Sitting of 19 January 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Universities (Public Expenditure)
    Mr. Bob Brownasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will introduce legislation to make the University Grants Committee responsible to Parliament in respect of public expenditure;
    (2) if he will introduce legislation to make individual universities responsible to Parliament in respect of public expenditure.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): This matter has been under examination by the Committee of Public Accounts and I would like an opportunity of considering its Report.
    Mr. Brown: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that such vast sums of public money are being spent by these bodies without any accountability?
    Mr. Crosland: This is a matter on which many varied and different views are strongly held, but I think that it is only reasonable, as we know that the Public Accounts Committee's Report is shortly to come out, for me to have an opportunity of considering it before I decide what to do.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: While I understand that the inquiry may well be necessary, may I ask the Secretary of State nevertheless to keep very carefully in mind the evidence given to the Robbins Committee that the rest of the world looks with admiration at this method of injecting Government finance while re-
    622
    taining the independence of universities, and it should be tampered with only with very great care?
    Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Mapp: Will my right hon. Friend, without prejudice to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, not appreciate that there is an overwhelming need for some form of democracy? The question asked for legislation. Is my right hon. Friend not aware that some kind of democracy must be put into this machinery in a new form? Will he keep his mind open in that respect at least?
    Mr. Crosland: This exchange from both sides of the House has demonstrated what I said earlier, that strong views are held on this matter but the views are not always in agreement. Since I believe that the Report is due to be published next Tuesday, it would be more sensible for me not to express a strong personal view.

    Young People (Voluntary Service)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the future of voluntary service by young people within Great Britain.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): A statement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Judd: Would my hon. Friend agree that this has been one of the most exciting changes in youth work in recent years, and that if we are to make the best of the possibilities there must be the fullest consultation with the many people at national and local level who have been involved in making a success of developments in that work?
    Mr. Howell: I agree that it is exciting work and I am going to great pains to consult as many people as possible before announcing any changes.

    University, College and School Facilities (Vacation Use)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek power to ensure

    623
    the satisfactory use of university, college, and school facilities and accommodation during the vacations.
    Mr. Crosland: I am extremely anxious to ensure what my hon. Friend has in mind, and we are making definite progress in this direction. But I think that we shall do better by strong encouragement rather than by seeking new powers.
    Mr. Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend agree, however, that there is an urgent need for a nation-wide O & M inquiry into the use of college staff and buildings, and that an all-the-year-round use of college facilities could greatly increase our output of trained personnel?
    Mr. Crosland: I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend has in mind in the second part of his supplementary question, but I do not think that a nation-wide investigation would be suitable because different kinds of colleges have such different problems. But we know that the universities, the colleges of education, and the technical colleges have different types of external or internal inquiry going on into the utilisation of buildings.

    Nursery School Teachers
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what public provision is now made to meet the need for nursery school teachers; and what steps is he taking to increase the supply.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): Some 20 colleges of education offer courses designed to prepare students for work with children of the nursery or nursery-infant age range. The number of students taking such courses is rising year by year, as student numbers generally expand.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to improve facilities for nursery training and play groups, and would he seriously consider the provision of special grants to areas like South Bedfordshire, where there is a phenomenally high birth rate?
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am sure that we are all in agreement with the general purpose of my hon. Friend's supplementary Question. This is a matter of priority.
    624
    We have to attend to the equally, if not more, pressing needs of the infant school range. But we are doing everything we can to encourage, within the limits of our resources, the kind of advance my hon. Friend indicated.

    St. John's Church of England School, Bristol
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will include St. John's Church of England Voluntary Controlled Junior, Mixed and Infant's School in the next educational building programme for Bristol.
    Mr. Denis Howell: No, Sir.
    Mr. Cooke: Will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again, because the school is on an island site surrounded by hurtling traffic and road proposals now being considered may well make life impossible for it in future.
    Mr. Howell: I will look at that again, although I am told that the road improvements should improve safety because pedestrian subways are being provided. However, the school has not appeared yet in any of the lists of local authority schools for replacement, and certainly the local authority does not regard it as in the most urgent three or four of its projects.

    University Places
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates he has made of the numbers of young people who will be seeking admission to British universities for the year 1967–68 and the numbers of vacant university places which will be available.
    Mr. Crosland: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 2nd November, 1966, to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro).—[Vol. 735, c. 125.]
    Mr. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not seeking to compensate for the shortsighted reductions in the university building programme by excluding foreign and Commonwealth students, and is he aware that considerable resentment has been caused by the Government seeking to save the small sum of £2 million by

    625
    shoving up the fees for foreign and Commonwealth students from £70 to £250 in one fell swoop?
    Mr. Crosland: As to the latter part of the supplementary question, there are a number of Questions on that subject later on the Order Paper and I shall reply to them in due time. As to the implication of the first part of the supplementary question, there has been no such cut in the building programme as the hon. Member appeared to imply. The essential fact is that in the universities we are already about 2,000 above the Robbins' targets, which at the time when they were published and accepted by a previous Government were thought to be extremely ambitious

    University Clinical Teachers
    Mr. Grieveasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is aware that clinical teachers in the universities continue to be dissatisfied with the failure to keep their salaries in line with those of their colleagues in the National Health Service; and whether he will now announce his proposals to deal with this matter.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he now has for bringing the salaries of university clinical staffs into line with comparable remuneration in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The increases effective from 1st October last which my right hon. Friend announced on 15th December maintain the relationship between the pay of university clinical teachers and that of National Health Service hospital doctors. Any long-term adjustment of that relationship will be a matter for consideration by the new machinery for determining the salaries of all university academic staff.
    Mr. Grieve: While I am very grateful to the hon. Member for that reply, may I ask whether it does not mean that with a rise back-dated to 1st October last the clinical teachers are lagging about two years behind the hospital staff in their pay increase? Is this a proper way to treat a service which is indispensable to the education of our future doctors, and should not the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions, however important, must be brief.
    Mr. Roberts: I agree that there is disparity here, but, as announced on 15th December, the university clinical teachers are to receive an increase which will reflect the award to the hospital doctors and through which they will recover much of the lost ground. On the other hand, we must remember that this is a case of dual source payment, by both universities and the National Health Service, and I would imagine that this would be part of the consideration given by the new machinery for deciding the rate of payments to university staffs generally.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the grievance is the time-lag to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, and can he assure the House that the new arrangements will make sure that these very important teachers move in line with the hospital doctors and not two years afterwards?
    Mr. Roberts: I cannot anticipate the consideration which the body set up to make the new arrangements will give to this, but I would certainly hope that what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested would happen—very much so.
    Mr. Grieveasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many university clinical teachers have relinquished their appointments and have emigrated in 1965 and 1966, respectively.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Eighteen teachers of clinical medicine in 1964–65 according to the universities' returns to the U.G.C. Figures for 1965–66 are not yet available.
    Mr. Grieve: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these figures denote the dissatisfaction in this branch of the university service, and will he take steps to ensure that the cause of the dissatisfaction is removed in order to prevent the brain drain from becoming a torrent?
    Mr. Roberts: I agree that we should all do everything we can to staunch the brain drain, but I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that the total number of clinical teachers in 1964–65 was 1,442, so that the loss

    627
    represented 1·2 per cent. over the academic year. This is a gross figure. We must also remember that some came from abroad to take up appointments here.

    Immigrants
    Mr Marquandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in the country do not yet conform to the principles laid down in paragraph 8 of his Department's Circular 7/65 on the Education of Immigrants; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Denis Howell: In January, 1966, there were 313 schools in which immigrants formed more than one-third of the total roll. It is for the local education authorities to consider what might be done to reduce the proportion of immigrants in these schools. My information is that the majority of authorities agree that it is desirable to impose some limits on the proportion of immigrant children in a school and are seeking to achieve this in various ways.
    Mr. Marquand: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is still a rather depressing figure, and can he say what steps he is taking to speed local authorities on?
    Mr. Howell: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the circular that we sent out. This is essentially a matter for the local authorities themselves, but we have had discussions and I should like to embark on further discussions with some of the authorities with which the problem is greatest. We hope very much that these local authorities will see the sense of dispersing if we are to provide integrated schools, which I am sure is the object of all of us.
    Mr. John Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that carrying out effectively the recommendations of the Ministry imposes considerable additional cost on the local authority concerned? Is he considering ways and means by which local authorities can be helped to meet the cost?
    Mr. Howell: This is a consideration that we have borne in mind, but I believe that dispersal can be carried out in many ways and best at the point of entry of the child into the school, and in those cases it is not necessarily costly.
    Sir E. Boyle: Has not the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) a real point here in calling attention to the relatively small response of local authorities? Where there are disagreements, ought not these to be argued out at the Ministry so that people know what the policy is and we have a definite line on the subject?
    Mr. Howell: We know what the policy is. I agree that it is a very important point, which is why I am about to embark on a new series of discussions with the appropriate authorities.

    Commonwealth Immigrants (Teaching Posts)
    Mr. Marquandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that Commonwealth immigrants admitted to this country on school-teacher vouchers receive suitable training to enable them to take up teaching posts in British schools.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The Department has sponsored four full-time courses of 15 months' duration for such immigrant teachers, 65 teachers are at present attending these. We are reviewing the need for any further provision of this type in the light of the experience already gained.
    Mr. Marquand: Would my hon. Friend agree that a large number of Commonwealth immigrants who came in on teaching vouchers are still doing unskilled jobs? Would he further agree that the ideal would be that one of the three following things should happen: first, immigrants who want to come here on teaching vouchers should be told that they probably will not be able to get jobs as teachers; secondly, only immigrant teachers with qualifications that are suitable for English schools should be allowed in; thirdly, as a matter of routine all immigrants who come here on teaching vouchers should receive suitable training? Can my hon. Friend say how this is likely to be achieved?
    Mr. Howell: I cannot agree that there are many teachers coming in who cannot get employment. When I examined all the cases brought to our attention I found that, generally speaking, the great difficulty is language. It is essential for

    629
    a teacher to be understood by the children he or she is trying to teach. However, if my hon. Friend has any specific cases in mind I shall be most anxious to look at them individually.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the qualifications for teachers in some Commonwealth and foreign countries are quite different from the qualifications that we expect here, and that some well-informed people have expressed the view that many of the people coming in on these vouchers could not profit from our teacher-training courses?
    Mr. Howell: I think that there may have been something in that a year or two ago, but since we made it well understood that we have to maintain professional standards in our own teaching profession and adjusted our own regulations accordingly, I think there is less cause for concern.

    National Child Development Study
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to take to remedy the educational deficiencies disclosed in the first report of the National Child Development Study.
    Mr. Crosland: The findings of this interesting study were taken fully into account by the Plowden Council whose Report I am now considering.
    Mr. Hill: This is a unique study in the length and depth of child development. It has shown great value already and has great prospective value. Is it not highly desirable that it should continue? In view of the evidence it has shown of the significant number of children with special learning difficulties, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the local authorities as to the appropriate age of transfer to special schools?
    Mr. Crosland: I agree about the extreme value of this study, which was largely financed by my Department in conjunction with two others. I will consider the question of continuation of the study. As to a recommendation on the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I would prefer to consider all the recommendation of this study in the light of those of the Plowden Report. Practically
    630
    all of them were taken into account by the Plowden Council.
    Sir E. Boyle: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the findings of the study were one of the most important contributions to the Appendix to the Plowden Council's Report? Will he bear in mind that we on this side of the House attach the highest importance to this study continuing?
    Mr. Crosland: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I would mention that, whereas the Appendix to the Report contains only a summary of the study, a full report will be published this month.

    Grammar and Comprehensive School Education (Comparability Studies)
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has made, is making, or will make comparability studies of the educational progress and achievement of the abler children in grammar and in comprehensive schools.
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hill: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, both in the national interest and in the interest of the ablest children, it is highly desirable that such comparability studies should be made and that, for them to be made, it is essential that some grammar schools of high quality should continue to co-exist with comprehensive schools?
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. In this developing situation it is impossible to make detailed comparative studies like this because, in an area where selective schools still exist, comprehensive schools are not properly comprehensive because they are being creamed of their top ability while, on the other hand, when a school becomes comprehensive, a comparability study becomes impossible. The situation is moving in a manner which precludes this kind of study.
    Mr. Hooley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the aim of comprehensive education is to develop the progress and achievement of all children and not merely the ablest ones?
    Mr. Crosland: I agree. It is the strong impression of those most concerned that the ablest children do not suffer in nonselective schools, whereas we know that a great number of less able children suffer from going to selective schools.
    Mrs. Knight: Does not the Secretary of State agree that to make such a revolutionary change in the educational pattern should have better statistics to support it than merely the opinions of right hon. and hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Crosland: This is not a question of statistics and the Question on the Order Paper concerned certain types of education research. The simple fact is that this decision—whether or not to maintain the 11-plus—is not one which can be taken by researchers. It must be taken by the Government—and, of course, a similar decision was taken by the previous Government.
    Sir E. Boyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, irrespective of party, many people are particularly concerned about the mathematics and science teaching for the ablest pupils if we have too great a dispersal of skilled sixth form teaching resources?
    Mr. Crosland: The shortage of mathematics and science teachers existed long before the arrival of the Government and has been a persistent problem for many years. The size of sixth forms is one of the things to take into account in deciding whether to approve schemes or not. We made that clear in Circular 10/65.

    Student Awards
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morganasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is aware of the handicaps suffered by widows, separated and divorced wives in relation to student awards; and whether he will make further proposals to encourage recruitment.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I do not consider that the present rules governing awards constitute a handicap in the cases quoted.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: On what does the hon. Gentleman base that curious remark? Has not he received representations on this matter from the National Union of Teachers?
    Mr. Roberts: Students independent of their parents and others—single widows, separated and divorced wives—are treated on the same basis if the comparison is with married women students, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is a consequence of a recommendation of the Committee on Grants to Students, under the chairmanship of Sir Colin Anderson, in 1960. We are continually looking at these cases. It is not an easy matter. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to see me about it I would be glad to discuss it with him.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morganasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will extend the alternative method of assessment for student grants, now applicable to widows, to separated and to divorced wives.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: This concession was introduced last year in the context of the abolition of the National Insurance earnings rule in relation to widows' pensions. My right hon. Friend does not propose to extend it.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Why has the Minister of State taken this rather obdurate attitude in view of the representations he has received? Is not he aware that this situation is creating anomalies, with widows and separated wives working side by side and getting different awards? Is not he further aware that some women are being discouraged and inhibited from recruitment as a result?
    Mr. Roberts: If the alternative arrangement were extended to separated and divorced wives, it would be difficult to resist making a similar concession to other students with an income of their own, including single and married men. The whole category could come in with those the right hon. Gentleman mentions. This would create new disparities in overcoming one.
    Mr. Allason: If the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the difficulties will he receive further representations? There is a genuine problem here and he appears to gloss over it.
    Mr. Roberts: I am aware of the feeling and I am continually looking at cases of alleged hardship. I am very willing to meet any hon. Members on either side

    633
    or to hear representations. We are looking at this matter all the time to see what we can do about these very difficult anomalies.

    Nursery Schools
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now review the existing regulations for nursery schools.
    Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend will be considering this whole question in the light of the recommendations of the Plowden Council.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a tremendous need for nursery school places which, in most cases, is not being satisfied? May we know when there is to be any real change or relaxation of the existing restrictions on nursery school places?
    Mr. Howell: We certainly cannot know that today. Although we agree in principle with what my hon. Friend has said, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is entirely a question of economic priorities.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Will the hon. Gentleman pay attention to the private nursery schools, which are suffering a great deal of handicap because of the Selective Employment Tax?
    Mr. Howell: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comment.

    Physical Education (Games)
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy towards the playing of games in schools.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Physical education like other parts of the curriculum is primarily a matter for local education authorities and schools. It is generally accepted that the curriculum should include a balanced programme of physical education, which would include games, and I agree with this view. I also believe that pupils should be introduced to as wide a variety of choice in sport and recreation as is practically possible.
    Mr. Johnson: As a former "knight of the whistle" will my hon. Friend advise local education authorities to give boys a choice of all codes of football? Is he
    634
    aware that there has been a sustained campaign for many years by some headmasters to change from one code to another? Will he take the example of Hull, where we play all games—with eleven a side, fifteen a side and, not least, thirteen a side?
    Mr. Howell: I know that Hull is doing very well these days. I am constantly advising local authorities about this matter. I agree that choice in matters of leisure and sport is the end product of education.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the great disadvantage of children in primary schools—and I speak as the parent of one; no, two—is that they have no playing fields to play upon? Will he do all he can to see that children in primary schools have the advantage of being able to play games.
    Mr. Howell: This is the first time I have heard of a recount in the Chamber itself. As the father of four children, I agree with the hon. Gentleman I think that we need many more sporting facilities so that all primary children have an opportunity to get out into the open and play games.

    Teachers
    Sir E. Boyleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the net increase in the number of full-time teachers in primary and secondary schools between January, 1965, and January, 1966, and in the corresponding two previous years.
    Mr. Crosland: Approximately 4,300, 5,300 and 4,900 in the three years ended January, 1964, 1965 and 1966 respectively. I expect the figures in the subsequent two years to be 5,000 and 7,000.
    Sir E. Boyle: Is not that decline from 5,300 to 4,900 disappointing and is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very real concern caused by his recent circular on the quota and on teacher supply? What does he think has happened to the missing teachers, as it were, and has his attention been drawn to the real anxiety about the numbers of those receiving three-year grants who go through colleges of education and then opt out for some activity other than teaching?
    Mr. Crosland: That was a very large number of questions in one. The fact is that we had one short period in which wastage produced a slight drop in the annual increase. But looking ahead it is perfectly clear, and it is clear from the last two figures which I quoted, that the huge investment which we have made in teacher training is now beginning to show very considerable dividends. When discussing full-time teachers we must remember the important and growing addition to the teaching force which, I am glad to say, is made by part-timers. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, for demographic reasons we are in the most difficult period at the moment, but I think that can see some easement in two or three years' time.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that any present deficiency in teacher numbers is a byproduct of the failure of teacher-training provision under a previous Administration and that there are now healthy trends which show that the position will be rectified in a very few years?
    Mr. Crosland: It is certainly the case that there has been a massive and dramatic increase in teacher-training facilities in the last two years and my hon. Friend is quite right to say that, although we are now in a period of hard slogging because of the very rapid increase in the birth rate, looking ahead two or three years we can see a dramatic improvement.
    Sir E. Boyle: If we are to argue about this, is it not a fact that the college of education building programme for the first year of the party opposite was less than our building programme for 1964–65? However, can I ask the right hon. Gentleman a more serious question? Is it not quite clear from the figures which he has given that it will be highly undesirable if there is a hold-up in the provision of university places compared with places in colleges of education, because nothing could be worse than that would-be university students should go to colleges of education and take places which might otherwise be occupied by those who could swell the teaching force in the schools?
    Mr. Crosland: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means when he talks about a hold-up in university places. I
    636
    have already said in answer to a previous Question that we are already well ahead of the Robbins target for universities and I think that we will continue to be so. As for teacher supply, the only acid and important test is an increase in the number of teachers per year. The figures which I have quoted show that the increase this year will be much larger than in any year over the last few years, and I think this improvement will continue.

    Primary School Classes (Size)
    Sir E. Boyleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many primary school classes in England and Wales contain more than 50 pupils.
    Mr. Crosland: Seventy-one.
    Sir E. Boyle: Does not that Answer, for which I am grateful, suggest that Homer was nodding when the right hon. Gentleman said at the N.U.S. conference on 28th November that we still have not merely hundreds but thousands of primary schools with classes not only over 40, but over 50?
    Mr. Crosland: I confess that I do not have a word-by-word recollection of what I said to that rather stormy audience of the National Union of Students, but, if my words were precisely as quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, they seem to have contained an element of exaggeration.

    Comprehensive Secondary Education
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will consider publishing regular detailed progress reports of the steps being taken by each local education authority to introduce comprehensive secondary education.
    Mr. Crosland: I am afraid that the process of preparing and implementing schemes of reorganisation does not lend itself to this kind of regular analysis.
    Mr. Brooks: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that with local government reorganisation fairly imminent it is especially important that local education authorities, particularly in neighbouring areas of a conurbation, should have very

    637
    full details of the schemes now being implemented by their neighbours?
    Mr. Crosland: I certainly agree with that proposition, which, I would have thought, was as much a matter for local co-operation as for national action on my part. All I was saying was that with 162 authorities, all of them at different stages of preparation or implementation, it would be very difficult to give, say, monthly detailed reports of exactly what stage they had reached.

    Colleges of Education (Men Students)
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the proportion of women to men students entering colleges of education in 1966; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I would like to see the proportion of men students in the colleges rise to about 35 per cent. by 1970. In fact the number of men entrants was 50 per cent. greater this year than it was three years ago, but the equally rapid increase in women students meant that the proportion of men remained at 28 per cent.
    Mr. Morrison: Bearing in mind that the Plowden Report says that in 1965 there were only 97 men out of 33,000 infant teachers and that 40 per cent. of all primary schools had no men teachers, what further steps is the Department taking to encourage recruitment of men teachers, particularly in the light of the Plowden recommendations on middle schools?
    Mr. Roberts: I agree that an increase in the proportion of men entering training would help the overall starting position in more ways than one. We have sent to the heads of schools urging them and their staffs to draw the attention of boy pupils in sixth forms to the value of the higher education which colleges of education can provide and also the preparation which they give for a valuable career in teaching. It is perhaps too soon to evaluate the results of this special appeal, but it is encouraging to note that the number of men applicants—[Interruption.] May I join the general welcome given by the House to
    638
    the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). It is encouraging to note that the number of new entrants—[Laughter.]—currently registered with the clearing house—[Laughter.]—is about 750 more than at the same time last year.

