his absence, which I very much regret—recently defined what he called the functions of the House of Lords under three headings: first, a revisionary function, and secondly, the function of a forum, in which the great issues of the day could be debated with great authority. Thirdly, he said that
…there could arise a matter of great constitutional and national importance on which there was known to be a deep division of opinion in the country or perhaps on which the people's opinion was not known."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/2/67; col. 420.]
In that case, it seemed to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the House of Lords had a right and perhaps a duty to afford the people of the country and Members of the House of Commons a period of reflection and a time for views to be expressed. He added that he thought that it would not be possible to use such powers more than once.
I entirely agree with the statement of the first two functions suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington; that is, the revisionary function, which the House has recently been carrying out in such a valuable way, for example on the Companies Bill and the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill, and the function of exercising public influence and educating the public mind through our general debates. Certainly we are, as has been said by more than one speaker, remarkably well equipped, in a way that the House of Commons cannot claim to be, through the possession of such a large body of part-time experts, of national and international fame in many cases.
But when we reach the third of Lord Carrington's functions, the power, the right of resistance in certain cases, we cannot go along with him. We on this side of the House could never agree to any Second Chamber, and least of all a Second Chamber which in the last resort could be dominated by hereditary legislators, which could be permitted to resist the will of the elected House or force a reference to the people by laying claim to be the interpreters of the popular will.
The real danger to a Labour Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has well brought out, and which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, stressed strongly, arises in the last year or 18 months of its life. At that point, the Conseravtives could do through the House of Lords what they could not do through the House of

1395
Commons; that is, they could bring legislation to a standstill and force a General Election. In other words, a Conservative Government elected with a substantial majority can count on five years of effective life, a Labour Government on only four. Hence, the reference in the Election Manifesto which I mentioned earlier.
But I do not wish to close on a negative note. Those who have studied such works as those of Professor Crick and other constitutional thinkers may be asking themselves whether there are not new functions which a rational Second Chamber could be allotted; and it is for a rational Second Chamber that I personally shall always plead. Are there functions not now performed by this House which could be undertaken without any challenge to the Commons: functions which could supplement and complement the work of the Commons, and which might even by undertaken at their invitation? Professor Crick argues strongly that there are. The examination of subordinate legislation is one of the examples.
Personally, I am sure that the House of Lords—and I am sure everyone here agrees with this—could play a still larger part in initiating Bills, whether Government or Private Members' Bills. There is a big field for expansion there. I do not wish to give even an impression of committing the Government this evening, but I should like to leave all who hear or read these words with the hope that reform of the House of Lords need not weaken its influence for good in the future, but may enable it to perform still more distinguished services to the nation than those it has rendered in the past.
8.34 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I hear the distant urgent dinner gong. This, surely, is no time to speak for long. I should like to thank everybody who has said kind words about me. There have been quite a number who thought that everything I said was utterly wrong. I
1396
should like to thank my noble Leader, and I think I know him well enough to say that he did at times make me wonder whether, on the composition of this House, we should not bring in the computer. That is not the serious comment that I want to make. What I want to say is quite short. I started this discussion about powers. I said nothing more about any other subject than I hoped would lead your Lordships to give your individual or Party views on composition and functions. It worked admirably, and I am grateful to everyone who has taken part.
So far as powers are concerned, I would stress that all I was suggesting your Lordships should do is to get rid of one power which has not been used since 1940, another power which has not been used since 1950, and of the power of reconsidering Amendments returned from the Commons and deciding whether or not to insist on them, which I think hardly anybody has defended to-day, and which seems to me to be something which has happened by accident.
I hope that I did not seem too violent and unreasonable. I thought myself that I was really putting forward some quite minor propositions; putting them forward strictly in accordance with the passage of the Election Manifesto, and putting them forward, of course, with my customary diffidence. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion, because I should not know what to do with the Papers if I got them.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (OLD CASES) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty four minutes before nine o'clock.