    Sex Education and Adult Relationships
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance is given by his Department to teachers in secondary schools responsible for sex education and instruction in adult relationships.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Advice is given in the Department's pamphlets on "Health in Education", of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, and on "Health Education", which is now being revised.
    Mrs. Short: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that where parents refuse to accept this responsibility towards their children, then the teaching profession can play a very valuable part in helping children over this hurdle? Is he aware that some schools deal with this very well, while others do not tackle it at all? Will he assure the House that he will keep his eye on this problem?
    Mr. Howell: I entirely agree that this is a matter of importance and I think that it is well understood to be so by most of the teaching profession. I hope that the revised copy of "Health Education", which will shortly be completed, will help to produce the result which my hon. Friend requires.

    Nursery Classes
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have now opened nursery classes; how many others intend to do so in the foreseeable future; and how many teachers have returned to teaching as a result since his circular on nursery classes was published.
    Mr. Crosland: I cannot at present add to the Answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 16th June, [Vol. 729, c. 304.] but the latest figures should be available in March.
    Mrs. Short: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and ask him if, in view of the recent publication of the Plowden Report, he will give this matter very urgent consideration? Will he bear in mind that the nation can have the whole of Plowden providing that we give up one Polaris nuclear submarine? Will the Minister press for this in the Cabinet?
    Mr. Crosland: That goes slightly wider than the immediate question, but I will certainly bear all of these diverse matters in mind.

    Public Schools Commission
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Sciénce how many schools have been visited by the Public Schools Commission; and to what extent reports on public schools by inspectors of his Department have been submitted to it.
    Mr. Crosland: I do not expect to be kept in touch with the Commission's day-to-day work. Reports on public schools by H.M. Inspectors have been made available to the Commission only by permission of their governing bodies.
    Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the thoroughness and excellence of these reports? In view of the financial demands of the Plowden Commission, has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind about how much money is to be available to implement any recommendation that the Commission may make?
    Mr. Crosland: No. Sir.

    Training Ship "Foudroyant" (Grant)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reports he has received on the work for young people performed by the training ship "Foudroyant"; and if he will increase the grant paid by his Department to this enterprise.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I am aware of the good work done by this establishment; the grant for 1967–68 will be announced in April.
    Mr. Hamling: Can my hon. Friend take an early opportunity of visiting the
    640
    "Foudroyant" to see the work that she does?
    Mr. Howell: If I am invited I will consider it.

    Albermarle Report
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps he is taking to implement the Albermarle Report; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The main recommendations have been implemented. In particular, the provisional target of 1,300 full-time leaders by 1966 has been reached. The development of the Youth Service to meet changing needs is a continuing process. In this the recently reconstituted Youth Service Development Council will review the whole service and, through subcommittees examine specific problems in depth. Two of these are under way, dealing with immigrants and the Youth Service, and the relationship of the Youth Service to formal education. The third subject will be the relationship of the Youth Service to the community as a whole.
    Mr. Hamling: In the light of that helpful reply, will my hon. Friend also take another look at the unhelpful replies previously given to our questions about the Inverliever project?
    Mr. Howell: We were asked about that and in consequence of the promise I made to the House I am looking at it further.

    Direct Grant Schools
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent it is Government policy that integration of direct grant schools into the comprehensive system will involve their being allowed to continue a selective system of entry.
    Mr. Crosland: Government policy on this matter was laid down in Circular 10/65, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
    Mr. Tuck: Is it true that my right hon. Friend has chosen to regard the Leeds direct grant school as fully integrated into the comprehensive system, which it is not because three-quarters of

    641
    the students are selected at 11? Is it not a fact that he also said that he would like to see such schemes extended to other areas?
    Mr. Crosland: I said no such thing about Leeds. What I said was that I noted with interest the agreement between the direct grant school and the authority. The agreement does not provide for selective entry but an unselective entry for certain pupils at a certain age.
    Sir E. Boyle: Is it not a fact that the Leeds authority has proposed to take up places not at 11-plus but at the sixth form level for those who could not get courses that they would otherwise wish to get in their present schools? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side would regard this as a reasonable compromise and that we would most profoundly object to any attempt by the party opposite to upset this sort of proposal?
    Mr. Crosland: This is their suggestion. I was asked to say whether I regarded this as a full integration of the school. It is not and that is all that there is to it. The right hon. Gentleman accurately describes the scheme which was approved by the authority and the school. I noted this with interest and would certainly like to see how it works.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an unreasonable compromise? Is he further aware that it does not seem reasonable to many of us on this side, and that we are viewing with concern the fact that the Leeds education authority had this proposal put to it by the Ministry? Does he not agree that this proposal is nothing like the integration of the direct grant school into the State system?
    Mr. Crosland: Once again I must insist that no one has mentioned the word "integration" in connection with this. The school has not been integrated into the system. No one pretends that this is so. As to the inception of this proposal, this is the first time that I have heard that it came from the Department. As far I am concerned, this was a proposal which came to me from, I may add, a Labour local education authority, in agreement with the school.

    Primary Schools
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the forward planning of allocation of resources to the schools, if it is his policy that a large enough increase is to be allocated to enable primary schools to meet the educational needs of the pupils in them.
    Mr. Crosland: It is my policy, within the resources available, to meet educational needs in all parts of the educational system.
    Mr. Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Plowden Report has stated that there is no educational justification whatever for such a wide disparity as exists today between the money available per pupil in the primary school and the money available per pupil in the secondary school? What does he propose to do about this?
    Mr. Crosland: I am well aware that the Plowden Report states that, and makes a large number of other recommendations. I have very great sympathy with the priority which the Plowden Report wishes to give to primary schools, but one cannot pick out one particular sector of education and give it some overriding priority. In the short term, as I shall say in answer to a Written Question, I am in very broad sympathy with the tenor and philosophy of the Plowden Report.
    Mr. Bessell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware of the very grave difficulties in which primary school teachers are seeking to do their jobs in rural areas, particularly Cornwall? Will he look at this as being a special problem, distinct from the national problem?
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. One must look at this as a national problem. I have said repeatedly that I have been responsible for the school building programme for only two years. For the previous 13 the party opposite was responsible. It is for this reason that I have said that, after we allow for basic needs, the improvement or replacement of primary schools should have priority.

    Museums and Galleries (Acquisition of Works of Art)
    Mr. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will amend the rules of the committee responsible for the granting and withholding of export licences for works of art so as to enable museums and London galleries to acquire important works which are not already represented in any public gallery.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): I have this matter under consideration. I am most anxious that both our regional and London museums and galleries should have the fullest opportunity to acquire important works of art.
    Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many important historic objects, which are part of our national heritage, are leaving this country in great quantities, although our museums which do not possess such objects are most anxious to acquire them? Does she not agree that it is therefore necessary to take early action to check this flow by giving new terms of reference to the Reviewing Committee?
    Miss Lee: I would not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We are looking into this matter but we have always to bear in mind that London is a great international art-dealing centre. We have to keep a proper balance between our domestic interests and these other considerations.

    PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO ROME)
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his visit to Rome.
    Mr. Archerasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Rome.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Italian Government.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a
    644
    statement about his recent talks in Rome with the Prime Minister of Italy and other representatives of the Italian Government.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I visited Rome from 15th to 17th January for talks with Signor Moro, President of the Council of Ministers of Italy, Signor Nenni, Vice President of the Council, and Signor Fanfani, the Italian Foreign Minister. Our visit was the first of the round of visits to Heads of Government of the Six in which, as I explained to the House in my statement of 10th November, my right hon. Friend and I will be exploring whether the conditions exist for fruitful negotiations leading to British membership of the European Economic Community. We are most grateful to the Italian Ministers for having enabled us to discuss with them the problems that will be faced in any eventual negotiations. I think our visit was a successful one.
    Mr. Marten: While recognising that the Prime Minister clearly does not want to lay Britain's negotiating cards on the table face upwards at this stage, nevertheless may I ask him to tell the House what political and economic concessions the Italian Government thought might be entailed by our joining the E.E.C.?
    The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his Question is important. We were not in a negotiating posture and there was no suggestion by them of any political or economic concessions that would be necessary. But we went very fully over the ground of the principal difficulties
    Mr. Archer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a very warm welcome in the country for what The Guardian today called a new pattern of open discussion, without commitment on either side? While there are clear benefits to be derived from this, will he take care to avoid a situation where the House is not kept fully informed of developments which are going beyond discussions?
    The Prime Minister: I agree about the phrase, without commitments on either side. I am a little worried about the word "open" being taken too literally.
    Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say, after his training spell in Rome, that he is now fitter for his tougher time in Paris? Can he tell us whether the decisions reached at Rome will prove helpful in discussions with General de Gaulle?
    The Prime Minister: The discussions in Rome were a very useful start and will be of great assistance to our discussions in all of the other five capitals. No decisions as such were taken in Rome because I have undertaken to report back to this House on any decision that the Government take after they review the results of these visits.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: At the Press conference in Rome the Prime Minister was reported as saying that he was against the domination of European industrial life by United States business. Was that intended to be taken seriously, and if so, what precise proposals does the Prime Minister have in mind to avoid this situation?
    The Prime Minister: What I said in Rome I said two years ago and have said a number of times since. I said that our loyal membership of N.A.T.O. does not mean that we for our part think it right that vital sectors particularly of the technological industries of Europe should be overrun and dominated by American firms. I had very much in mind—indeed I said a few words to show that I had—the specific factors of the Chrysler-Rootes situation in which there had been a total breakdown of management and where there was no question of selling out a technological industry. The Government have shown that they mean business about this by the way in which we have saved our own computer industry, unlike others in Europe, from the predatory actions of certain American firms.
    Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be great satisfaction with the apparently warm reception of the British approach in Rome? May I ask him how detailed the discussions were—whether there was, for example, any discussion about the transitional phase required for British agriculture? Secondly, since he is going to Paris on Monday, I understand, would he agree that the £650 million swing-wing aircraft agreement augurs well for
    646
    those discussions? Is he aware that almost all the House hopes that his talks in Paris will be as successful as those in Rome?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that I should not be too far out of order if I were to offer the hon. Gentleman the congratulations of the whole House on his election yesterday and to express the confident hope that with him as leader of the Liberal Party, as with his predecessor, the relations between the party leaders in the House will continue to be as friendly as they always have been. I know that I speak also for the Leader of the Opposition.
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the visit to Rome. Certainly the agreement with the French Government on what really means the integration of our aircraft industries for the production of the main weapons of the Royal Air Force and French Air Force for the later 1970s is. I believe, a very important step, not only to what we are trying to achieve in Paris, but as further proof of what I said in answer to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr St. John-Stevas).
    Mr. Heath: While acknowledging that discussions of this kind are bound to be confidential to a considerable degree, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he recognises that the House would like to have rather fuller information after each visit than he felt able to give today in his main Answer to these Questions? After all, after each meeting the Press is given a considerable amount of information. I should have thought that the House of Commons was entitled to at least the same amount of information as was given to the Press.
    May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, there have been confusing reports about what was said to the Italian Government about a common agricultural policy and the Government's attitude to it. One said that the Government told the Italians that they accepted it. The other said that there had to be major adjustments. Would the right hon. Gentleman say which report was correct? Secondly, could he say whether the British Government and Italian Government were in agreement about the future political development of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider what can be done to say more to the House about these talks after each meeting. I am conscious that I failed to answer the question about what topics were discussed. There was a very full discussion about agriculture—it took, I should think, something like half the time we were there—and we stressed the very great difficulties, not least—this is what I said to the Press—the problem of the levy system with particular reference to the fact that it would mean a big change in the pattern within Europe, because, unlike the Six, we are a major food importer and it would mean a very big transfer across the exchanges. This was fully understood.
    With regard to the Press reports, it is not my job normally to confirm or deny them, but certainly one of those Press stories—the suggestion that we accept in full, without any question of amendment, adaptation, transitional provisions or anything else, the common agricultural programme—was inaccurate.
    We had a very good and friendly discussion about political developments. We said—and I think that this was welcomed, and I shall be dealing with this subject in a speech next week in Strasbourg —that we regard one of the major arguments to be not only the economic advantages to us and Europe but also greater political unity, and we shall cooperate to the full in anything which can be done to achieve greater political unity if we enter the Common Market.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Channonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the progress of his negotiations about the possibility of British entry into the European Economic Community and what discussions have taken place with Commonwealth countries, European Free Trade Association countries and countries in the European Economic Community since 10th November.
    The Prime Minister: These are not, as yet, negotiations, Sir. As the Answer to the rest of the hon. Member's Question is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    As to discussions with the Commonwealth, would refer the hon. Member to the Answers which I gave to Questions by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife West on 13th December last; as to the European Free Trade Association I would refer him to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in our Debate on 6th December last; and as to the European Economic Community I would refer him to the Answer I have given today on the visit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself to Rome.—[Vol. 738, c. 242, Vol. 737, c. 1165.]

    RHODESIA
    Mr. Channonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a further statement about the Rhodesian situation.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to reopen discussions with Mr. Smith regarding a possible settlement of the Rhodesian problem.
    Mr. Longdenasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to reopen negotiations with the illegal Government of Rhodesia.
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Prime Minister what conditions he now lays down for reopening negotiations with Rhodesia.
    Mr. Anthony Royleasked the Prime Minister what further steps he is taking to solve the Rhodesian dispute: and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the Answers given by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State to similar Questions last Tuesday.—[Vol. 739, c. 24.]
    Mr. Channon: Can the Prime Minister give a categorical denial this afternoon that Her Majesty's Government have put any pressure whatsoever on the World Health Organisation to cease supplying information to Rhodesia, as any such pressure would be contrary to the interests of both the Europeans and the Africans in Rhodesia?
    The Prime Minister: With all the information available to me, I would certainly deny this. There has been no such pressure. However, in view of the hon.

    649
    Member's question, I will confirm that this is so.
    Mr. Taylor: Should mandatory sanctions fail to achieve the Prime Minister's object—and he must have considered that possibility—would he say clearly whether the final decision on the next step of escalation will be made by Great Britain or the United Nations?
    The Prime Minister: As I explained to the House in a speech of greater length than I intended, we have always sought to keep control of this matter in our own hands. We intend to do so—if by "escalation" the hon. Gentleman refers to an intensification of sanctions or any further steps to make the sanctions more effective.
    Mr. Longden: May I, first, express the hope that relations between the Prime Minister and Mr. Smith will be as friendly as they have always been? Secondly, irrespective of the wisdom, for the time being, of having raised the matter in the United Nations, or, for that matter, in Trafalgar Square, does the Prime Minister realise that "no negotiations before majority rule" must mean that there will be no negotiations within the next 15 or 20 years? Is that really his policy?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's opening words. In fact, my personal relations with Mr. Smith have always been extremely good, and they were particularly good in our discussions on H.M.S. "Tiger". The tragedy was that when he returned to Rhodesia he was not able to make effective, as I know he would have wished to have done, the agreement which we had reached because he was under the control of some very strong extremists of a kind who perhaps were fully represented on the fringe of the crowd supporting the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) in Trafalgar Square.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, there was never any suggestion that there could be no negotiations before the achievement of majority rule. The declaration which we made was exactly in the terms of the Commonwealth communiqué and, apart from the control of this very small group of extremists, there is nothing to stop Rhodesia returning to constitutional rule, and certainly, as I say in answer to a
    650
    later Question, this would mean a return to the 1961 Constitution. But we could have further negotiations with them thereafter about any developments or changes in that Constitution.
    Mr. Royle: Would the Prime Minister answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)? Is he aware that the United States Congress is not in favour of supporting sanctions? In view of this, it is clear that sanctions will fail. Therefore, what steps will the Prime Minister take when they fail?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must take the responsibility of speaking for the United States Congress on this matter. I know the action taken by the United States Government. In international affairs, however, I am able to speak for the House of Commons, which supported, by a large majority, the action of Her Majesty's Government and rejected the Opposition's support of the extremist rejection of the "Tiger" agreement.
    Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that there has developed a businessmen's opposition to Mr. Smith, who interpret the agreement that was not reached or signed to mean that there can be no independent rule for the coloured people of Rhodesia for at least 70 years, may we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that under no circumstances will there be any treating with such a group who are, in fact, committed to a policy of white majority rule in Rhodesia?
    The Prime Minister: I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's reference to 70 years. The agreement on H.M.S. "Tiger" would have meant, on the best calculations, majority rule probably after a second General Election there, or possibly after a third; and no opposition whatever was at any time raised by Mr. Smith to that proposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h"] None at all. It is only since he got back that the extremists have been talking in terms which would mean an extension, possibly indefinitely, beyond the period envisaged on H.M.S. "Tiger", but I have not heard a reference to 70 years.
    As for the internal political situation in Rhodesia, it is always difficult, in what

    651
    various party leaders have called a police State, to assess the importance of what is going on there. But we should not feel inhibited—indeed, we would welcome an opportunity of discussing with any legal Government in Rhodesia the future of Rhodesia within the terms of the declaration which we made in this House before Christmas.
    Mr. Paget: In view of my right hon. Friend's assurance that it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to retain control of the situation, would he assure us that sanctions could be removed without the consent of the Russians, as permanent Members of the Security Council, and could he say what the procedure for doing this would be?
    The Prime Minister: The position is that the sanctions—international sanctions, like our own—were imposed against a situation of a threat to peace arising from a rebellion. They were not associated with any constitutional position, except the unconstitutional position of rebellion; and as soon as the rebellion were to end we would ourselves, nationally, act and, internationally, we would take the initiative in ending the sanctions, which relate only to the period of rebellion.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that on Tuesday the First Secretary told me that he would give favourable consideration to my suggestion that contact should be made and encouragement given to the 3,500 people in Rhodesia who responded to an advertisement in the Rhodesia newspapers calling for implemention of the constitutional changes agreed on H.M.S. "Tiger"? What steps have been taken to give implementation to that?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that it would be the desire of all hon. Members that any of us who is capable of doing so should have friendly relations with those who have shown great courage in the face of possible victimisation, which has been going on there, in public identification with the letter in the Rhodesia Herald. Apart from any contacts which Government representatives might have, I hope that hon. Members visiting Rhodesia in future will make it
    652
    their business to have association with all sections of opinion there instead of the, I believe, dangerous concentration which some Members have had with only the extremists there.
    Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that all his future negotiations about Rhodesia will not be with a tiny minority who do not represent Rhodesia but with the leaders of the vast majority of the Rhodesian people, of whom the chief leader is Mr. Nkomo?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows as well as I do some of the difficulties arising from the divided leadership of African nationalism in Rhodesia, something I saw for myself when I had long discussions with Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole on my last visit there, when it was a question of negotiations since they were in a legal position and when I had discussions with representatives of all sections of opinion, including Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole. So did my right hon. Friend on his recent visit to Salisbury, subject to the veto which Mr. Smith placed on him meeting them. At the meeting on H.M.S. "Tiger", which was of a special character and which was designed to secure a return to constitutional rule, I indicated to Mr. Smith the deSire I had to met Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole, if he would agree to release them to come to this country for that purpose and would agree to let them go back, if they wanted to do so.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that he was correct in the reply he gave to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)? Is it not a fact that if, for example, the Russians were to veto the withdrawal of the present resolution, it would stand?
    The Prime Minister: That is not our advice in relation to the situation arising where this particular resolution operates under the heading of a threat to peace, the threat having been defined as a continuation of the rebellion. I have made it clear that as far as we are concerned —and this applies to all other countries applying the sanctions—this is against the background of a rebellion and that the sanctions would come to an end when the rebellion comes to an end.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that, whereas it has always been open to the regime in Rhodesia to return to legal rule and whereas presumably that would be for a period under the 1961 Constitution, the absolute principle to which Her Majesty's Government are committed—committed to the United Nations, the Commonwealth, and this House—is that there shall be no grant of independence until majority rule is established?
    The Prime Minister: 1 have already made that declaration in the House. It has been confirmed on a number of occasions and it follows from the Commonwealth Conference communiqué. As I have said many times, we had to fight very hard at that Conference—against the fear of a real and dangerous breakup of the Commonwealth—to secure a further period in which we could give Mr. Smith and his colleagues a last chance to return to majority rule. That chance, tragically, was not taken, and, with some of the rumours going around and the pressures being placed on Mr. Smith, I regret that, contrary to what Mr. Smith said to me, he has not had the spunk to stand up to those extremists, despite his great confidence that he could and would do so. As a result of this, he has now been pushed into the very dangerous position of a declaration of a totally illegal and divisive republic.
    Mr. Sandys: As the Prime Minister has twice referred to the fact that Rhodesia constitutes a threat to international peace, would he explain how and in what way Rhodesia constitutes such a threat? Does he not know perfectly well that Rhodesia threatens nobody? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: This is, of course, an answer which could be given more easily in debate than at Question Time. If I were to give it in debate and if I had long enough to do so, I could not improve on some words used by the right hon. Gentleman in a stiff warning letter he sent to the then Rhodesia Government when he had responsibility, when he acted as though he had responsibility—[Interruption.]—when he said that the matter would inevitably be raised at the United Nations and when he referred to the attitude of the whole Commonwealth and of the surrounding Governments. The
    654
    right hon. Gentleman must not get so inebriated with the cheers of his new friends in Trafalgar Square. He should not forget the great sense of responsibility he showed when he had responsibility for this matter.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are well past Question Time.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. During these exchanges the Prime Minister kindly referred to a later Question of mine appearing on the Order Paper. In view of that reference, might I have an Answer to that Question, which could be in the form of "Yes" or "No", and be permitted to put a supplementary question?
    The Prime Minister: I would naturally consider, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, whether to ask your permission to do so, Mr. SPEAKER. However, in the course of my answers to supplementary questions I did answer the hon. Gentleman's Question and I think that he will find that, from his point of view, my answer was slightly better than the "Yes" or "No" he was expecting.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go back now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 23RD JANUARY—Progress on the Report stage of the Iron and Steel Bill.
TUESDAY, 24TH JANUARY—Further progress on the Report stage of the Iron and Steel Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by seven o'clock.
Afterwards, the remaining stages of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH JANUARY Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Land Commission Bill.

655
THURSDAY, 26TH JANUARY—Completion of the remaining stages of the Iron and Steel Bill.
FRIDAY, 27TH JANUARY—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 30TH JANLTARY—The proposed business will be: Supply [7th Allotted Day]:
Debate on a subject to be announced later.
At ten o'clock the Question will be put from the Chair on all outstanding Votes.
As to tomorrow, the House should know that the Industrial Development (Variation of Rate of Grant) Order has been added so that the business then will be:
Second Reading of the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Bill and of the Export Guarantees Bill.
Motion on the Industrial Development Order.
On quite a different matter, I think the House would like to know that during the course of Mr. Kosygin's visit it is hoped that he will be able to meet Members of both Houses in the Royal Gallery, on Thursday, 9th February.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he has given undertakings in the past about debates on the White Paper on Transport and the White Paper on Broadcasting and on prison security following publication of the Mountbatten Report. Can he confirm that we are to have debates on those matters? We would like to have them in the comparatively near future. There is also now the question of a debate on the Plowden Committee's Report. Can he assure the House that the Government will provide time for that, and that it will not be too far away?
Mr. Crossman: I think that hon. Member's should have time to digest the Plowden Committee's Report. As to transport, broadcasting and prison security, I think that the last is the most urgent of those and I hope to have an announcement to make in the near future. As for the other two matters, we will bear them in mind. The pledge will be honoured.
Mr. Heath: There is one other point I should like to put to the right hon.
656
Gentleman. I understand that when the morning sittings begin the public will be admitted only to the Special Gallery and not to the Strangers' Gallery, which will be closed for morning sittings. Surely this is undesirable?—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Surely if we are to have morning sittings, ought not members of the public who wish to come in, be allowed in, in so far as capacity allows? Can the right hon. Gentleman say this matter will be looked at?
Mr. Crossman: I expected this. In tact, I have two Questions to answer about it on Monday, and I should like then to deal with this in detail. Perhaps I can anticipate by saying that we are going to arrange accommodation which is normally provided for such non-contentious business later in the evening, and that will be available in the mornings. This temporary expedient is entirely due to the problem of staff here and the number of hours they work.—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I should like to answer this question fully on Monday, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that this is a very serious matter.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] Is this a question of staff not being available, or of the Treasury not being able to provide the money to pay the staff? In any case, ought this not to have been thought of and arranged before the Government extended sittings hours?
Mr. Crossman: I will answer this in detail on Monday, but yes, this was thought of, and the Serjeant at Arms very properly informed us of this. The matter has been discussed by the Services Committee at some length and the decision is the result of the Services Committee's discussions.
Mr. Dalyell: Could my right hon. Friend say when he hopes to set up the Science and Technology Committee?
Mr. Crossman: Yes. I hope that both the new specialist Committees, that for agriculture, and that for science and technology, will be at work next week.
Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the accommodation for the public, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give serious attention to this matter? Is the

657
right hon. Gentleman aware that the only occasions when the public were excluded from the House were the secret sittings in wartime, which were very exceptional, and that this would be a complete departure from precedent?
Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman would not be right in saying there is any intention to exclude the public. If there were, I entirely agree with him that that would be a grave situation. Nor is there any expectation that the amount of accommodation will be less than required. If it were it would have resulted from a miscalculation by members of the Services Committee.
Mr. Heffer: In view of the serious situation developing in Vietnam, and of the concern which was expressed in the House yesterday, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be an early debate on the whole question of Vietnam?
Mr. Crossman: I cannot give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I think I am right in saying that we discussed it for a long time on the Adjournment and for half an hour after Question Time yesterday, but unless there is a drastic change in the situation I could not give high priority to another debate.
Mr. Godber: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he is not taking the Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill next week? It is most discouraging to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have expedited the progress of that Measure.—[Laughter.] Oh, yes. We expedited progress on it and completed the Committee proceedings on it before Christmas and we sat up all night on Tuesday considering it on Report and got the business done. It is most unfortunate that now there is no news of further progress.
Mr. Crossman: I accept the very collaborative frame of mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and I can tell him that I hope to make an announcement on the matter in my business statement next week.
Mrs. Renée Short: Could my right hon. Friend tell us when we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Plowden Report?
Mr. Crossman: As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, I think that we should be wise and would do better to allow time for the digestion of this formidable Report I cannot give any precise indication now when we shall discuss it.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Following the visit of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs to Malta, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware of the great concern by the friends of Malta and people generally in this country, and in Malta itself, at the treatment being meted out to Malta? Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange for his right hon. Friend at least to make a statement at an early date?
Mr. Crossman: I will certainly communicate to my right hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman's views on the need for a statement.
Mr. Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the President of the Board of Trade said just before the Recess that the Government would be willing to arrange for a debate on the Press? Can he say how the Government are proceeding with that arrangement?
Mr. Crossman: Since my right hon. Friend spoke we have had the welcome publication of the formidable Report of the Economist Intelligence Unit. I think that it would be wise to wait to see what the N.P.A. does in response to this very challenging Report before we debate this subject.
Mr. Bryan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the debate on Second Reading of the Marine Broadcasting Offences Bill will come before or after the debate on the White Paper on Broadcasting?
Mr. Crossman: I think that we had better wait. I will make an announcement about broadcasting. It does not arise out of business for next week.
Mr. Roebuck: Does my right hon. Friend recall that just before the Recess it was said, in an Answer to me and when it was known that the Economist Intelligence Unit Report was about to be published, that there would certainly be an early opportunity for a full debate on the Press? Can we look to him to arrange for a debate before some newspaper

659
closes? Is he aware that a debate has already been arranged in another place? Why should another place have all the best debates?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that my hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that this statement by the President of the Board of Trade was made when it was known that this Report was to be published. It was known only a recent time ago that it was to be published. Publication of the Report has, I think, fundamentally changed the situation, and we should now wait, I think. The Report is of a very formidable character and I should like to give the Press time to think and do something about it before we discuss it. However, if it were true that a paper were to close, that would be a very different situation.
Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement about foot-and-mouth disease? The Minister has not yet informed the House what steps he has taken to ensure that any future slaughterings will be carried out efficiently and humanely so that there is no suspicion at all of unnecessary suffering and cruelty to animals.
Mr. Crossman: I would have thought that that was a matter which could have been mentioned during the protracted discussions on the Agriculture Bill, but I will certainly pass it on.
Mr. Ellis: Would my right hon. Friend say when the House is to have an opportunity to debate the Third Report of the Estimates Committee on the Meteorological Office?
Mr. Crossman: No, I do not think that I can; but my hon. Friend may anticipate that it will come in the near future.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the proposed closure of the Public Gallery during the morning sittings, is there any precedent for this, apart from the secret sittings? Does his answer to the Leader of the Liberal Party mean that, if the public turn up in sufficient numbers, he will reverse his decision and
660
open the gallery, or does he think that there will be so little public interest in the morning sittings that it is not necessary?
Mr. Crossman: I explained this before, but I shall repeat it. We have great problems now, with our officials working very long hours in the day, and the morning sittings will impose further burdens on the staff. In view of that, it was felt that as a temporary measure we should close part of the galleries, on the view, which I think we will find to be correct, that there will be plenty of space for anyone who is likely to attend. We have observed how much attendance we get on this kind of non-controversial business. If it were found that there were people actually excluded, the measures that we are taking to ensure that we have sufficient space would be accelerated. This is a purely temporary measure while extra staff is recruited.
Mr. Frank Allaun: In view of his recent past, the Leader of the House will have read with interest the Report by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on our older houses. As this intimately affects the lives of 10 million people who are without baths, hot water or inside lavatories, can we have an early debate on this subject, and, better still, Government legislation to implement some of the recommendations in that Report?
Mr. Crossman: I shall not attempt to answer the second part of the question. As to the first part, if the hon. Gentleman can show that there is widespread interest in this very important subject, we can consider it as a possible subject for a debate, as the Report is an extremely important one.
Mr. G. Campbell: Will the Leader of the House give time for a debate on the United Nations so as to provide the Prime Minister with much more time than he had today to explain his interpretation of Article 27 of the United Nations Charter, which provides that decisions of the Security Council on all matters, other than procedural matters, require the concurring votes of all five permanent members?
Mr. Crossman: I will always consider the possibility of a foreign affairs debate.

661
However, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that on the last occasion when we had a debate, after steady demands for a two-day debate, the number of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was, I think, 18. We have to calculate the demand for foreign affairs debates partly in terms of reality.
Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on this side of the House, though apparently not on the Opposition side, there is a strong desire to have a debate on Vietnam because of the events at present taking place?
Secondly, could he tell us when it is likely that we shall be able to debate the Select Committee's Report on Standing Order No. 9?
Mr. Crossman: 1 have already replied that we are unlikely to have another debate on Vietnam. We had a lengthy discussion at Question Time yesterday, and on the Christmas Adjournment we had a considerable debate. Unless the situation changes substantially, I see no need for another debate on the subject.
I agree that Standing Order No. 9 is an important Order. I shall try to hasten consideration of it and hasten a decision on it as soon as possible.
Mr. Goodhart: Following recent changes in Ministerial responsibilities in the Ministry of Defence, can the Leader of the House now say whether it is proposed to make any change in the traditional form of our forthcoming defence debates?
Mr. Crossman: That is a new point which I am prepared to discuss with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer which he has given to the House about Vietnam? Will he not recognise that there is strong feeling on this side that we should have a debate on the subject before Mr. Kosygin's visit to this country, particularly in view of the fact that there have been grave developments since the debate to which he referred, which reveal that there are heavy civilian casualties in North Vietnam as a result of the bombing, when the Foreign Office at that time was say-
662
ing to us that there was nothing of the kind?
Mr. Crossman: 1 am always prepared to consider suggestions from my hon. Friend on this subject, as on any other. I will discuss this with the Foreign Secretary. However, I must say to my hon Friend that the chance of devoting the time of the House before 9th February for any debate on the subject would be very small unless he could give me very powerful reasons, which he has not yet done, for changing our minds.
Mr. David Howell: Reverting to the subject of the new Science and Technology Committee, can the Leader of the House assure us that the new committee will have a really effective secretariat, so that it can do a proper job of work?
Mr. Crossman: The problem of staffing of our Select Committees is very acute. I am actively engaged now with the Services Committee in considering the problem of the recruitment of staff.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In view of the regrettable failure of my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary to reaffirm the Prime Minister's condemnation of the bombing of Hanoi, can we not have a debate, so that we can go into the matter in greater detail?
Mr. Crossman: I got the impression that this point was made more than once during the exchanges at Question Time yesterday.
Mr. Stodart: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recollect the assurance of high priority which he gave before the House rose on the subject of the Agriculture Bill? Can he assure the House that it is not being elbowed out by other business?
Mr. Crossman: Yes, I can.
Mr. Rankin: Reverting to the subject of Vietnam, my right hon. Friend has said that he needs to be convinced that there is a big demand for such a debate. If we produced a demand with 100 signatures attached to it, would that be a sufficient reason for having a debate on Vietnam?
Mr. Crossman: In view of his own experience, it is not for me to advise my hon. Friend on how to exert pressure on Ministers.
Sir D. Glover: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again about the closure of the Public Gallery during morning sittings. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not spend enough time in the House. In the mornings on Mondays and Wednesdays there are hundreds of people who go over the line of route. They will be deprived of that. Where does the right hon. Gentleman think they will go? Members of Parliament will tell them that they will try to get them into the gallery. It is essential that the full public accommodation is open as soon as morning sittings begin.
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in this discussion. It is something which the Services Committee was actively considering only yesterday. As I have said, there are a number of serious problems involved in the new situation of morning sittings with which we are trying to deal. Certainly, I will bear in mind what has been said. I shall be replying to Questions on Monday, and by then I shall have digested all that has been said by the hon. Gentleman and other Members.
Mr. Molloy: What my right hon. Friend is saying is that, because of the shortage of staff and for other reasons, the ordinary general public part of the Public Gallery may not be open, while the privileged sectors seem to be assured that they will be all right. Will he accept that there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who find that totally repugnant?
Mr. Crossman: I would ask my hon. Friend to wait until I make a full statement, because that is not the intention of the Services Committee. The intention is to admit the general public. We felt —and I think that our calculation is correct—that the amount of space allowed for that purpose would be sufficient. If it were not, I agree that that is something which we could not permit.
Mr. Farr: In view of the disturbing and increasing number of foreign takeovers of industrial concerns in this country, would the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate on the subject?
Mr. Crossman: I do not see the prospect of that happening next week. However if it is a broad subject of that kind it is something which we can discuss through the usual channels.
Mr. ManuelIs my right hon. Friend aware that the White Paper on Transport was published in July of last year? Is he aware of the growing concern in many local authorities, trade unions and large sections of the public that it should be debated? Now that there is support from hon. Gentleman opposite for my repeated pleas on this subject, can he arrange for a debate in the near future?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware that the demand for such a debate does not come only from the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters, but from our side as well. Clearly, this is a debate which should have priority. and it has been unduly delayed.
Mr. Biffen: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Motion No. 302, suggesting the annulment of the Salop (No. 2) Order, 1966. Could he confirm that it is his intention that it shall be debated, and say whether or not such a debate might take place next week?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Salop (No. 2) Order 1966 (S.1. 1966, No. 1529), dated 6th December, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December, be annulled.]
Mr. Crossman: Yes, I know of this Prayer. We ought to leave this to the normal channels to arrange. I can see the point. There are six Prayers of this kind, and I would like to have them discussed through the usual channels. The last thing that I want to do is to suppress the discussion of Prayers.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Can my right hon. Friend say when a debate can be arranged on the development areas? Does he not agree that it is vitally important for the House to examine as soon as possible the effect of economic policies on those areas with regard to the nature and degree of hardship suffered, and also examine the success or otherwise of policies relating to the channelling of resources and development into those areas?
Mr. Crossman: I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the Leader of the House say why it was necessary to arrange for morning sittings at such an early date that it has not proved practical to allow the public to see them in their gallery? Surely, this is a complete break with all the traditions of the House.
Mr. Crossman: Again, I suggest that the hon. Member awaits my Answers on Monday.
Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the important recommendations of the Estimates Committee with regard to the fishing industry? Can he tell us whether we will be able to have an opportunity of an early debate on this matter?
Mr. Crossman: I ought to warn my hon. Friend that an early debate is unlikely, but I will certainly consider the demand.
Sir C. Osborne: In view of the disturbing announcement this morning that national productivity has fallen by 2¼ per cent., making the productivity of the nation now less than at any time in the last two years, and that this and the economic position are likely to get worse, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate, not on economics generally, but on the question of productivity, because unless this issue is faced everything else will fall? Can we have a debate on the problems of national productivity?
Mr. Crossman: I would not accept the hon. Member's diagnosis, but in view of the tenor of his remarks I would point out that there is a Supply Day on Monday week which could be adequately filled by his demand.
Mr. Judd: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we shall have an early opportunity to discuss the rather disappointing White Paper on Overseas Aid and Development, published during the Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I know that there is interest in this subject and I have seen the Motion on the Order Paper. I will bear this matter in mind.
Mr. Prior: Is the Leader of the House aware that his reply to my hon. and
666
gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) about foot-and-mouth disease was most unsatisfactory? Will not the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to come to the Dispatch Box next week an answer some of the allegations that have been made and reassure the public that nothing of the same sort will ever happen again?
Mr. Crossman: I never want to be discourteous to any hon. Member. What I wanted to suggest was that as agriculture had been under discussion for many hours on Tuesday night and again late last night, it was just possible that the issue could have been raised then—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or directly with the Minister of Agriculture. I have no objection to communicating to my right hon. Friend the wishes of the hon. Member, but I am dealing with the business for next week.
Mr. Gwilym Roberts: In view of the unemployment uncertainties which still exist in the motor industry, and the latest American take-over bid, will my right hon. Friend consider whether he can provide an early debate on the future of this industry?
Mr. Crossman: I have, of course, seen the terms of the early-day Motion, which, I think, my hon. Friend has signed, and it looked to me as though most of the points raised were covered in the very full debate we had in question and answer on Tuesday. If my hon. Friend's suggestion is for a much wider debate on the problems of the industry as a whole, that might be something which we could consider at a later date.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's assurances before the Recess, can he now say when the Geddes Report on Shipbuilding will be published and debated?
Mr. Crossman: No, I cannot.
Mr. Eyre: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing concern among the professions at the enormous complexity of the Land Commission Bill and that the Minister concerned was petitioned again this week asking for further postponement of the first appointed day? As the explanatory booklet which was to assist the professions in dealing with

667
these complexities has still not been issued, will the Leader of the House allocate time next week for this specific issue of postponement to be discussed before it is too late?
Mr. Crossman: It is not for me to advise the hon. Member on how to use his Parliamentary opportunities, but I suspect that without stretching the rules of our Standing Orders on Wednesday, when we shall be considering the Lords Amendments, he might conceivably find it possible to drag in this subject.
Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the apparent queue for Adjournment debates, will the Leader of the House consider finding extra time for debates on the Adjournment? Could we possibly have two a night instead of one?
Mr. Crossman: We are to have them in the morning as well; but I will certainly bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.
Mr. Jopling: Reverting to the question of foot-and-mouth disease, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is because of matters which were raised on Tuesday night by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton), and again last night, that it is essential that we have a very early statement from the Minister of Agriculture about his intentions concerning the allegations which were made on those occasions?
Mr. Crossman: I am sure that my right hon. Friend—whom the hon Member knows as well as I do is not the kind of
668
person who shirks discussion or is not prepared to make a statement—will read HANSARD. I will certainly communicate to him the number of hon. Members opposite who feel strongly that a statement is required.
Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance, on the business to be taken at morning sittings, that he will not include any important agricultural business, because he will be shutting out of the gallery many people from the country who might like to come up and hear it? The right hon. Gentleman may not have realised that quite a lot of visits to London have now had to be postponed or cancelled because constituents cannot go round the whole line of route. They would certainly wish to be able to go into the gallery. Places which would normally be available will not be available for them, but they would particularly like to come if business of interest to the countryside were being taken.
Mr. Crossman: I am not prepared to communicate to the hon. Member any kind of statement about what business we will select for morning sittings and what we will not. Certainly, I will not say that agriculture will never be mentioned at morning sittings. Of course, I appreciate that hon. Members wish, as I wish, the general public to attend more than they do this normal non-controversial business. I am delighted to find this keen interest by the Opposition in attendance at morning sittings. I hope that we shall have the public there on top and the Opposition down below.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  IRON AND STEEL BILL

    New Clause No. 7.—(CONSULTATION ON MATTERS CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN COAI. AND STEEL COMMUNITY.)
    (1) The Minister shall keep the Corporation, the publicly-owned companies and such organisations as appear to him to he appropriate and to he representative of the interests of iron and steel producers who are not publicly-owned companies informed—

    (a) of the proceedings of the Institutions of the European Coal and Steel Community so far as such proceedings are within his knowledge and appear to him to he relevant to the duties of the Corporation; and

    (b) of such other matters concerning the relationship between the United Kingdom and the said Community as in the opinion of the Minister are relevant to the duties of the Corporation and to the iron and steel industry generally.

    (2) It shall be the duty of the Corporation to give advice and information to the Minister on any matters relating to their said duties being matters which have been referred by the Minister to the Corporation concerning the relationship between the United Kingdom and the said Community, or being matters which, in the opinion of the Corporation, ought to be taken into account in connection with the said relationship.
    (3) Nothing in this section shall be taken as requiring the Minister to disclose to the Corporation or any such organisation as aforesaid any matter which in his opinion it is not in the national interest to disclose to them.
    (4) In this section the expression 'the Institutions of the European Coal and Steel Community' means the Institutions mentioned in Article 7 of the Treaty constituting the said Community signed in Paris on 18th April 1951.—[Mr. Barber.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.7 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Barber: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    During the Committee stage of the Bill a new Clause in similar terms was considered, together with a second new Clause, but, as right hon. and hon. Members who have studied our proceedings will know, most of the discussion was directed to the second of the two new Clauses and the reply of the then Parliamentary Secretary concerning this proposal was. I think most people would
    670
    agree, highly unsatisfactory. For this reason, we thought it right to return to the matter on Report.
    The purpose of the new Clause can be simply stated. It makes it obligatory on the Minister to inform certain bodies of the proceedings of the European Coal and Steel Community and of certain other relevant matters concerning the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Community. The bodies to be kept so informed are the National Steel Corporation, the publicly-owned companies and the private sector. I hope that in reply the Minister will not waste the time of the House on technicalities and drafting points, because the purpose of the new Clause is quite clear.
    The new Clause is not a cockshy irresponsibly thought up by a small group of Members of Parliament. It is almost identical with Section 4 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, and we believe that it is in the national interest that it should he included in the Bill.
    When we considered the matter in Committee, the then Parliamentary Secretary adduced two wholly unconvincing reasons for the rejection of the Clause. He said, first, that what it sought to do could be done under the Bill as it stood. That is no answer, because precisely the same observation could have been made of Section 4 of the 1953 Act and about many of the provisions in the Bill. One has only to look, for example, at Clause 3(1,a), where there is set out a duty on the Corporation
    "to promote the efficient and economical supply by the Corporation … of iron and steel products".
    Obviously, if the words had been merely
    "to promote the … supply … of iron and steel products",
    it would still have been open to the Corporation to do it efficiently and economically. The Minister cannot reject this Clause simply on the ground that power to do what is contained in this Clause exists in any event, because there is a further very important difference between accepting the Clause and rejecting it. That is that this new Clause, if accepted, would impose an obligation on the Minister.
    Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Is the right hon. Gentleman now suggesting, in referring to Clause 3, that nowhere in

    671
    the opening stages of the Bill should there be a statement that it will be the duty of the Corporation to supply iron and steel efficiently? Is it not absurd to say that that was not necessary in a Bill of this kind?
    Mr. Barber: The hon. Member has misunderstood the point I am making. What I am saying is that if the words "efficient and economical" had not been included in Clause 3 it would still have been open to the Corporation to supply its products efficiently and economically. There is no obligation in saying that, nevertheless, the Corporation and the Minister could do precisely what is stated in the Clause. We are seeking to impose on the Minister an obligation, precisely the same obligation as was contained in the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, which was then accepted by the House. It has done no harm; but, I believe, a considerable amount of good.
    The second reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary for rejection of this Clause was quite puerile. He said that, unlike in 1953, we are now seeking membership of the European Community and, therefore, this provision is unnecessary. Unlike so many hon. Members opposite—including, I suspect, one or two in the Chamber at present—I wish the Prime Minister every success in his efforts to join the European Community, but we are by no means home and dry. We still do not know, for example, how General de Gaulle will react to the unpredictable and unique behaviour of our well-intentioned Foreign Secretary. There are many hurdles to be overcome before we join the European Community.
    During other parts of our proceedings the Minister of Power used the argument that we are not yet members of the Community. He used that argument to reject Conservative Amendments which sought to bring the steel industry into line with the European system. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman himself may think about our joining Europe, he cannot have it both ways. If the argument of the Government still is, as it was in Committee, that this Clause is unacceptable because we hope to join the Community, then it becomes highly relevant to consider the effect of the Bill on our chances.
    672
    There may be no doubt at all that the nationalisation of steel as contemplated by the Labour Government makes access to the European Coal and Steel Community much more difficult. I say that because the Government's proposals for the iron and steel industry and the particular form of nationalisation which they have selected are incompatible with the policy which is now being followed by the European Coal and Steel Community. That is an incontrovertible fact.
    4.15 p.m.
    As I have said before, under the Treaty of Paris and the E.C.S.C., ownership of itself is immaterial. There is no argument about that. But the control and the operation of steel enterprises is subject to the most definite requirements. The Government's proposals for the steel industry are without any doubt at all in fundamental conflict with the European system. I must make the point which I made in Committee, that the European system operates on the basis of a variety of individually operated companies, each representing no more than 10 per cent. of the total Community steel capacity.
    We have been told quite specifically by the Government that the object of this Bill is to
    "create a single unit of direction with a capacity of about 30 million tons of crude steel a year."
    The new National Steel Corporation would represent about 22 per cent. of the capacity of the combined market of the E.C.S.C. and the United Kingdom, compared with 8 per cent. of the combined market for the largest group at present in the E.C.S.C. The consequence is that if the Government go ahead with the creation of this giant monopoly it will be quite impossible to join the E.C.S.C. without fundamental changes in the Government's policy for the steel industry.
    The reason for this is quite simple. Because of the dominant position of the National Steel Corporation, the High Authority of the E.C.S.C. would have power to override the British Minister of Power. The High Authority would actually have the power to fix the prices of British steel and to draw up production programmes for the Corporation. Is that what hon. and right hon. Members opposite want? That certainly is the

    673
    factual position. It is right that hon. and right hon. Members and those outside the House of Commons should know precisely what would happen if we were to join the E.C.S.C. and the steel industry were to remain on the lines which have been stated by Her Majesty's Government.
    This position is brought about not because the Government intend to nationalise part of the industry. The incompatibility with the European system stems from two facts, first, from the determination of the Labour Government,
    "to create a single unit of direction with a capacity of 30 million tons of crude steel a year."
    and, secondly, from the policy expressed by the present Foreign Secretary that
    "there is no possibility of going back to real competition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th May. 1965; Vol. 711, c. 1687.]
    So we have the ludicrous position that the Prime Minister is moving towards European integration, whereas his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is pursuing a policy contrary to the practice of our European friends. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary admitted when we considered this matter in Committee that the practice proposed for the National Steel Corporation would require negotiation with the E.C.S.C. That was the understatement of 1966.
    I conclude with this plea to the right hon. Gentleman. In these circumstances, it is surely prudent and sensible to include a provision in the Bill which would be advantageous in the unhappy event of the Prime Minister not succeeding in his attempts to join the European Community. I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a useful Clause and will agree to its incorporation in the Bill.
    Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I warmly endorse all that my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) has said. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument in Committee to the effect that, as the present circumstances are different from those prevailing at the time of the 1953 Act, the Clause is not needed is an argument which, on closer examination, I find stupefyingly unrealistic. There are only two possibilities—either that we succeed in joining the Community or that we do not. If we are vetoed or excluded,
    674
    or if the Prime Minister decides not to let the negotiations proceed, we shall clearly have to go on as before, in which case it is absolutely vital that the Clause be added to the Bill.
    On the other hand, if we were to succeed in entering the Community, then perhaps within six months from this date the whole Bill would be completely out of date anyway and would have to be revised. In these circumstances, it is therefore right to include in the Bill a Clause which insists on consultation between the Coal and Steel Community, the Minister and the Corporation.
    The Parliamentary Secretary argued that the differing circumstances of the present time meant that all that we sought to do in urging the Minister to take a more European position might even be jeopardised by accepting the Clause. That was an extraordinary statement, because an obligation to consult cannot, and never could, do any harm. I believe that the Minister has recently gone to the Continent to attend a meeting of the High Authority, there not having been a meeting for 18 months previously. I hope that in answering the debate he will tell us exactly how he got on at the meeting and what were the results of any criticisms of the Bill which the High Authority or its servants put up to him.
    At various times in Committee we made comments as to what in our opinion will be the main hazards of our joining if the Bill remains in its present form. My right hon. Friend mentioned some. There is the question of the large grouping. There is the question of pricing. There is the question of the commencing capital debt, which will be heavily subsidised by the fact that the compensation payable will be only two-thirds of the value of the assets of the steel companies.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting into a general discussion on the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must come to the new Clause.
    Mr. Ridley: I will leave the main objections. As you have rightly said, Sir, they are not within the scope of the Clause.
    Before we part with the Bill it is important that the House as a whole is

    675
    informed of the High Authority's views on the Bill. It will be no good the Minister saying, after the Bill has been enacted, "We must make some changes in the Bill". We want to know what is involved at this stage.
    I am one of those who take a somewhat pessimistic and gloomy view of our chances of success. The present application may not succeed. I hope with all my heart that I am wrong. I earnestly pray that our application will succeed. However, I do not regard this as the end of the story, because, if we were to fail, we would need to reshape all our affairs and to get ourselves into a posture such that the Community at a later date would accept us as a member.
    The iron and steel industry is a sector where it is clearly our duty to readjust our affairs, just as it is in agriculture and in other spheres of activity, so that we are prepared, ready and reorganised to join the Community without all these endless negotiations, arguments and fuss. This is what General de Gaulle meant when he vetoed our application last time —"You are not ready". Therefore, it is vital that we take all steps possible to bring the steel industry into such a shape that it does not on a future occasion make it more difficult to join.
    Mr. Brian O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman suggests that it may be true that the shape of our steel industry would be one of the factors making our entry difficult, on the ground that the organisation of the industry would be incompatible with the E.C.S.C. Treaty. Is it not true also that the developing organisations of some of the European steel communities within the E.C.S.C. Treaty are incompatible?
    Mr. Ridley: I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman substantiate that claim. There are problems, discussions and all sorts of difficulties within the Coal and Steel Community. That only demonstrates the advantages of our being a member. Then we could start to see how we would like it to be changed. We could argue our case and, perhaps, we could prevail. Those remaining outside are in an impossible position to influence the Community.
    Whether we like it or not, we must adjust all of our affairs, all of our laws,
    676
    all of our practice, and all of our administration, so that we are acceptable. It is after we have joined that we can put our point of view and perhaps succeed in changing the rules or the practice more to our liking. Whether or not we succeed this time, it is a continuing part of policy for the steel industry to align itself to the practice and rules of the European steel industry. Whether we succeed or not, the Clause should be in the Bill. If we succeed, consultation will perhaps be succeeded by membership. If we do not succeed, we have a tremendous task to perform in bringing our steel industry and all sectors of our national life into line.
    Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a very important doctrine which should be clear on the record. Does what he is saying mean that, because we are engaging in a probing operation which the Government hope will lead to negotiations and entry into the Common Market, all the mandate that the Government received from the people at the last General Election must be abandoned forthwith and all the engagements we have undertaken with the electorate must not be proceeded with?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) were to answer that at length, he would be quite out of order.
    Mr. Ridley: I will answer it, Mr. Speaker, shortly with the single word, "No". I would hate to stray out of order by answering that lengthy interjection. The argument the hon. Gentleman used can be dealt with by quoting a statement the Minister made in Committee:
    "I quite understand that there can be argument about whether we should or should not enter the European Economic Community, but it is rather different argument to say that, before we join—if we do—on terms we do not know, our legislation in this country should be tailored to meet that hypothetical situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D: 17th November, 1966, c. 722.]
    This is the crux of the difference between those of us who believe that it is vital to be a member of the Community and those rather hesitant hon. Members who will only have it on their own terms. I think I can safely say, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is

    677
    not here, that the majority of the Members in tie Chamber at present are in the first category. It is not a question of seeing whether we can get in from time to time. We must take to heart the lessons of the failures of the past. When we consider the steel industry—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This looks suspiciously like drifting into a discussion about whether we should join the Common Market. The hon. Member must link what he says to this new Clause, which asks that the Government seek contact with the European Coal and Steel Community.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ridley: I will conclude by saying that the task of shaping the steel industry to be acceptable to the Coal and Steel Community is one of the great opportunities which the Organising Committee and the Minister will have when the Bill becomes law. To my mind, this is the only really great opportunity in an otherwise miserable exercise. It seems extraordinary, when they are seeking to join, that they have made no effort to ascertain what this means in terms of reorganising our steel industry, and have not written into the Bill the need to consult, and the need to adopt European practice and regulations.
    I believe that nobody in Europe or in this country who believes in a wider Europe is satisfied with the Government's attitude. I certainly am not, unless they are prepared to accept this Clause.
    Mr. Michael Alison: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), on this very important matter. I shall try to stick as closely as I can to the precise terms of the Clause, and address myself particularly to subsections (2) and (3), which relate to the duty of the Corporation to give advice and information to the Minister.
    It seems to me that in the Bill we have something of a carte blanche. There are a number of permissive, rather vague, general provisions. For example, there is the new Clause, which we discussed yesterday, about the publication of prices. There is an enormous area still to be covered. There is the whole question of
    678
    the pricing system. We cannot but believe that the Government have some very fundamental ideas about pricing. If they do not, certainly the Organising Committee must have, but nothing has been spelled out about this.
    There is a whole range of new development which the Organising Committee has to spell out. There is the question of the merging of existing steelworks into larger groups, the question of subdivision specialisation, and so on. There are many things which the Organising Committee, and ultimately the Corporation, will have to put into effect, and all that we are pleading for is the reasonable proposition that it should be obligatory on the Corporation to consider the impact which its proposals are likely to have on the sort of steel industry into which we might have to fit when we go into Europe.
    It is self-evident that as things stand now there are considerable differences between the pricing system in this country, and the broad principles governing that of the Coal and Steel Community. Its fundamental guide lines are nondiscrimination, and what is technically known as transparency, that is, the possibility of all buyers and consumers knowing precisely all the terms and conditions of all sellers. The Community has the necessity of the basing point system of publication of prices. We regard it as essential that the Organising Committee should consider the system in operation on the Continent before it decides what system to devise in this country.
    We know that the British steel industry as it exists now has given some thought to an E.C.S.C.—like pricing system. There is its zonal plan, with the idea of somehow compensating for the rather shorter hauls that we have in this country, and the absence of published freight rates, and so on. Ideas like this have been bruited around, but we want to make certain, by the acceptance of this Clause, that the Committee will consider what is going on on the Continent, and keep the Minister informed about the relationship between its proposals and those into which we might have to fit if we go into Europe.
    I am particularly concerned about the way in which the pricing system will work, especially with regard to some of the ramifications of transport charges. This

    679
    will be one of the most interesting comparisons between the way in which we shall have to develop if we go into Europe, and the way in which the European system works.
    Mr. O'Malley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Opposition are so eager to introduce into this country a system of pricing which does not work on the Continent? One useful result could be achieved by passing that kind of information to the British steel industry, if it does not already know it. It should be told that the system in Europe is not working. Why should we have a system which has broken down elsewhere?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman seems repeatedly to argue that, simply because the Community has met with difficulties in remarkable circumstances, these difficulties will exist when circumstances change. At the moment, the Community is facing, difficulties not dissimilar to those with which the British steel industry is having to contend. There is a considerable softening of the market.
    This does not mean that the whole system has been torpedoed. Difficulties are being experienced in Europe, but it is not certain that they are insurmountable. In fact, I think that they will be surmounted. I know that there are many new tendencies there, such as cartelisation, and so on. They are considering the major proposals in Germany to merge 31 firms into four big groups. We do not know what the results will be, but I believe that the principles of the Coal and Steel Community, namely, nondiscrimination, transparency, and competition, will be preserved.
    The Community will be able to preserve the principles on which the original project was based, even though there may be variations in detail—import protection, extension of the money margins, and so on. It is not certain that all this will be torpedoed. These problems will assuredly be solved on the Continent. If they could get the Coal and Steel Community into existence under post-war conditions, they will be able to adapt it to meet present conditions, and we want to make sure that the British steel industry conforms in broad terms with the sort of pattern which is likely to emerge on the Continent.
    Mr. O'Malley: We have an opportunity within the British steel industry to organise a pricing system on the basis of the experience gained from the Continent. De novo, we in this country have the opportunity of developing a system which could be the envy of Europe, and which Europe might want to follow.
    Mr. Alison: I agree that we should consider developing something if we are starting a new pattern which will be fresh and novel, but I urge the Minister and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) to bear in mind the fact that the future prosperity of the British steel industry will lie largely in exporting, and in operating in larger markets.
    If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can solve and evolve a British steel industry pricing system within the context of the United Kingdom market, with a growth rate which is negative, if not actually static, and with a utilisation capacity of 75 per cent., and that we can build it up into a self-contained operation in this island, he is mistaken. We must consider what is happening in Europe, and in fact all over the world, because that is where we will have to trade. They will try to push their products into this country, and we will have to try to push ours into theirs.
    Mr. Ridley: If we develop a sensible pricing system, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) suggests, it will help if the Clause is accepted, because it will enable the Europeans to find out all about it from us.
    Mr. Alison: I take the point made by my hon. Friend. We want there to be an awareness of what is going on. We want that sort of attitude of mind. We want a recognition which was noticeably left out by the Prime Minister in his original announcement that he meant when he talked about going into Europe. There seems to be a lack of awareness that the Treaty of Paris, as well as the Treaty of Rome, are part and parcel of what we shall have to adapt ourselves to, and what the Government will have to adapt themselves to. This is quite different from the problem of British agriculture. We have had an enormous amount of discussion about the adaptation of Britain in terms of agricultural change, but that is nothing like as serious as the adaptation necessary in terms of British steel, but nobody mentions that fact.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I am rather puzzled—
    Sir Gerald Nabarro: The hon. Member is always puzzled.
    Mr. Winterbottom: —as to the point at which in our negotiations for entry into the Community there will be discussions about anything in the Bill before us, or how the hon. Member arrives at the conclusion that the prices difficulty will affect negotiations for entry into that body, when most of these things are unknown at present. Is not it a figment of his imagination?
    Mr. Alison: I am not sure whether or not the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) had been laid low by the time we reached this subject in Committee, but he will recollect that one of the most important discussions was about the prices at which the assets of the steel industry would be taken over.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I heard what was said then, but that was a different matter.
    Mr. Alison: If the hon. Member is right in his claim that he was not sick al the time, it is plain that he was rapidly sickening. It is self-evident that some of the provisions of the Bill will profoundly sour the prospect of a successful application by the United Kingdom to enter the Common Market—especially the power to reduce prices of exports by reason of the lower capital debt which the Corporation will be saddled with when it takes over. The general attitude of mind that we want to reassert and re-emphasise continually is that when we come face to face with President de Gaulle across the conference table—which the Prime Minister will presently have to do—the President will not be concerned about what is written even into the Treaty of Rome, let alone the Treaty of Paris. He will not really be concerned with what is written into some of the Schedules and minor parts of the Bill. What he will be concerned with, as he was at the time of the Polaris deal, when he discussed the question of our accession with Mr. Macmillan, is the general trend of imports on Britain's accession.
    We believe that it is crucial for the Prime Minister and the Government to realise that if the Common Market is to digest the biggest single monolithic steel-
    682
    producing unit, representing over 20 per cent. of total steel production in Europe, it is incumbent upon the Government to lean over backwards to show that in everything they propose in connection with any change in the British steel industry they will have some cognisance of the impact it will have on the Continent, and the way in which we shall be able to fit our steel industry into this complex in a constructive and productive way. It is on this matter that we want the Minister to give us a reasonably fair hearing.
    Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman was in Luxembourg on Friday, 13th January, 1967. I preceded him by 48 hours, no doubt considering many of the points that he had been considering and consulting various people that he had consulted about the difficult and delicate matter of the impact of steel nationalisation upon Britain's tentative approach to entering the European Economic Community. The new Clause is concerned only with measures for consultations. I shall not stray very far into Common Market economic and financial arguments, but I must preface my remarks in that context by pronouncing my own view in clear and unmistakable terms, which is that the nationalisation of the British steel industry is totally and utterly incompatible with membership of the European Coal and Steel Community.
    4.45 p.m.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): At the moment, as hon. Members know, statements like that which the hon. Gentleman has just made could be unhelpful to the sort of thing that we want to achieve. I ask him to clarify the point that he has made. He was in Luxembourg and the High Authority was there at the time. Can he name a single official of the High Authority who expressed the view that he has just put forward?
    Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, and I will come on to a verification of my views—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The hon. Member ought not to do that. He has said that the economics of our joining the European Community are not in order on the Clause, and he is right. He has prefaced his remarks by indicating his general

    683
    belief, and it would be quite wrong to pursue that matter any further.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I shall not be tempted by the right hon. Gentleman. There will be future opportunities to answer him, and I am never short of opportunities in these matters. I prefer Mr. Speaker to have ants in his pants when he is listening to my speeches—metaphorically speaking.
    I now return to the issue of consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) quoted from one of the earlier debates in Committee, and I want to quote part of the debate that is the nub of the matter in regard to consultation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, answering the Common Market consultation debate, said:
    "That actual arrangements made with the High Authority in 1954 were, of course, met by an exchange of letters between the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the then President of the High Authority, and the Government certainly intend to reopen negotiations in order to bring this exchange of letters up to date. In particular, the Government intend to propose to the High Authority that as from vesting date the Iron and Steel Board member of the Council of the Association should be replaced by a member of the National Steel Corporation. I say that in answer to the hon. Member for Worcestershire. South."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee D. 15th December. 1967, c. 2453.]
    I claim that consultation in the form stipulated in the quotation is entirely inadequate for our needs. The British steel industry, whether in private hands or nationalised, is intimately concerned with the steel industry of Western Europe, and it is significant that although hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite often decry the efficiency of our steel industry in private hands, it has, notwithstanding intense world competition, maintained during the last few years its share of world markets for export, excluding consumption in this country. Does the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) challenge this?
    Mr. Michael Foot: The leading company in this country in the export of British steel is the publicly-owned company of Richard Thomas and Baldwins.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Richard Thomas and Baldwins have lost £12 million in the last two years. It is the only British steel company to lose money—no doubt aided and abetted by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
    Mr. John Nott: Does my hon. Friend agree that if steel companies such as Richard Thomas and Baldwins were to charge prices below world prices, thus sustaining large losses, it would then not be very difficult for them to maintain export levels?
    Sir G. Nabarro: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). Penetration by British steel firms over the tariff wall into Europe at cut prices is likely to bring retaliation from the Community. I would want consultation for that and for many other reasons.
    I want to return to the intervention of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. Britain has maintained its share of world markets. The Benson Report quotes percentages of 12·7 in 1956, 12·5 in 1960 and 12·2 in 1964—the last published figure. The European Coal and Steel Community, excluding inter-trading, shows figures for 1956 of 53·1 per cent; 1960, 54·7 per cent.; 1964, 42·8 per cent.
    So Britain and the European Coal and Steel Community between them had in 1964 55 per cent. of world export markets for steel and the only—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is abysmal in his ignorance of the principal industry in his constituency. He should go back to Ebbw Vale and learn the economics of steel. He was better placed in Plymouth, among the West Countrymen talking about strawberries, celery, cucumbers and tomatoes. I will deal with the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
    I repeat—55 per cent. of the world steel export markets are shared between the West European Community and Britain and we are holding our world markets. The very thin, tenuous link of consultation between this important Community and the nationalised British industry, we are told, according to the quotation from Committee, is to be a single member of the Corporation. That is all. He will be answerable to the Minister and it is doubtful whether we shall be able to extract more information from the Minister about the activities

    685
    of the Community through the single British representative on it, a member of the Corporation, than the information extracted from the right hon. Gentleman on the evening of Friday, 13th January, 1967, at London Airport, when questioned by the B.B.C.—
    Mr. Marsh: Which right hon. Gentleman?
    Sir G. Nabarro: The Minister of Power.
    Mr. Marsh: I am very sorry. On the evening of the 13th of this month, I was, in fact, in Luxembourg. I was not in London Airport—
    Sir G. Nabarro: The following day, then.
    Mr. Marsh: On the following day, I was in Paris—
    Sir G. Nabarro: On his way home then; the right hon. Gentleman is splitting hairs.
    Mr. Marsh: If I may pursue the point, at no time was I interviewed by the B.B.C. or any other broadcasting organisation.
    Sir G. Nabarro: As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's comment on the B.B.C., which was innocuous, nasal and poorly delivered, I am sure that I am not mistaken in this matter.
    I now want to turn to the major issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber)—the dominant position which would be occupied by the British steel industry, if nationalised, and if Britain were successful in joining the Common Market, inevitably involving us in signing the Treaty of Paris.
    What the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale does not understand is that, out of 110 million ingot tons of steel produced in the Common Market, only 7·4 million are produced by a nationalised undertaking, and that is a part of the Italian steel industry. The other 93 per cent. is privately owned. If Britain goes in, with her nationalised steel industry with a capacity of 30 million ingot tons, that would bring the total to something more than 20 per cent. of the total capacity of the Common Market and would be utterly unacceptable to the High Authority.
    686
    It is for that reason that the consultation ought now to be strengthened. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale challenged the respectability of my remarks in this matter, as to why this consultation should be strengthened at this point and why a nationalised British steel industry is incompatible with our entry into Europe. I can give the respectable support for my comment. The hon. Gentleman will know, as a representative of a steel-making constituency—South Worcestershire does not make any steel, but I have spent much of my life in association with the steel industry in a non-political context—
    Mr. Archie Manuel: Impossible.
    Sir G. Nabarro: If the hon. Member wants to say something, perhaps he would rise and say it.
    Mr. Manuel: I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman himself being impossible, but I was saying that it was impossible for him to be non-political.
    Sir G. Nabarro: The characteristic of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is to absent himself from the Chamber for long periods and, in his infrequent incursions into the Chamber, to remain sedentary and shout at speakers on this side. I deplore his habits.
    I now quote the respectable support for my view. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, as a representative of a steel-making constituency, will, of course, know the journal Steel International.—
    Mr. Winterbottom indicated assent.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I am glad that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) recognises it. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has never read it, evidently. Had he read the issue for November-December, he would have found these pregnant words in full and unequivocal support for what I have already said to the House:
    "Once so effective and so promising, the E.C.S.C. is now going through a very bad patch. In the emergency, it has been suggested that its High Authority should be vested with executive rights of sanction. It should invoke its special reserve powers to limit steel output."

    687
    This is why consultation at this minute is so important.
    "It is at this threatening juncture that the British Government has resolved to carry the country into the European Economic Community, and the British steel industry, by the same token, into the E.C.S.C. From a narrow point of view, there are many, in a different political camp from Mr. Harold Wilson and his friends, who would consider such a departure fortuitously very fortunate. A completely State owned and controlled steel industry would be incompatible with membership of the E.C.S.C. The Labour Government's proposed National Steel Corporation would not rank for entry. As an out-and-out State dependency it would have no place in the steel scheme of things in the E.E.C. When Mr. Edward Heath was essaying to get Britain into the Common Market, some years back, it came out that, in the event of his success, the Iron and Steel Board would have to go. It just would not fit in with the proposed new arrangements.
    That joining the E.E.C., and thus the European Coal and Steel Community would put at naught"—
    This is the answer to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson)—
    "the Labour Government's plans for taking over the British steel industry may or may not already have been considered by Mr. Harold Wilson and his friends and advisers. On the score that the lesser must be sacrificed to the greater, it would he a handy way of giving up these plans and still saving face'."
    for the Labour Government—
    Mr. Winterbottom: I, too, read that article—
    Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order. Hon. Members opposite apparently have no intention of making speeches for themselves, but seem to intervene in nearly every speech from this side. Would it not be better for them to make their own contributions instead of constantly intervening?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, that is not a point of order. If the hon. Member Who is addressing the House chooses to give way, it is in accordance with the traditions of the House.
    Sir G. Nabarro: For fear that I should lose control of the Floor, I would utter a few words. I now give way to the hon. Member for Brightside.
    Mr. Winterbottom: In respect of the article from which the hon. Gentleman quoted, I respectfully point out that it was by a contributor and did not express either the official or the unofficial
    688
    opinion of the High Authority. It is not only an opinion of the contributor, but also an opinion largely shared in steel circles on the Continent by the authors of Le Plan Professionel, which has dominated the French steel industry for some time. This ought to be explained completely to get the full impact of what the hon. Member is saying.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue this topic on this particular Amendment. We must confine the debate to the merits of the exchange of information.
    5.0 p.m.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I am deeply grateful to have your support, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as so many of these interventions from hon. Members opposite are irrelevant.
    I was asked for public support for my statement that nationalised steel in this country was incompatible with—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have said that we cannot pursue that subject in this debate.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I shall not pursue it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have quoted what I wanted to quote. It is not an opinion; it is commentary in a journal editorial, and a very valid one, too.
    I conclude my comments by saying that it would be wise to strengthen our consultative links with the European Coal and Steel Community at the earliest date. The present arrangements are totally inadequate. The new Clause would greatly strengthen this consultative machinery, and for that reason I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will, if necessary, press this matter to a Division.
    No doubt, we shall be opposed by Labour Members who are faithful to the nostrum, the shibboleth, the sacred cow of steel nationalisation, but I have succeeded in my purpose. Not only is consultative machinery essential, in the most intimate sense, between the European Coal and Steel Community and the British Iron and Steel Corporation, but the underlying factor has now been powerfully brought out in this debate that nationalised steel in Britain is utterly incompatible with the Prime Minister's efforts to enter Europe.
    Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I want to make one point which

    689
    has not been fully brought out in the debate so far. The greatest problem at present facing the steel industries of the world, and particularly the steel industries of Europe and this country, is overcapacity. We have falling production, and only about 70 per cent. or perhaps under 70 per cent. of our steel capacity is being used. Equally, there is a great problem in Europe at present, and, of course, also in America. Yet we have plans in this country for plunging ahead. The Government may well have plans for increasing our capacity from 27 million to 35 million tons, or figures like that, in the next seven to ten years.
    That is the kind of policy that the Labour Government would love to follow, because their criticism of the steel industry over the years has always been that it has not increased its capacity fast enough. In the 1960s, in response to thoughts of that kind, the steel industry increased its capacity very greatly, yet today in Sheffield and in other centres it is having to put men off because of over-capacity, and the production is not now required.
    This is a problem that will face us very strongly in Europe. That is why I would like to see the very closest links between ourselves and Europe. What is the point of Europe going ahead and increasing capacity and our doing the same? I support this new Clause because it is so important at this moment to improve our links with Europe and to have the closest consultation; otherwise we shall find our steel industry with great over-capacity in the next few years, with consequent unemployment.
    Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I support this most important new Clause. I hope very much that the Minister will accept it as it seems to me to be of considerable psychological importance.
    When a similar Clause was discussed in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, who has now unfortunately left us again after his brief appearance, gave rather insubstantial reasons for rejecting it. The most substantial appeared to be that,
    "To make such provisions with reference to one particular subject on which the relations between the Minister and the Corporation would have to be developed would be to suggest that other subjects on which the Minister will be dealing with the Corporation are in
    690
    some way less important."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 15th December, 1966; c. 2453.]
    I can think of few subjects at present which are more important than the nature of our relationship with the European Community, which all of us on this side of the House at least, and some hon. Members on the other side, are hoping to join.
    As several of my hon. Friends have already pointed out, the mere introduction of this Bill has immeasurably complicated and reduced the prospect of our entry into the European Community. I am afraid there is no doubt about this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) pointed out in Committee, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology did not dispute it in replying to the debate, that in the High Authority's interpretation, the size of the National Steel Corporation would be far in excess of the 10 per cent. of the market which the High Authority considers acceptable. The Parliamentary Secretary simply said:
    "The way in which the High Authority from time to time chooses to interpret the provisions of the Treaty is a matter for negotiation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 15th December, 1966; c. 2455]
    To my mind, this is to dismiss the objection rather lightly. This is one of the many matters on which the Front Bench opposite have some learning to do in the months ahead if they mean serious negotiation.
    The other objection which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology raised to the similar Clause in Committee was that it was not really necessary anyway, because at this time we hoped to enter the European Community ourselves. It is true that, if we are successful in our approach to the European Community, then, obviously, the need for the form of consultation which the Clause is designed to achieve disappears. But I am bound to tell the Minister, having returned last week from Paris, and having had a number of discussions with some of the senior French officials most closely involved, that I regard the chances of this hope being realised during the course of the coming months, or at all under the present Administration, as remote. I regret to say that, but I think it is true. If this

    691
    negotiation fails—and it will fail because, basically, the Prime Minister lacks credibility as a European—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have said that we cannot pursue in this debate the merits of the negotiation about joining the European Community. We can discuss only the desirability of the new Clause dealing with consultation.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I entirely accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point in making that statement was that at a time like this it is essential that we demonstrate our European credibility, and the new Clause is designed to do precisely that.
    Mr. Peter Kirk: There is a further point. If my hon. Friend is correct in his forecast, and I am afraid he is, this consultation becomes absolutely vital.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was coming to that. It is the second barrel of support for the new Clause. The first barrel is that it would be a psychological gesture, so to speak, a demonstration that we are thinking and the Government are thinking in European terms, and—heaven knows—this is needed urgently. For that reason above all, I hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause. There is no reason why he should not.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) has just pointed out, the second leg of the argument is that if, as I fear, the negotiation fails, the provisions of the new Clause will become absolutely vital. We shall then be outside the European Community for another two or three years until right hon. Gentlemen opposite have departed. We must be in a position to resume the negotiation successfully under a different Government, and we must in the interval maintain the closest possible consultation with the Coal and Steel Community.
    I shall not go over the arguments about the need for consultation between the National Steel Corporation and the Coal and Steel Community which have already been admirably put by my hon. Friends. But I have one question to put to the Minister. If he is determined to resist the
    692
    Clause, will he explain precisely how consultation between the National Steel Corporation and the Coal and Steel Community is to be effectively assured? We have had no proper answer to that question either in Committee or in the brief and occasional interruptions from the benches opposite today.
    I emphasise the great psychological importance of the new Clause. Whatever the Minister's feeling about our approach to the European Community may be and whatever the well known feelings of his hon. Friends may be, the country as a whole regards it as vital that the negotiations should succeed. He should, therefore, accept a new Clause of this kind which can only help the negotiation to succeed.
    Mr. Noft: When I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) sitting on the Government Front Bench yesterday and also this afternoon, I was mindful of his new function as general Cabinet co-ordinator of the Government's chaos. In the context of this debate, the nationalisation of steel, on the one hand, and our entry into the Common Market, on the other, we see the utter lack of co-ordination within the Government. This is the main reason why the new Clause should be accepted now. Consultation on the relationship between the High Authority and the National Steel Corporation is vital, whether we enter the Common Market by the current negotiations or not.
    The answers we had from the Minister yesterday to new Clauses 1 and 4, on pricing policy and on competition, were very depressing to us. To the High Authority they would be absolute anathema. If the Minister imagines that the answers which he gave would be beneficial to our entry, he is in need of the very information which the new Clause seeks to provide, information from the Corporation on the facts of life regarding the relationship between the High Authority and ourselves.
    If we took our steel industry into the Common Market as one grouping, this country would produce 22 to 25 per cent. of its total output of steel. So far as I am aware, there is not at present a single producer within the Common Market under one control producing more than 8 or 9 million tons. Therefore, if we

    693
    succeed in entering the Common Market, it will be essential for the groupings within our industry to be not more than of the order of 10 million tons or so. It is fundamental to the principles of the Treaty of Paris that no company shall possess such a concentration of power as to make competition meaningless. The Phoenix Rheinruhr Thyssen merger was, I understand, held up by the High Authority for nearly two years principally because the combined companies would have had an output of about 8 million tons, yet we are talking here about our total output of about 30 million tons.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Winterbottom: The French steel industry has recently completed the first part of a reorganisation which gives a much bigger output in many of the French steel factories—in fact, it has been subsidised by the French Government—yet this has not been challenged by the High Authority. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is speaking from hopeful imagination rather than from full knowledge of the facts.
    Mr. Nott: I am not aware of the actual output of individual factories in the French steel industry, but I am quite sure that, from the point of view of control, which is what we are talking about here, there is no one French grouping under one control producing more than 10 million tons. If I am wrong, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me its name.
    The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) referred earlier, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—this raises another reason why consultation is essential —to the Italian steel industry. Although the Italian nationalised steel industry produces about 8 million tons, it is not under the sort of control which our industry will be under if the Bill goes through. Italsider and Finsider, the two Government controlled Italian steel companies have a substantial element of public shareholding in them, so that even to that extent they are dissimilar from what our National Steel Corporation would look like. Apart from that, even if one were to take in Fiat and the other Italian producers in addition to Italsider and Finsider, still the output of steel in Italy as
    694
    a whole would not amount to more than 12 million tons, yet we are talking here of our national output under one control of 30 million tons. The Italian steel industry, therefore, bears very little resemblance to what ours would look like were the Bill to go through.
    We have discussed pricing policy and competition, two fundamentals within the Common Market, where there must be market transparency and re-alignment to competitive prices. These points do not seem to have been taken yet on the benches opposite. In addition, there is the whole question of the commencing capital debt of the Corporation, which was mentioned earlier. There is a strong probability that the High Authority will regard the substantial discount on asset value at which the Government are buying the steel companies as a hidden subsidy. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) may laugh, but that is true. When the Minister draws up a pro forma balance sheet of the National Steel Corporation, there will be a surplus on consolidation of about £350 million which can be used to write off the assets of the National Steel Corporation. If that takes place, the depreciation charged annually in the accounts of the National Steel Corporation will be about £25 million less, which will enable the prices of the steel products to be substantially reduced even further below the prices which now prevail in the Common Market. Therefore, this is just one other reason why we consider the new Clause to be vitally necessary. It does not appear to us that adequate consultation is taking place at present, that the relationship between the high authority and this country is being adequately regarded. For that reason, and in the context of the current negotiations, we very much hope that the Minister will accept the Clause.
    Mr. Michael Shaw: I rise only to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we would like a different reply from that which we had in Committee. We do not believe that to say that the conditions are now different because we are actually negotiating with a view to getting into the Common Market is an adequate objection to the introduction of the Clause, or a similar Clause.

    695
    Has the Minister any specific objections to its wording? Are there any aspects of it to which he takes objection? Are there any parts of it which he would not in any case carry out, whether or not the Clause became part of the Bill? All we are trying to do is to ensure that what he regards as good and normal practice will be carried on when he is no longer in his present position. I am sure that he would think that to be very reasonable. Such Clauses have been operated in the past with success and with benefit, and should be carried on in the future.
    Mr. Marsh: This has been an interesting debate for a number of reasons. Every hon. Gentleman opposite who has spoken has expressed his undying desire to see Britain's entry into the European Economic Community, and has given a long list of reasons why the Government's practices would disqualify it from membership. One hon. Gentleman opposite even gave us an insight into conversations he had in Paris recently, in which he discussed these very problems which face British entry. They might well have complained if at the time the last Government was attempting to negotiate—I say "attempting" because they were dreadfully unsuccessful—Labour Members had been carrying on discussions with foreign Governments on the impediments to British entry.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw that disgraceful and totally unjustified statement. What I was discussing in Paris and trying to find out was the conditions on which the French Government might regard Britain as acceptable, and I took every opportunity to state the great importance of British entry from the point of view of both Britain and France.
    Mr. Marsh: I am not attempting to be controversial, because there is now complete unanimity between both sides of the House. Her Majesty's Government are now committed to examining the possibility and implications of British membership of the European Economic Community. That is what hon. and right hon. Members opposite want. All I am am saying is that if there are groups of people in Europe who do not want British entry into the Community and
    696
    who would look for reasons and arguments as to why Britain should not enter, they would find a pretty good case by just reading this afternoon's debate word for word. Hon. Members must have their own standards about these things and decide which is the best way of obtaining British entry.
    Mr. Ridley: Does the Minister remember that when the last application was made speech after speech and attack after attack against the whole principle came from his party?
    Sir D. Glover: And the Minister.
    Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman compare that with the massive support he is now receiving from this side of the House to try to help him achieve his Government's policy?
    Mr. Marsh: I am merely commenting on the discussion which has taken place. I think the whole argument has been that the Bill as it stands makes British entry into the European Economic Community difficult to well-nigh impossible. There is another argument which follows and which as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has pointed out, is very important. That is the significant argument as to how far the Government, engaged in negotiations, should go in drawing up its legislation now in the terms of rules laid down by organisations of which it is not a part, which have rules for their own convenience and in which the Government have no say.
    I should have thought that the Government at the moment must embark on legislation designed to meet the purposes they regard as necessary for the welfare of the British economy and people generally. If subsequently they proceed to negotiate with the Community for British entry there will be a number of problems to settle. That is what negotiation is all about. When one negotiates one works on the assumption that one has something to offer the other chap and tries to work out an arrangement which will suit both parties. One does not argue that one has no right to views of one's own.
    The suggestion that there is something indecent in our drawing up a Bill which will present difficulties for entry is an

    697
    extraordinary constitutional argument. It is a problem closely aligned with that of whether the dangers of failure are so high that the need to have contingency planning and the circulation and obtaining of information on this become a matter of argument. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the present position is so dangerous and difficult that we must have contingency planning on the assumption that we might not get in.
    Mr. Barber: That is not our case. The case was that it is the simplest thing in the world for the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Clause. That would have saved an hour's debate and we could have got on with the real business.
    Mr. Marsh: I do not think that that is so. For example, any of these national organisations present difficulty when one joins an international community. It is no secret that the National Coal Board presents difficulties. The Coal Board presented difficulties last time, and the Iron and Steel Board presented difficulties. When the party opposite was in office the then Minister of Power, the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) said in answer to a supplementary Question:
    "The position is that these powers,"—
    of the Iron and Steel Board—
    "…are clearly incompatible with the treaty of Paris."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1962; Vol. 668, c. 932.]
    The Government then did not wind up the Board as a result. They assumed that this was something they would have to argue.
    Mr. O'Malley: Is it not also true that the proposals put forward by the British Iron and Steel Federation on the eve of the Second Reading of the Bill were also incompatible with the Treaty?
    Mr. Marsh: I do not think that there is any doubt that the Iron and Steel Board is incompatible with the Treaty as it stands. The Federation's proposals for a sort of high authority within the industry at that time would also have been a matter of great difficulty. I accept that the Bill also presents difficulties. In exactly the same way the National Coal Board presents difficulties.
    I was in Luxembourg at this time last week to discuss with the European Coal
    698
    and Steel Community our mutual problems. I led a delegation including the Chairman of the National Coal Board and some of his officials. We discussed reports drawn up after discussions between the European Coal and Steel Community and officials of the Coal Board. We had with us the Chairman of the Iron and Steel Board, sir Cyril Musgrave, who also had his officials with him. All the reports were presented to the Council of Association as joint reports —on the one hand an official of the High Authority and on the other an official of the National Coal Board or the Iron and Steel Board.
    Therefore, very close and real consultation exists. When the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (sir G. Nabarro) says that we cannot live in isolation from the Continent and that what we do in terms of steel is affected by what the Continent does, he is right. Nobody disputes it for a moment; it would be absurd to do so. That is why we have this close and continuing consultation.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Nott: Is it not true to say that in the new Clauses that were debated yesterday and in this new Clause all that the Opposition are seeking is recognition on the part of the Minister of the problems of pricing policy, competition and so on which exist? That is all that we are basically seeking recognition of. But so far the Minister has not agreed with any of these points.
    Mr. Marsh: I can assure the hon. Member that when negotiations begin there will be so many people who will be prepared to point out all the difficulties to us that we do not need the Opposition to join in as well. We know what the difficulties are; everybody does.
    The first point, therefore, is that the consultation takes place.
    The second point is that there were two other items on the agenda for the meeting with the European Coal and Steel Community which hon. Gentlemen opposite want to write into the Bill and which I suggest are already in the Bill. These items were placed on the agenda as a result of submissions by the British. One item concerned world steel prices. The meeting decided to set up a continuing collaboration between officials from

    699
    Britain and officials of the High Authority. This is no exchange of circulars. It is an active working together between officials of the High Authority and the British Government. The second item on the agenda—
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead & Woodford): With regard to that first item, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he and his officials were engaged on in Luxembourg in that connection was regulating international trade to provide a cosy home market at the expense of export opportunities, which is what his predecessor accused the industry of in the debate on 9th November, 1964?
    Mr. Marsh: Hon. Gentlemen opposite started this, arguing that they wanted collaboration with the European Coal and Steel Community. The first attempt to get that collaboration has been welcomed by the European Coal and Steel Community and by British industry, and now the first sour note is sounded by one of the official spokesmen of the Opposition.
    The second item on the agenda—placed there at our request—was the nationalisation of the British Iron and Steel industry. We discussed this in specific terms with the High Authority. In that discussion not one member of the High Authority raised any suggestion that the nationalisation of the British iron and steel industry was a factor which would prevent Britain joining the European Economic Community, and no one made any speech at any time which had anywhere near the degree of difficulty and virulence to be found in the speeches from the Opposition benches. [Interruption.] I am stating a fact. All that I am saying can easily be checked. I do not make mis-statements in public. The arguments and difficulties raised in this House are not raised when one meets foreigners who are involved in these matters.
    Sir G. Nabarro: As the Treaty of Paris in this matter is absolutely explicit as to the 10 per cent. clause, and as the British nationalised steel industry would represent more than 20 per cent., then if no objection was raised in Luxembourg presumably it means that the Prime Minister will be able to dictate to General
    700
    de Gaulle that the Treaty of Paris is scrapped if we go in.
    Mr. Marsh: I suggest that when the hon. Gentleman wishes to quote a document he should bring a copy of it with him. The words of the Treaty of Paris—
    Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman cannot read it all.
    Mr. Marsh: No, but I can read the part that is important, and then when he has got time the hon. Member can read the rest of it himself.
    The part that I propose to quote refers to the question of size, and size of itself is no more a barrier to British entry than ownership of itself is. This is Article 66. It states that:
    "the High Authority is empowered to address to public or private enterprises which, in law or in fact, have or acquire on the market for one of the products subject to its jurisdiction a dominating position which protects them from effective competition in a substantial part of the common market, any recommendation required to prevent the use of that position for purposes contrary to those of this Treaty."
    The argument is not the question of size of itself. It is a difficult and complex series of negotiations, and the way in which the organisation operates is one of the factors.
    Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct.
    Mr. Marsh: If the hon. Gentleman is correct, it will be an unusual experience for him, and he should enjoy it.
    Let me deal with the position that we already face. Of course, the British steel industry under public ownership will be larger than any Continental competitor. But the production of the National Coal Board at the moment is equal to the production of the whole of the Six. The Corporation's production will represent only one-quarter of the combined steel production of the United Kingdom and the Six. I am dealing with this matter only because it was raised at such length by so many hon. Members opposite, and my purpose is to say, to begin with, that there is nothing in the Iron and Steel Bill which prevents British entry into the European Community. If Britain does not join the European Economic Community, whatever the reason is, it certainly will not be because of the Iron and Steel Bill.

    701
    I turn now to some of the specific reasons for not accepting the new Clause.
    Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman said "there is nothing in the Bill". There is nothing in the Bill about the future shape or pattern of the British steel industry. This is being left to the Organising Committee. One of the provisions in the new Clause is to suggest that the Minister should write in the need for this consultation between the Corporation and himself vis-à-vis Europe. Of course he could not discuss it with the Europeans, because he does not know what the facts are going to be.
    Mr. Marsh: I am grateful for that intervention. The point made by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) was fair, that proposals of this type appeared in the Iron and Steel Act, 1953. But the position here is very different. The position of the Corporation is quite different from that of the Iron and Steel Board. The position of the Corporation is much more similar to that of the National Coal Board than to that of the Iron and Steel Board.
    As was said earlier by my colleague who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, it is my intention to have consultations with the High Authority with a view to amendment of the exchange of letters between the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the then President of the High Authority, and to propose that as from vesting day a member of the Corporation shall become an actual member of the Council of Association.
    We have had a debate of a certain length—I will not say a long one. This is a subject about which I know hon. Gentlemen opposite feel strongly. If the intention is that the British nationalised steel industry should have close and continuing contacts and consultations with the European Coal and Steel Community, those are taking place now on specific issues. I am surprised that hon. Gentlement opposite did not know this. It is inconceivable that they should not take place. How could we possibly talk about our own problems of surplus capacity without having such discussions?
    Mr. Ridley: Why not accept the new Clause?
    Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman keeps asking why I do not accept the new Clause. It would be pointless to put into the Bill statements about everything that we already do and that everybody else knows that we do, and that is taken without argument, anyway. Also, we do not want the Corporation to have the same relationships with European Coal and Steel Community as the Iron and Steel Board, because it is a different body from the Iron and Steel Board. It should be recognised that the Corporation is a body —not just a Government agency, but a commercial undertaking—which is operating and has consultations with the European Coal and Steel Community in its own right. This is, of course, what the Corporation will do.
    Our relationship with the European Coal and Steel Community is a very important subject. A belief that any British Government would or could, in or out of the Common Market, act independently of those on the Continent is fallacious. If there is any belief in the House that whether we enter or do not enter the Common Market will be determined on the basis of the nationalisation of iron and steel, that, too, is fallacious.
    On the surface, the new Clause is simple, calling for the circulation of information and for consultations. But information is already circulated and the consultations already take place. I recognise the right of the Opposition to raise what they want to raise, whether they embarrass the Government or not, but it is unfortunate perhaps at this stage that we had to have this debate, related not merely to consultation but including a long and exaggerated catalogue of difficulties which, it is claimed, the Bill presents to British membership of the Common Market.
    Mr. Barber: I am not surprised that the Minister's speech was testy, because he is very conscious of the fact that what he is doing, not only in this Bill but in his statements, about the future organisation of the industry is incompatible with the European system and will make the Prime Minister's task of getting into Europe just that much more difficult. That is why he so carefully skated round the arguments put by my hon. Friends and myself and singularly failed to answer the criticisms made.

    703
    The right hon. Gentleman started by saying that all the speakers on the Opposition side wanted to get Britain into the Common Market. He could not say that of his own supporters. I suppose I shall be told that I am making life more difficult for the Prime Minister in his negotiations if I point out that at least 50 or 60 or 100 or more hon. Members opposite do not want us to enter the Common Market.
    To any Labour Left-wingers who happen to be present—most seem to have gone for the moment—I would say that their substantial objections to joining the Common Market will not affect the negotiations at all. They may have talked incessantly in debate, but never have they marched to take action against the Prime Minister. The result is that, whatever the Prime Minister wants to do, we can be sure that all the Left-wingers will go into the Lobby on this score with him and maintain their £3,000 a year salaries. That is the truth.
    The right hon. Gentleman then said that he objected to my hon. Friends exposing the obstacles to our entry into Europe. How naive can he become? Does he think that the leaders of industry and politics in Europe have not a clue about the obstacles and do not understand them and that it is unpatriotic for anyone on this side or any leader writer in any newspaper to discuss the obstacles? This is as ridiculous as the Foreign Secretary used to be when debating economic affairs, saying that when we said anything reflecting badly on the economy we were "knocking sterling". He spoke as though people abroad did not know what the state of the economy was. My hon. Friends were right to raise the points they did.
    5.45 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman then uttered a significant sentence. He said that he accepted that the Bill presented difficulties. That was an interesting admission, because it confirmed the basis of what we had been saying. The Minister is deliberately embarking on a course which will make it more difficult for us to join Europe. What are people on the Continent to think of a Government who, on the one hand, seek to join the Common Market while, on the other,
    704
    put forward domestic policies which will not make it easy for us to join?
    Mr. Marsh: If negotiations take place all these issues will have to be negotiated. There is no difference between this Measure and the Measure which nationalised the coal industry in this respect. [Interruption.] This is a serious matter. The country is engaged in major international negotiations, and it is not unusual that a Minister should be allowed to say a few words on the subject. There is no specific point in this Bill which would prevent the entry of Britain into the Common Market. It produces the same sort of points which will have to be negotiated as, for example, the National Coal Board or any other concentration of industry of this type.
    Mr. Barber: Perhaps in support of what I am saying I can quote another unpatriotic source, the Financial Times, of 23rd November, 1966. An article then stated:
    "Some stiffening in the powers of the High Authority of the E.C.S.C. (which was set up, like the Steel Board in Britain, in conditions of steel scarcity) is probable, and this will be greatly complicated by the presence of the huge National Steel Corporation; unless the N.S.C. takes the form of three or four competing and largely autonomous groups, it could become an important stumbling block to Britain's entry into the Community."
    I suppose that Mr. Geoffrey Owen, the Industrial Editor of the Financial Times, will also be thought unpatriotic. Presumably it will also be said that he should not have raised this question now.
    I did not say that the Bill or nationalisation as such were obstacles to our entry into Europe. I said that the expressed proposals for the organisation of the steel industry put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, his predecessor and the present Foreign Secretary, who is now going around Europe, without any doubt are in conflict with the European system. Of that there is no doubt.
    I gave the figures. The right hon. Gentleman can talk to anyone in the E.C.S.C. and they will not deny what I have said. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from Article 66 of the Treaty of Paris. That was very interesting, for he did not quote the last few lines of the paragraph. This is something that will be of considerable interest to hon. Members opposite in particular. We all know that the phrase "dominant position" as

    705
    at present interpreted by the E.C.S.C. means something over 10 per cent., although it may change its practice. We would have 22 per cent. of the market if the Bill goes through as it is and the industry is organised as the right hon. Gentleman proposes. We would have a dominant position. This would not prevent us joining the E.C.S.C., but what would follow? I will quote the passage, missing out certain words which are not relevant in this context:
    …the High Authority is empowered to address to public or private enterprises which…have a dominant position which protects them from effective competition in a substantial part of the common market"—
    the United Kingdom is certainly a substantial part—
    "any recommendations required to prevent the use of such position for purposes contrary to those of this Treaty. If such recommendations are not carried out satisfactorily within reasonable time, the High Authority willȆfix the prices and conditions of sale to be applied by the enterprise in question, or draw up production or delivery programmes which it must fulfil."
    That is significant. We can sign the Treaty of Paris and join the E.C.S.C. and have this great monolithic organisation that the right hon. Gentleman wants and which was advocated by his predecessor and the present Foreign Secretary. We can have all these things, but of course it will be not the Minister of Power but the High Authority of the E.C.S.C. which will fix the prices and the conditions of sale and draw up the delivery programmes for the British steel industry. If that is what hon. Members opposite want, all I can say is that I do not go along with them.
    The final comment of the right hon. Gentleman was a complaint against my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). The right hon. Gentleman complained because my hon. Friend had quoted a passage from a speech in a previous debate by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, who is now somewhere in the Department of Economic Affairs. The interesting thing about that is that when he was in Luxembourg a short time ago, according
    to all the newspapers—and he never denied this—the right hon. Gentleman raised the question of a world steel conference, and he was applauded for doing so. The industry was delighted and we were all delighted, and we all thought that it was a very good thing.
    But the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, now somewhere in the Department of Economic Affairs, when Minister of Power, said:
    "The industry's attitude is exemplified by its demands for a world steel conference which would not…be concerned with reducing tariffs and increasing trade, but with regulating international trade to provide a cosy home market at the expense of export opportunities." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 683.]
    It was not my hon. Friend who was doing a disservice to Britain and the British steel industry, but the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor when he made that speech in 1964. I do not expect him to do it, but if the right hon. Gentleman had to comment on that speech, he would, of course, immediately dissociate himself from it, because it was a scandalous thing to say at that time.
    I have not gone over again the points which I raised when I moved the new Clause. I have dealt with the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. I conclude by saying that we entirely reject his complaint against us on this side of the House, or anyone else who writes articles, or who speaks in the country and who sees fit to raise in public the obstacles to our entry into Europe and who seeks to educate the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister and the rest of the Government to do the right thing if they genuinely want to get into Europe. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the substance of my speech in moving the new Clause. What he said was wholly unsatisfactory and I therefore advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 305.

    Division No. 236.]

    AYES

    [5.55 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Batsford, Brian

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Astor, John

    Bell, Ronald

    Blaker, Peter

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n A M'd'n)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Body, Richard

    Balniel, Lord

    Bessell, Peter

    Bossom, Sir clive

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Braine, Bernard

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Brewis, John

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hastings, Stephen

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Hay, John

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Bryan, Paul

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Heseltine, Michael

    Peel, John

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Percival, Ian

    Burden, F. A.

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Peyton, John

    Campbell, Gordon

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Pounder, Rafton

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Holland, Philip

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hordern, Peter

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hornby, Richard

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Clark, Henry

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Ramsden, Rt, Hn. James

    Clegg, Walter

    Hunt, John

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Cooke, Robert

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rve)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Costain, A. P.

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Roots, William

    Crawley, Aldan

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Royle, Anthony

    Crouch, David

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Crowder, F. P.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Kimball, Marcus

    Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kirk, Peter

    Sharples, Richard

    Dance, James

    Kitson, Timothy

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Smith, John

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W, F. (Ashford)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Stainton, Keith

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Stodart, Anthony

    Doughty, Charles

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Longden, Gilbert

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Eden, Sir John

    Loveys, W. H.

    Teeling, Sir William

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Temple, John M.

    Eyre, Reginald

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Farr, John

    MacArthur, Ian

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

    Tilney, John

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Forrest, George

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Fortescue, Tim

    Macmilln, Maurice (Farnham)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Foster, Sir John

    Maddan, Martin

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Marten, Neil

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Maude, Angus

    Wall, Patrick

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Walters, Dennis

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Mawby, Ray

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Webster, David

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Grant, Anthony

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Monro, Hector

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Grieve, Percy

    More, Jasper

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Gurden, Harold

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Wylie, N. R.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Younger, Hn. George

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Murton, Oscar

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Neave, Airey

    Mr. Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Nott, John

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Bacon, Rt. Hn, Alice

    Binns, John

    Albu, Austen

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Bishop, E. S.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Barnes, Michael

    Blackburn, F.

    Alldritt, Walter

    Barnett, Joel

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Allen, Scholefield

    Beaney, Afan

    Boardman, H.

    Anderson, Donald

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Booth, Albert

    Archer, Peter

    Bence, Cyril

    Boston, Terence

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Boyden, James

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Braddock. Mrs. E. M.

    708

    709

    Bradley, Tom

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Moyle, Roland

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Hamling, William

    Murray, Albert

    Brooks, Edwin

    Hannan, William

    Neal, Harold

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Harper, Joseph

    Newens, Stan

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Oakes, Gordon

    Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

    Haseldine, Norman

    O'Malley, Brian

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Oram, Albert E.

    Buchan, Norman

    Hazell, Bert

    Orbach, Maurice

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Orme, Stanley

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Henig, Stanley

    Oswald, Thomas

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Hilton, W. S.

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Cant, R. B.

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Paget, R. T.

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hooley, Frank

    Palmer, Arthur

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Horner, John

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Chapman, Donald

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Park, Trevor

    Coe, Denis

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Coleman, Donald

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Howie, W.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hoy, James

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Cronin, John

    Hunter, Adam

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Jenkins, Hugh (putney)

    Probert, Arthur

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

    Randall, Harry

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

    Rankin, John

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Redhead, Edward

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Judd, Frank

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kelley, Richard

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Delargy, Hugh

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Dell, Edmund

    Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Dempsey, James

    Lawson, George

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Dewar, Donald

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

    Dickens, James

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    Dobson, Ray

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Doig, Peter

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Roebuck, Roy

    Driberg, Tom

    Lipton, Marcus

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Dunn, James A.

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Rose, Paul

    Dunnett, Jack

    Loughlin, Charles

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Luard, Evan

    Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Eadie, Alex

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Ryan, John

    Edelman, Maurice

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hn Ness (Caerphilly)

    McCann, John

    Sheldon, Robert

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    MacColl, James

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Ellis, John

    McCuire, Michael

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'stle-u-Tyne)

    English, Michael

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

    Ennals, David

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Sllkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Ensor, David

    Mackie, John

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Slater, Joseph

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Small, William

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Snow, Julian

    Foley, Maurice

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonehire, W.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Stonehouse, John

    Ford, Ben

    Mal1alieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Forrester, John

    Manuel, Archie

    Swain, Thomas

    Fowler, Gerry

    Mapp, Charles

    Taverne, Dick

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Marquand, David

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mason, Roy

    Thornton, Ernest

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Tinn, James

    Gardner, Tony

    Mellish, Robert

    Tomney, Frank

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Tuck, Raphael

    Ginsburg, David

    Mikardo, Ian

    Urwin, T. W.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Millan, Bruce

    Varley, Eric G.

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Gregory, Arnold

    Molloy, William

    Wallace, George

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Moonman, Eric

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Weitzman, David

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Wellbeloved, James

    710

    711

    Whitaker, Ben

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Woof, Robert

    Whitlock, William

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Yates, Victor

    Wilkine, w. A.

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Winnick, David

    Mr. Charles R. Morris and

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Mr. McBride.

    New Clause No. 7.—(CONSULTATION ON MATTERS CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN COAI. AND STEEL COMMUNITY.)

      New Clause No. 9.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF TRIBUNAL.)
      (1) The Minister shall by regulations provide for the establishment of a Tribunal to determine—

      (a) applications by companies not coming into public ownership to restrain the Corporation or any publicly-owned company from engaging in any such discriminatory practices as are described in section 3(1)(b) of this Act;

      (b) appeals by companies not coming into public ownership against the terms of any notice published under section 13(2) of this Act or served under section 36(2) of this Act.

      (2) If the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that the Corporation or any publicly-owned company has engaged in such discriminatory practices as are described in section 3(1)(b) of this Act, the Tribunal shall so determine and publish its findings and the reasons for its findings and so report to the Minister and to the applicant and to the Corporation, and the Minister and the Corporation shall give effect to the determination.
      (3) If the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that the terms of the notice published under section 13(2) of this Act, or served under section 36(2) of this Act would affect the appellant unfairly, the Tribunal shall so determine and publish its findings and the reasons for its findings and the Minister shall give effect to its determination.
      (4) The Minister and the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies shall provide the Tribunal with all such information and other assistance as the Tribunal may reasonably require for the proper performance of their functions —[Sir J. Hobson.]
      Brought up, and read the first time.
      Sir John Hobson (Warwick and Learnington): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of the new Clause is to provide for the setting up of an independent tribunal which can decide in three different and separate situations between the citizen, on the one hand, who considers that he has been unfairly and unjustly treated or adversely affected and, on the other hand, either the Corporation and the Minister whom he blames for these events. It is not suggested that the proposed tribunal should have any power to award damages or to give any legal remedy. It would simply report and publish its findings and reasons. Either the Corporation or the Minister, which-
      712
      ever is concerned, would then be under an obligation to comply with those findings and to implement a decision.
      There cannot be much doubt that if the tribunal were set up and produced findings the Minister and the Corporation, if under a statutory duty, would comply. The first situation which we think ought to be dealt with is under Clause 3(1,b) of the Bill. Under that Clause there is a duty on the Corporation to see that neither the Corporation nor the publicly-owned company shows any undue preference to or exercises any unfair discrimination against persons who use iron and steel products.
      In particular, they are not to exercise such discrimination in relation to supplies or price. If there is a shortage of supplies, everyone should have a fair ration. They are not to give advantages to one user of steel against another by varying the price between the two. It is an agreed purpose of the Bill, inserted as I understand it by the Government, that there should not be any such preference or discrimination, either by the Corporation or the publicly-owned companies.
      However, the Bill provides that even if such unfair discrimination or preference exists, there is to be no liability upon the Corporation, who are meant to have prevented it. This arises under subsection (3) of the Clause. Not only that, but there is no machinery for deciding whether such unfair discrimination or preference has taken place, there are no sanctions of any sort against it, there is no possibility of any independent investigation into the facts of such a complaint and no possibility of putting it right unless the Corporation decides to do so.
      Complaints may be made against the Corporation so that the Corporation alone, when a complaint is made about its conduct, would have to decide whether it had permitted any of these practices. It must be wrong that in a matter of this importance a complaint against the Corporation should be dealt with by the Corporation alone. The future private sector

      713
      is very worried that there will be discrimination against it. It is also vital for the steel-using industry, the motor car industry and many others, that the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies should treat them equally fairly.
      To make sure of this, we ought to see that reasonable suspicions and firm complaints are investigated, and are seen to be investigated, and that there is no suspicion that they are being covered up. For this reason we propose the tribunal, Which in a sense is an ombudsman for the industry. It could look at files and investigate the complaint and give an independent view, which the citizen who thinks that he has been unfairly treated could rely upon.
      There is no doubt that the mere existence of such an independent tribunal would act as a deterrent and would have a beneficial effect in that it would ensure that such unfair discrimination or preference did not occur. The Minister objected to the principle of this proposal in Committee. First of all there was a suggestion of a different body. We proposed this independent tribunal but his objection to it was that it would undermine the commercial character of the Corporation and its operations. This surely is wrong. It is absurd to take that view if one reads Clause 3(1,b), which expressly provides that ordinary commercial considerations and the public interest are grounds on which the Corporation or the publicly-owned companies may vary terms or conditions of supply or may vary prices between different users.
      If, therefore, the Corporation decides, for proper commercial reasons and for ordinary commercial considerations, to embark on variations or preferences in prices or supplies it can easily show to an independent tribunal that the cause of what appeared to be unfairness was its mere commerical discrimination, and it has nothing to fear from an investigation into the matter. What is aimed at in the new Clause is unfair discrimination or undue preference undertaken for reasons which are not commercial. Against such a practice there is no sanction and no safeguard and no possibility of discovery or investigation. That is what is feared, and that is the purpose for which we think this independent tribunal should exist. We
      714
      think that it is necessary and would be useful in preventing what the Bill is aimed at preventing.
      I said that there were three purposes for which the tribunal might be needed. The second arises under Clause 13, subsection (2) of which gives the Minister the most remarkable delegated powers. He may, by publishing a notice as he thinks best and framed as he judges convenient or expedient, take power to himself to prevent anyone, without his consent, from setting up for the first time, reconstructing, and even from making the smallest addition to any plant, machinery or any premises used in any part of the iron or steel industry. In other words, he is given complete control down to the tiniest detail over any change in the plant and machinery or premises of the private sector.
      Constitutionally, I am astonished that such enormous delegated powers should be given to the Minister on his say-so and by his putting his signature to a document. This provision gives the Minister complete power over the private sector to control it as he pleases. Such a power could, if exercised, result in the private citizen affected going to prison, because he is subject to an injunction. If he disobeys the injunction, the penalty is prison. This power is exercisable by the Minister by a notice incapable of correction at the instance of anybody which will create obligations even on those who have never seen the notice or had it served on them or drawn to their attention. This is the result of giving delegated powers in this form.
      The Select Committee on Delegated Legislation, which reported in 1953 and whose Report has always been accepted as authoritative, dealt with various classes of delegated legislation orders. One of the classes which it mentioned is orders which are deemed to be of special importance—that is, politically or constitutionally important, or important because they may operate to the prejudice of particular persons or classes of person. The Clause 13 power being placed in the Minister's hands is plainly within that category, for two reasons: first, because it is politically important, and, secondly, because it is certainly a power which might be exercised to the prejudice of the private sector.

      715
      The Select Committee said that any powers within that category should be subject to affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament before they operate. Yet, under Clause 13, they are not to be even laid before Parliament for information or to be subject to the negative Resolution procedure or Prayer. This is certainly miles from what the Select Committee suggested for this class of power, namely, that it should be subject to affirmative Resolution by both Houses.
      I am astonished at the moderation of our proposal. We do not even say that Parliament should have control over the exercise of this power by the Minister—a power which, as I have said, the Minister can give to himself as an absolute and unchallengeable right, however injurious it may be to an individual or group of people.
      6.15 p.m.
      Unhappily, we know from experience that all Ministers are not always right. We know that even Ministers who are nearly always right are frequently not always right. We know that even Ministers who are almost nearly always right frequently, by the bluntness of the instrument which they create and by their failure to appreciate the implications of words which they have employed in legislation, may have disastrous effects on individual citizens or groups of citizens. Equally, we know that often Ministers, like most people in power, are reluctant in the extreme, once they have made an order, to have it challenged or altered.
      I should have thought, therefore, that it was necessary to provide for an independent body which can tell a Minister that he has made a mistake, however great or small, and even though it affects only one or two people it is important that the Minister should be told, when taking to himself this absolute power, that there is the chance that an independent body should consider what he has done and advise him that, while it may agree with him almost totally, there is some way in which it can be improved. The tribunal which we propose is certainly less cumbersome and certainly more convenient to the Minister than having to go through the affirmative Resolution procedure in both Houses. But it is a necessary and essential check on
      716
      the exercise of the absolute executive powers conveyed by Clause 13 on the Minister.
      The third matter with which the tribunal should be able to deal is the power given in Clause 36(3). This is an important power, but it is less important than the power which the Minister can confer on himself under Clause 13. By Clause 36, the Minister has power to give notice to a producer requiring him to send to the Minister forecasts of his output, of the capacity of his plant, and of other details of his iron and steel production such as are set out in the notice.
      The Minister can require forms to be filled in. He can require information to be given in detail. He can require it to be given at periodic intervals within a limit of time. Suppose that the unfortunate citizen feels that this is hard on him and is totally unnecessary. It is a criminal offence if he does not obey the Minister's letter. The Minister may say, "You tell me this, that and the other". If the citizen does not do it, he commits a criminal offence. This is an uncontrolled power given to a Minister by delegated legislation to create a criminal offence and to put people in peril of the dock.
      If individuals or any class of people think that they are being unfairly treated and that the whole process is a lot of mumbo-jumbo, an independent body—I should have preferred Parliament to do it—such as a tribunal set up by the Minister should be able to look into the matter and adjudicate between the citizen who complains and the Minister.
      These are important matters. In our constitution in this country we have always tried to provide checks and balances between the Executive and the citizen who is affected by the Executive. I submit that in these circumstances it is right that on these occasions there should be a small check and balance, in the form that we have put forward, upon the absolute executive powers which the Minister is taking to himself by the Bill.
      Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Whenever I read in a Bill the magic words, "It shall be the duty of the Corporation or of the Minister" or "It shall be incumbent upon the Corporation

      717
      and the Minister", I always ask myself, "Is this just propaganda? Is this propaganda in the form of legislation, or is it law making in the sense that if the duty is broken there is some sanction provided?" If no sanction is provided, and if any possibility of sanctions is positively removed, as in Clause 3, it means that when we say that we are legislating, we are not legislating at all, but are just putting in the form of pious propaganda what is law.
      It therefore seems to me that this raises an important principle, not merely for this Bill but for all the Bills which have gone before and all those, I fear, which w ill come after by which duties are imposed upon public persons and public bodies, but in which there is no remedy if the duty is broken. That is why it seems to me that we are here seeking to create an important and salutary precedent which might be imported into many other Bills concerning public authorities, not merely saying that there is to be a sanction but also seeking to redress the possibility of tyranny and oppression, and seeking to redress it in such a way that the citizen or the company has redress as of right and not merely if he excites some hon. Member to raise a matter in the House, with all the chances and lack of chances that that machinery so often affords.
      For Clause 3, what is suggested here seems to me very similar to what the Monopolies Commission can do in respect of private corporations. The Monopolies Commission is not empowered to examine the behaviour of nationalised industries. I have always thought that that part of the Act which deals with the abuse of monopoly position should be capable of being used for the purpose of seeing whether nationalised industries abuse their monopoly position. It is only too true to say that there is not much point in using the other part of the Act, which is for the purpose of inquiring whether a monopoly exists. Obviously it does exist, and will exist under the Bill, even though in this case it is not a complete monopoly, because the new Corporation will certainly be over one-third of the market.
      But the Act setting up the Monopolies Commission goes on to say that the question is not merely whether there is a monopoly. Obviously there is a monopoly here, within the definition of a
      718
      monopoly. The question is also whether that monopoly is abusing its power. Clause 3(1,b) is almost a classic example of the danger of a monopoly, in the technical sense of the word, abusing its powers by discriminating in respect of its products in favour of people it likes or against people who, for some reason or another, it dislikes. The Monopolies Commission can examine just that point under the Act.
      I should have preferred that the new Steel Corporation and many of the old nationalised industries were susceptible of investigation by the Monopolies Commission in respect of the abuse of a monopolies position. Certainly some of the electricity boards and some of the behaviour of the Post Office might well be so examined.
      But I see that you are a little restless, Mr. Speaker, and I hasten to return to the new Clause. If the Monopolies Commission is not to be able to do this, then some other tribunal should do it. It is much the same task. Perhaps this tribunal would be a sort of Monopolies Commission for the nationalised industries as a whole.
      I do not think that I have ever seen anything quite as strong as subsection (3)— though I may be wrong—in positively withdrawing any sanction that might exist. I know that there is always a dispute between lawyers when a statutory duty is imposed in so many ways on a public authority. There is always a dispute whether that gives the private citizen who is damnified by what he considers a breach of that duty, the right to go to the courts. This is always a matter of dispute.
      Here the dispute has been resolved by the Government in the most brutal fashion by their saying that there shall be no remedy at all. Perhaps, these being economic matters and being very sensitive matters, the Government do not feel that the judges are the right people to look at them, although I do not agree with that suggestion. But surely they cannot have that objection to the tribunal proposed here, which would have no power other than that of drawing public attention to what is going on.
      That is a sanction, but it is a fairly frail sanction. Surely the Minister is not so frightened of the activities of his

      719
      Corporation that he will shy away from that. It will be a very good test of his bona fides in the matter, particularly under Clause 3, if he objects to treating his Corporation in the same way as that in which the Monopolies Commission treats I.C.I. or Unilever or the tobacco companies, for example. Why should not his Corporation have that treatment? The Monopolies Commission has not much more power than this tribunal would have, but there is the very salutary sanction of publicity, and we feel that that is the very minimum that we should demand.
      For that, among other reasons, I strongly support the new Clause.
      Mr. John H. Osborn: I listened with interest to the speeches on the new Clause by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke).
      We have discussed in Committee the question of fair competition and of ensuring fair competition and all the powers that should be given to the Minister. I first raised the issue of discrimination when we were discussing Clause 3. In Clause 3(1,b) there is a reference to the fact that
      "neither the Corporation nor a publicly-owned company shall show undue preference to or exercise unfair discrimination against…"
      Subsection (3) begins:
      "Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be construed as imposing upon the Corporation any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court."
      6.30 p.m.
      I raised this whole question early on in the Standing Committee, when we put up an Amendment, No. 109, to insert:
      "and any question whether or not the Corporation have complied with their duties under this paragraph shall be determined by the Arbitration Tribunal".
      At that time we were referring to the tribunal which had been set up under a previous Act and would have operated under Clause 28. The Minister originally, I think, was a little bit dubious about the purpose of this, but I hope now, after the remarks in the Committee, he will give this case his very careful consideration. The Minister later showed
      720
      concern that I was so worried about the private sector because he felt I was setting about ensuring that the private sector should be able to operate unfairly against the public sector. It was in the early hours of the morning that he said that, and I can understand that he could have felt a little short-tempered, but I can assure him that the aim of hon. Members on this side was and is to ensure that there should be fair competition, in favour neither of the private sector nor of the public sector.
      We have discussed the issues—the prices at which goods are to be sold from one customer to another, the prices of raw materials made available to one manufacturer compared with another, bearing in mind that many of the raw materials, including iron ore, would be under the Corporation; then there is the question of the availability of finance, and will the public sector be able to obtain loans at favourable interests rates which will be denied to the private sector? Then, of course, there is the danger of discrimination between one public body outside the steel industry against the private sector of the steel industry.
      These various points were raised in the Committee, but when there is disagreement whether there has been fair or unfair competition it is vital that that disagreement should be resolved rapidly, and my own view is that resolving the matter by going to the courts would not be speedy and therefore would frustrate the private sector—as it would be in this instance.
      We made reference from time to time to the report, "The manufacturing powers of the nationalised industries", published by the C.B.I. some time ago. In section 6, on page 16, it stresses that
      "A system of enforcement would be necessary to see that those criteria were in fact followed. This would be best put in the hands of an independent body with a small permanent staff or panel of professional advisers. Its tasks would be (i) To establish the standard return on capital for an industry and to review it from time to time, (ii) To act as an appeal tribunal for complaints against nationalised undertakings of unfair trading, and in particular of preferential treatment where arms length trading is prescribed".
      We have this document behind us, and it prompted us to propose new Clause No. 5 with a view to setting up a tribunal but, unfortunately, it was not called. However, when Clause 28 was being discussed

      721
      in Committee I raised this matter with the Minister, and he said:
      "Notwithstanding, the point he raises"—
      he meant me—
      "is a clear one, and, of course, I would be willing to meet and discuss with the private sector this or any other point it may raise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 13th December, 1966; c. 2288.]
      In December, this was a matter of concern to those operating the private sector. The outcome of this was that the private sector made a protest to the Minister. He referred to this in Committee. It wrote subsequently, and I do not know the contents of the letter or the contents of any reply the Minister sent. Subsequently, the Minister reminded us in Committee of the absolute powers of discretion he had over the public sector as well as the private sector, and this prompted many outside this House to insist that there should be some outside body to ensure that there should be fair competition and fair treatment, and those are the sentiments behind this new Clause, which relates not only to Clause 3(1,b) but also to Clause 13 relating to capital development and also to Clause 36(2) relating to the furnishing of information.
      This argument about the need for this has been put over very lucidly, but I think it relevant to outline a typical problem which has faced the private sector of the steel industry within the last 48 hours. I refer to the Millom Hematite Ore and Iron Company, in Millom. It could well be that a decision of the Iron and Steel Board under the 1953 Act is a classic example of the sort of decision which would frustrate and kill private enterprise.
      I delay in expressing any opinion on the rights and wrongs of this decision because it could be wrong to do so in detail as I have not enough information, but, as I said in Standing Committee, I have been privileged to sit on the Council of the British Iron and Steel Research Association for a year or 18 months and have been able to witness the enthusiasm of those who have developed the concept of spray melting. I had the privilege to meet Dr. Pearson, amongst other people, and have seen how this particular process had been developed in Hoyle Street, Sheffield. I believe I referred on Second
      722
      Reading to the enthusiasm there was about it, and I certainly did so in Committee.
      There are various aspects with which big manufacturers have been preoccupied, in the early stage of insulation, the electric arc, the L.D. furnace and the Kaldo furnace. They have been preoccupied by the fact that they are likely to have surplus capacity. Rightly or wrongly they were not inclined at that time to give this new technique of continuous melting a trial.
      This small company in Millom decided to take it on and give it a try and on 12th October last year they had an open day. The Press were impressed. There has been a series of articles which appeared in the Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Financial Times, even the Sheffield Telegraph, a paper well known in the Standing Committee, in The Guardian, a more detailed article in the Observer, and the New Scientist. They said that there were aspects of this which showed great promise. I have seen the enthusiasm amongst those associated with this in B.I.S.R.A., without reservation as the process developed.
      In The Times, on 18th January, there was this remarkable statement, that this steelmaking plant, a British invention,
      "is the most exciting new development the world iron and steel industry has seen for many years, is being held back from commercial development by the Iron and Steel Board…World-wide interest has been aroused…"
      It seems to be absolutely incredible that a decision of this type should be made. The Board issued last night the reasons for this, and they are reasons which hon. Members on this side will have to study very carefully, and that is why I shall not be unduly critical of the reasons.
      On the other hand, the Sheffield Telegraph was able to comment in a leader—I was surprised it said it—
      "The Iron and Steel Board's kiss of life."
      I am not sure that it is the kiss of life for this small company which took a chance to develop this process because it thought it fitted in with its own requirements. The article said:
      "So what seemed the kiss of death becomes the kiss of life, and Britain has need of it."

      723
      Finally, it said:
      "All the world loves a fighter, and there will be much sympathy with Millom in its fight to secure its spray refining."
      A decision has been made by the Iron and Steel Board, and last night I received a letter from the managing director of Millom, Mr. Davies. Subsequently, I telephoned him and he told me of his disappointment. I have no doubt that he is an energetic person. His company has taken the trouble to develop the process and take it through its first stage. He is now denied the right of developing it further, for whatever reason.
      If a little firm takes a chance like that, and is crushed by the decision of an autocratic body, whether it is the Iron and Steel Board which was set up by the 1953 Act, or some other body which would result from decisions by the Minister under Clause 13 of the Bill, it is vital that, somehow or other, that firm should have some redress. I raised the question because we have to ask ourselves if decisions of the Iron and Steel Board or decisions of the Minister under the Bill are right ones, and how we are to know whether they are right ones.
      The other interesting point about that case is that it proves that the Iron and Steel Board really has the powers which the Socialist Government said that it had not and which justified the nationalisation of steel. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) put forward the idea that a stronger Iron and Steel Board might be the best solution for nationalising the steel industry. I would suggest that the Millom case shows that, if necessary, the Iron and Steel Board has those teeth and has used them.
      As I see it, under Section 6(4) of the 1953 Act, if the Board refuses its consent to any such proposal it must state in writing its reasons to the person making the proposals. The procedure is outlined. In the case to which I have referred, under the Act, Millom may now appeal to the Minister if it does not like the decision of the Iron and Steel Board.
      In the present Bill, Clause 13(5) says:
      "…the Minister shall, before giving or refusing his consent, consider the report of the person so appointed".
      But, under the new Act, we must still have an independent body acting as an
      724
      arbitration tribunal to ensure that, in such a case, there has been fairness.
      This is the first example of many instances where the Minister or a body set up by him will frustrate energetic development and success. Although Lancashire Steel is setting up a larger unit and has had Iron and Steel Board approval for it, and although other steel firms are said to be interested in it, at the time of taking the decision it was one small firm which elected to take up the process which had been developed by B.I.S.R.A. It has taken a risk, and it will now pay dearly for taking that risk. What redress has the private sector in this or in other instances when decisions, whether justified or not in terms of administrative or planning convenience, are taken?
      I ask the Minister to outline what sort of procedure he visualises under the Bill where a private company takes a chance and receives world wide acclaim. I think that scientists, technologists and engineers will admit that there is still much development to do, and it could be right that other firms should do it—
      Mr. Shaw: Am I correct in assuming that not only would the company lose if it is not allowed to go on with its development but, quite apart from its own development, the whole scheme would be held back, because this is the only practical application which so far has been made?
      Mr. Osborn: It would. However, if a small company has developed know-how over a period of time, it means that it has a lead which it would now wish to exploit and maintain.
      I have told the House about an experience which I had over ten years ago when I thought that I had a process which had a technological lead. To maintain that lead, the essence was speed. With an enthusiastic managing director and company, the need is to give them every possible chance so that there will not be time for other firms, despite their larger technological and financial resources, to catch up and overtake. Given time, someone else may take on the process, and the firm's technological lead slips back.
      The background to the example which I have referred to is a mixed one, because it was the enthusiasm of people in the

      725
      B.I.S.R.A. which developed it. However, it shows the relationship which exists between a small firm and its research association.
      The real point is that a decision has been taken. The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will be concerned, because, if the company has been hit on the head, it will have a setback which will mean closures and shutdowns. We now come back to sociological and regional problems, because no one knows what other interests in the area will be affected. Has the Iron and Steel Board considered that point? It is an example of the serious problems which will be before the country when the Bill becomes law.
      6.45 p.m.
      Sir John Eden: I have listened with a great deal of interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) had to say. I was glad that he cited this case as an example of the sort of disputes and differences which could occur in the future between the private sector and the public authority, whatever may be devised to take the place of the Iron and Steel Board in the future.
      Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman says that it is an example of what could happen under the Government's Bill. In fact, it is a good example of what has happened under the Conservative Government's Iron and Steel Act.
      Sir J. Eden: We are concerned to see the sort of procedure that is likely to be established in the future for settling a difference of this kind as a result of the passing of this Bill into law. That is why we press this Clause on the Government. We want to see established some judicial form of procedure by which such a dispute can be resolved without the aggrieved party having to turn to the Corporation or to the Minister for final judgment. The Corporation, of course, would be a very interested party.
      I thought that the example given by my hon. Friend was an extremely appropriate one. Here is a small private enterprise company which has embarked upon a new venture at considerable risk to itself, though admittedly in conjunction with and with the active support of the
      726
      British Iron and Steel Research Association. It has been extremely successful. The result of the company's labours and ingenuity has led to the installation of a spray refining system at its works. It is the only installed working process of which I have knowledge.
      What the company wanted was to get assistance to develop it still further, and it needed £1 million for the purpose. Consent for that was withheld by the Iron and Steel Board. There may have been reasons for it.
      Mr. J. H. Osborn: I have not got—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow hon. Gentlemen to pursue this case in detail. We must link it now to the need for a tribunal to settle this kind of case.
      Sir J. Eden: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, before I continue, I might hear my hon. Friend's intervention?
      Mr. Speaker indicated assent.
      Mr. Osborn: I have not got the Press release before me, but I believe that the expression was "deferred", rather than "held back."
      Sir J. Eden: I think that it is also the company's view that "deferment" is a polite way of saying "no". That was the implication, but I hope that the deferment will ultimately lead to the matter going ahead. It was not my intention to go into the detail of the process. It was clearly outlined by my hon. Friend, and he gave full emphasis to its significance. The point I wish to make is that this decision was taken not by the company concerned using its commercial judgment, but by a quasi-official body which had been established to act as a sort of go-between between the private enterprise steel industry and the Government, and we are worried about the establishment of just such a procedure in the future. That was essentially a bureaucratic decision, and not a commercial one, and I want to ensure that where a company comes up against something like that it will be able to take its case to a proper body to get the dispute resolved.
      During the Committee stage the Minister went out of his way—after a considerable amount of debate—to reassure the Committee that he was interested in the industry as a whole, and not just in

      727
      the public sector; that he was as concerned about the healthy growth of those companies which would remain in the private sector as he was to ensure the satisfactory development of the Corporation and its publicly-owned companies. I have no doubt that that is correct, and he went some way to try to meet us on the point that there should be proper appeal procedure in the event of a dispute arising.
      We are grateful to the Minister for the steps which he has taken along those lines, but I have here the copy of HANSARD which records the speech made by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power. The hon. Gentleman referred frequently to his belief that the introduction of some kind of formal arbitration machinery such as is proposed in this Clause would severely restrict the commercial freedom of the Corporation
      "in a way contrary to the principles on which we"—
      that is, the Government—
      "wish to see it operating."
      The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
      "If we were to sew up any kind of price structure, adding on top of the publication of price lists, on top of whatever machinery may be created by the Minister with the industry, further machinery for arbitration of disputes between producers, we should get a quite unworkable machine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 17th November, 1966; c. 748–9.]
      I could quote other references to show that that apparently was the view of the Government. I take it from that that they were certain that disputes would arise.
      The Bill contains Clauses about nondiscrimination, but I am not convinced that the arguments put forward in Committee are strong enough to make me accept that this non-discrimination should not be enforceable. I should like to see established some independent, formal procedure to enforce non-discrimination on prices and on other areas of dispute which are likely to arise between the private sector, the Corporation, and any one or all of the publicly-owned companies.
      I do not believe that the Consumer Council is the proper body for this. The Minister might call the Consumers' Council in aid, but this Council has no power to redress grievances. It will only be able to report back to the Corporation or
      728
      to the Minister. What we are calling for in this Clause is something infinitely stronger. We say that if the tribunal finds in favour of the appellant, and finds that he has been discriminated against, it
      "shall so determine and publish its findings and the reasons for its findings…and the Minister…shall give effect to the determination."
      That is much stronger, much more positive, and much more in keeping with our sense of fair play and justice. That is what we want enshrined in the Bill, because once the Bill becomes law there will be established a nationalised manufacturing industry which will be in a substantially dominant position over a comparatively small, though none the less important and significant, private sector.
      We want to ensure that where, in the private sector, there are developments of the kind to which my hon. Friend has referred, and which I, to, have mentioned, there is no discrimination against them. We want to ensure that if there is a likelihood of discrimination against the private sector on pricing, there will be a proper, effective, and independent arbitration procedure to decide on the appellant's case. I have strong reasons for supporting the Clause, and in view of the interest which the Minister has displayed in securing the future health of the private sector, I hope that he will accept it.
      Sir G. Nabarro: To put the matter in its correct perspective, I think that we ought to say now that 93 per cent. of the industry is to be nationalised, and 7 per cent. of it is to remain in private hands, if we use as a measurement the output or manufacture of steel. This will put the public sector, not in a position of a very substantial majority, as my hon. Friend said, but in a position of overwhelming supremacy. It will be able to crush the private sector by many direct and specific, or overt, practices.
      I have intervened in the debate at this late stage for one reason, and I propose to do so very shortly, for I am no lawyer. I fear that the Minister will say that a tribunal of the kind suggested in the Clause is not really a practicable proposition, that it has no proper precedents. I want to draw his attention to the best possible analogy, to an Act of Parliament put through this House by his party, the Race Relations Act, 1965. This Statute seeks

      729
      to protect 750,000 coloured people in this country from discrimination against them by an overwhelming majority of 53 million white people. It does that by the establishment of a Race Relations Board. Reading back through that Act, I find the words "discrimination", "discriminating", and "discriminatory" used over and over again.
      That is exactly the position, in a material context, in which the private sector of the steel industry will find itself if the Bill reaches the Statute Book. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary to le Ministry of Power is so mirthful about what I am saying. Why is he giggling? After all, he was promoted only a few days ago. His name, Mr. Reginald Freeson, is the second name on the Race Relations Act, 1965 (Amendment), Bill which was brought to this House during this Session. I am in good order, Mr. Speaker, because the Bill has been withdrawn, and I may therefore allude to it. It is no longer before the House. The hon. Gentleman's was the second name to that Bill, and if one reads it as it was printed, one finds the word "discrimination" used over and over again.
      I claim that that is a precise analogy to the private sector of the steel industry, although the one is a moral and ethical issue with which I am much in sympathy—the racial relations issue—and the other, about which we are talking tonight, is an utterly material, industrial and commercial issue. I hope that we shall not have any nonsense from the Minister of Power to the effect that there are no respectable precedents for the kind of judicial tribunal suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Marsh: This is an important subject, and it is quite right that the House should be mindful of a Bill of this type which can affect the interests of people, whether it be many people or a few. In this case most of the appellants would hardly be widows and orphans, but that does not make much difference in terms of numbers involved. It is important that there should be proper accountability for decisions which affect people's livelihoods, and that these should be made public. What we are arguing about is the way in which this should be achieved.
      730
      Much concern has been expressed by the private sector. As I said yesterday, the fears expressed are unjustified. People in the private sector have made representations to me on this matter, however, and the Government have done what they could, and they will continue to do what they can, to see how far they can meet those fears. One fear is that the Corporation will be encouraged to operate to the detriment of the private sector. There is a constant fear that it is necessary to protect the private sector against the encroachments of this very large organisation.
      Although I have said it many times in Committee it has not been accepted by many in the private sector that the Minister of Power is also the sponsoring Minister for the steel industry and that there is no sense in maintaining a private sector of that industry and then allowing it either to be destroyed or wither away. If the Government decided that they did not want a private sector in the steel industry, the thing to do would be to nationalise the lot. The Government have taken a conscious decision not to do so. That means that they have taken a considered decision that the private sector is as important as the public sector to the economy of the nation.
      I make this point in general terms because, underlying many of the pressures that have been created, there is a fear that the Government, consciously or unconsciously, would allow the private sector to be destroyed.
      Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I do not understand the Minister's argument about the impartiality of a sponsoring Minister. The Minister of Aviation is the sponsoring Minister both of the nationalised corporations and the independent operators, but does the right hon. Gentleman really say that the Minister of Aviation has never favoured the nationalised corporations?
      Mr. Marsh: I do not want to comment on a Department other than my own. It is as much as I can do to keep up with mine. I merely say that a very real fear exists in this matter, and that I genuinely believe that it is completely misplaced. The private sector of the steel industry is essential to the effectiveness of the industry as a whole. It has a special part to play. It sometimes makes special

      731
      products and special steels, and its help is essential to the whole industry.
      It follows that we must decide how far the Minister and Parliament can be relied upon to keep the ring so as to ensure that the views of people aggrieved by decisions are taken into account and that questions are settled impartially, where they can be. I shall come to the question of partiality in a moment.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), whose ingenuity in raising questions of this type I learned to admire in Committee, raised a specific and important point which was indicative of the argument that he was putting forward. I have said that this arose out of an existing Act—something already with us. An hon. Member had asked what could be done in the case of an aggrieved person—although in this case the person would be a company—against a decision of this type? What is being done is exactly what the hon. Member has been doing—quite rightly—namely, to raise this issue in Parliament, because the Minister is responsible to Parliament. The Iron and Steel Board is responsible for its activities to the Minister. The Board has not taken a final decision on this matter, and I cannot pursue it. I cannot judge the issue, precisely because this decision may well be referred to me.
      Sir J. Hobson: The difficulty is that under the 1953 Act any decision of the Board which affects a citizen is subject to appeal to the Minister, who has then, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, to listen to representations from both sides, just as the Minister of Housing and Local Government takes quasi-judicial decisions. One then has a form of appeal, and it is not merely a question of administration.
      Mr. Marsh: Perhaps I may leave the particular and return to the generality. When these matters are raised in Parliament Ministers have to stand up and justify their actions. That is one of my arguments about the responsibility of Parliament.
      My objection to the Amendment, and to the creation of this intervening body, is precisely that in the question of discriminatory practices, for example, we have all agreed—some more enthusiastic-
      732
      ally than others—that one important thing about this exercise is that we are now nationalising a different type of industry. There must be a recognition of the fact that there has to be a maximum amount of commercial operation consistent with public responsibility. We have discussed how this can be achieved, and there have been differences of opinion on the point.
      We cannot run a nationalised steel industry as a social service. It is a manufacturing industry, and must be run as such. When I say that we are going to run it in this way it follows that the Corporation and the companies must have a degree of freedom over pricing. Yesterday, it was suggested by hon. Members opposite that there must be complete freedom between different groups on the subject of pricing. We accept all this. That being so, these groups must have the right to charge different prices, or to discriminate against certain of their consumers, if there is a good commercial reason for so doing.
      People who feel that they are being discriminated against unfairly must then have some way in which to ensure that their grievances are aired. They can do this either by representation to the Minister or by way of the Consumer's Council, or both. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said that he did not see the Consumer Council as a body which could be—
      Sir G. Nabarro: The Minister has got it wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) made the point about the Consumer's Council. The analogy that I made was to the Race Relations Board. That is a much more accurate analogy, because that Board has judicial force behind it the Consumer's Council has not.
      Mr. Marsh: With respect, I would have thought that the Consumer's Council, which has been accepted as a method of redressing the grievances of consumers in the nationalised industries—
      Sir G. Nabarro: Not by me. No, Sir.
      Mr. Marsh: All I can say is that this has been accepted and not changed. Hon. Gentlemen have been for 13 years in charge of this body. If they have been discontented, they have at any rate

      733
      accepted that this has been the natural way of representation. The analogy is closer with the other nationalised industries than with the Race Relations Board and discrimination, which is a different subject. The Consumer's Council is charged specifically with a duty to consider any matter affecting the interests of consumers, including prices. When the Minister receives the report of the Council he is then empowered to give directions on any matter which arises.
      At present, therefore, the decisions in relation to aggrieved bodies are made public. Changes have been made in the Bill to ensure that the Minister's reasons for rejection or acceptance are published. There is the right of appeal to the Consumer Council and the obligation upon it to inform the Minister, who then has the ability to direct the Corporation in specific cases.
      However, what we are arguing about then is how far this satisfies the position—
      Sir G. Nabarro: Not at all.
      Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view, but this is a serious subject and if one does not agree that people have the right degree of access to appeal it is wrong to defend the issue.
      I believe that such a tribunal would cut across the direct personal responsibility of the Minister to Parliament. If the hon. Member for Hallam at some stage were dissatisfied with the decision reached in a case, and wanted to pursue it, he would rightly demand to know what the Minister had done and challenge this as direct Ministerial responsibility. Development and the withholding of consent for development are important decisions to the industry and to the economy, but the important thing is that Ministers or Governments must accept responsibility for these decisions and not say that "some other tribunal has decided." As to the analogy with housing and local government, that Minister is hearing an inspector and taking a decision—
      Sir J. Hobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain, as he is making the point that the tribunal is unnecessary because the Consumer's Council exists, what the Council would have to do with powers under Clauses l3 and 36?
      Mr. Marsh: I was talking of Clause 3. I will come on to the other secondary points in terms of forecasts and statistics and the question of withholding consent. These are major decisions which should be taken; the Minister must have control and the Government has to stand for them.
      There is a special situation, however, in relation to Clause 3, as it affects the private sector companies which may be not only in competition with the nationalised sector, but also dependent on it for supplies of raw materials and semifinished products. I hope to announce concessions. There is a later new Clause, in the discussion on which I hope to make a statement and subsequently to table an Amendment which will relieve some of the difficulties and fears of the private sector.
      Basically, if the argument is that the Corporation would want deliberately to conduct its operations to the detriment of the private sector, it is an untenable one. Second, the procedure for protection in the Bill at the moment is adequate. Third, the type of appeals tribunal as suggested in the Amendment has no precedent. I do not condemn it for this, but given the machinery for consumer representation—these consumers are pretty powerful—and the fact that the Minister can give directions and is answerable to Parliament in such cases as the example referred to by the hon Member for Hallam, the new Clause is unnecessary and will, if anything, detract from the responsibilities of the Minister.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Barber: I am disappointed—as I am sure the industry will be—at the Minister's reaction to the cogent arguments advanced from this side in support of the new Clause. After all, its sole object is to ensure fair competition between the public and private sectors. The Clause has the avowed object of providing equity for the 200 smaller iron and steel companies which will continue under a capitalist system. We know that such a proposal is anathema to many hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "I am the sponsoring Minister. It is my duty to look after the private as well as the public sector and see that there is fair play between them."

      735
      I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity. When he says that he wants a good, healthy private sector, I know that he means it and will do his best to ensure it, but he is not the only Minister who will be Minister of Power and operating the Bill. There may well be others. Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman, unhappily, were not well for a week or two and his new Parliamentary Secretary was in charge. Is it seriously believed that his Parliamentary Secretary would be likely to exercise any judgment between the public and private sectors in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. Marsh rose—
      Mr. Barber: Let me finish. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will intervene in a moment on this point. I should like, first, to complete my argument.
      As I said the other day, the Parliamentary Secretary—presumably his views have not changed: if they have he can say so—said to his electors in his election address—[Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs. Perhaps he did not mean it. However, what he said was:
      "We reject the selfish, greedy doctrines of capitalism."
      This is the 10 per cent. of the iron and steel industry which will be under the sponsorship of the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Marsh: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend would take decisions, if I were incapacitated, with even more efficiency than I. My argument was not that Ministers have an attraction to the private sector, that they feel fond of it and some are nicer to it than others, but that the whole reason for maintaining the private sector is that it is an integral part of the steel economy and essential to it. No Minister would want, while there is a private sector of this size, to see it lose any efficiency—not because he has an affection for it, but because it is necessary.
      Mr. Barber: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could clear this up simply. He says that he will be fair between the public and the private sectors. Would he quite clearly say whether or not he agrees with his hon. Friend's reference to the "selfish, greedy doctrines of
      736
      capitalism"? Let him "come clean" and say so. This is very important. Does he agree or not?—We take it, then, that the right hon. Gentleman is embarrassed by his hon. Friend and we leave it at that. Otherwise, of course, the Minister would have answered my question. This is highly relevant.
      When the Minister says that it is his policy to promote what he calls a healthy, viable private sector, I accept that assurance, but I most certainly do not accept it from many right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. We know, from what they have said, that they would do everything they possibly could to extend public ownership. However, I leave it at that. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions.
      The right hon. Gentleman may laugh, but the proposal we have put forward is of immense importance to the private sector of industry. The right hon. Gentleman has already gone some way in the new Clauses he has proposed to meet the fears of the private sector, and for that we are grateful; but among these 200 companies in the private sector, there is still a genuine fear that the all-powerful Steel Corporation, bolstered by the unlimited resources of the Exchequer, will squeeze many of them out of business. That is what they believe, and there is the genuine fear that there will be unfair discrimination by the Steel Corporation not only on the question of prices, but also in other ways. If this were to happen, then the very size of the Corporation, and the resources behind it, would always ensure that it won.
      The possibility of unfair discrimination cannot be considered in isolation. It must be considered together with the unlimited powers in Clause 2 of the Bill, which enable the Corporation to take over and to control any company in the country —and when I say "any company", I mean literally any company in the country.
      The Minister has always maintained that the great safeguard here arises from the fact that such a take-over could only be by agreement. Of course, if the Steel Corporation were artificially to cut its prices of those products manufactured by a competing company in the private sector, it would not have the slightest difficulty in artificially depressing the

      737
      value of the shares of that company, so forcing that company to its knees and acquiring it at a knock-down price.
      That is the sort of thing of which those in the private sector are genuinely afraid. The right hon. Gentleman can laugh when I quote from the views of some of his hon. Friends, and of his Parliamentary Secretary in particular, but the people outside who are affected by these views do not laugh. They may be wrong, but they take them as being the genuine opinions of the Minister concerned, in this case the Parliamentary Secretary. He thought they were of sufficient importance to include then in his election address. I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh about election addresses, about the pledges they give. They say, "It is all a little bit of Parliamentary fun; we are in for a few more years with a majority of 100, so the electors do not matter". I say in all sincerity that unless the hon. Gentleman withdraws in due course what he said—not necessarily tonight —it will cause a good deal of embarrassment to the right hon. Gentleman.
      The right hon. Gentleman has already recognised the necessity for legislating against undue preference and unfair discrimination. Why not take this further step of providing for the oversight of these matters by a wholly independent tribunal which would command the respect of both the nationalised sector and the private sector? There are bound to be occasions when a private enterprise company is not content with the Minister's action concerning, for example, the limitation of the provision of new capacity. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) for raising this matter, which has arisen under the 1953 Act and which is the sort of thing that can arise.
      I very much regret that the Minister has not accepted at least the principle of the Clause, and, in the light of his reply, I must ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to take the matter to a Division.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 302.

      Division No. 237.]

      AYES

      [7.24 p.m.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Crouch, David

      Gurden, Harold

      Astor, John

      Crowder, F. P.

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Awdry, Daniel

      Currie, G. B. H.

      Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

      Baker, W. H. K.

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Balnief, Lord

      Dance, James

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Batsford, Brian

      Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera

      Belt, Ronald

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Hastings, Stephen

      Bitten, John

      Doughty, Charles

      Hawkins, Paul

      Blggs-Davison, John

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Hay, John

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Drayson, G. B.

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Blaker, Peter

      du Cam, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Heseltine, Michael

      Body, Richard

      Eden, Sir John

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshatton)

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Braine, Bernard

      Farr, John

      Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Fisher, Nigel

      Holland, Philip

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fletcher-Cooks, Charles

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Forrest, George

      Hordern, Peter

      Bryan, Paul

      Fortescue, Tim

      Hornby, Richard

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N & M)

      Foster, Sir John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'ffrord & Stone)

      Hunt, John

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Burden, F. A.

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Campbell, Gordon

      Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Channon, H. P. G.

      Glyn, Sir Richard

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Jopling, Michael

      Clark, Henry

      Goodhart, Philip

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Clegg, Walter

      Goodhew, Victor

      Kerby, Capt. Henry

      Cooke, Robert

      Grant, Anthony

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Costain, A P.

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Grieve, Percy

      Kirk, Peter

      Crawley, Aldan

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Kitson, Timothy

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Lambton, Viscount

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

      Langford-Hott, Sir John

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Teeling, Sir William

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Temple, John M.

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

      Pardoe, John

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Thorpe, Jeremy

      Longden, Gilbert

      Peel, John

      Tilney, John

      Loveys, W. H.

      Percival, Ian

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Lubbock, Eric

      Peyton, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      MacArthur, Ian

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Pounder, Rafton

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Maddan, Martin

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Wall, Patrick

      Maginnis, John E.

      Pym, Francis

      Walters, Dennis

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Marten, Neil

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Maude, Angus

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Webster, David

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Mawby, Ray

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Roots, William

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Monro, Hector

      Royle, Anthony

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Woreley, Marcus

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wylie, N. R.

      Murton, Oscar

      Sharples, Richard

      Younger, Hn. George

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

      Neave, Alrey

      Sinclair, Sir George

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Smith, John

      Mr. David Mitchell and Mr. More.

      Nott, John

      Stainton, Keith

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stodart, Anthony

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Chapman, Donald

      Fernyhough, E.

      Albu, Austen

      Coe, Denis

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Coleman, Donald

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Alldritt, Walter

      Concannon, J. D.

      Foley, Maurice

      Allen, Scholefield

      Conlan, Bernard

      Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

      Anderson, Donald

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Archer, Peter

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Ford, Ben

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Forrester, John

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Cronin, John

      Fowler, Gerry

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cullen, Mrs. Alice

      Freeson, Reginald

      Barnett, Joel

      Dalyell, Tam

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Beaney, Alan

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Gardner, Tony

      Belienger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Bence, Cyril

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Ginsburg, David

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Binns, John

      Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

      Gregory, Arnold

      Bishop, E. S.

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Blackburn, F.

      Delargy, Hugh

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Dell, Edmund

      Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

      Boardman, H.

      Dempsey, James

      Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

      Booth, Albert

      Dewar, Donald

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Boston, Terence

      Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

      Hamling, William

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Dickens, James

      Hannan, William

      Boyden, James

      Dobson, Ray

      Harper, Joseph

      Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

      Doig, Peter

      Hart, Mrs. Judith

      Bradley, Tom

      Driberg, Tom

      Haseldine, Norman

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Dunn, James A.

      Hattersley, Roy

      Brooks, Edwin

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hazell, Bert

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

      Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

      Henig, Stanley

      Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

      Eadie, Alex

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Hilton, W. S.

      Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

      Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

      Buchan, Norman

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Hooley, Frank

      Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Horner, John

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Ellis, John

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      English, Michael

      Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Ennals, David

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Cant, R. B.

      Ensor, David

      Howie, W.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

      Hoy, James

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Evans, Ioan L. (Blrm'h'm, Yardley)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      740

      741

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Millan, Bruce

      Ryan, John

      Hunter, Adam

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Molloy, William

      Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Moonman, Eric

      Shore, Peter (Stepney)

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'stle-u-Tyne)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Jones, J, Idwal (Wrexham)

      Moyle, Roland

      Silverman, Julius (Aston)

      Judd, Frank

      Murray, Albert

      Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

      Kelley, Richard

      Neal, Harold

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Newens, Stan

      Slater, Joseph

      Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

      Norwood, Christopher

      Small, William

      Lawson, George

      Oakes, Gordon

      Snow, Julian

      Leadbitter, Ted

      O'Malley, Brian

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ledger, Ron

      Oram, Albert E.

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Orme, Stanley

      Taverne, Dick

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

      Thornton, Ernest

      Lipton, Marcus

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Tinn, James

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Paget, R. T.

      Tomney, Frank

      Loughlin, Charles

      Palmer, Arthur

      Tuck, Raphael

      Luard, Evan

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Urwin, T. W.

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Park, Trevor

      Varley, Eric G.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Walden, Brian (All Saints)

      McBride, Neil

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      McCann, John

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Wallace, George

      MacColl, James

      Peart, Rt Hn. Fred

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      MacDermot, Niall

      Pentland, Norman

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

      Weitzman, David

      McGuire, Michael

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Wellbeloved, James

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Whitaker, Ben

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Mackie, John

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Whitlock, William

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

      Maclennan, Robert

      Probert, Arthur

      Wilkins, W. A.

      MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

      Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Randall, Harry

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Rankin, John

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Redhead, Edward

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Reynolds, G. W.

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)

      Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Manuel, Archie

      Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Mapp, Charles

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Winnick, David

      Marquand, David

      Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

      Woodbum, Rt. Hn. A.

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Woof, Robert

      Mason, Roy

      Roebuck, Roy

      Wyatt, Woodrow

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Yates, Victor

      Mellish, Robert

      Rose, Paul

      Mendelson, J. J.

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

      Mr. Walter Harrison and Mr. Fitch.

      New Clause No. 9.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF TRIBUNAL.)

        New Clause 10.—(REVIEW OF UNECONOMIC ACTIVITIES.)
        (1) If it appears from the statements, notes or information prepared under section 22 of this Act or under any regulations made under the said section 22 or by virtue of any directions given to the Corporation under section (Publication by Corporation of information concerning activities of theirs and of publicly-owned companies) that, over a period of five consecutive years any principal activity (other than an iron and steel activity) carried on under the ultimate control of the Corporation has been carried on at a loss or without making a profit in each of such five years, it shall be the duty of the Corporation forthwith to undertake a review of such activity for the purpose of determining whether such activity should continue to be carried on and to report their conclusions to the Minister.
        (2) The Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy any report prepared
        742
        under subsection (1) above, together with his observations thereon.—[Mr. Patrick Jerkin.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
        Among the several themes which have run through our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report so far has been the belief, which has been hammered home again and again from this side, that a public corporation and a private enterprise company are two entirely different things. The very nature of the two animals is different, and for this reason they require different treatment.
        A private company derives its capital from the market, and it has to justify

        743
        the capital which it has by the return which it pays on that capital. If it has any hope of attracting new capital, the return must be sufficiently attractive for that purpose. If the company makes losses, the losses fall on the owners. If the capital is lost, it is written off and it is lost and gone for ever, like Clementine. The private company is subject to all the disciplines of the rigours of the capital market, and the sanctions on the failure of a private company extremely powerful and painful. When one reads in the financial Press of the failure of businesses—one has in mind the failure of some insurance businesses featured in the Press in recent weeks—one realises exactly what is meant by the failure of a private concern and the consequences of it.
        A public concern, on the other hand, has its capital provided by the taxpayer through the Treasury. In all but the last resort, the return which that capital earns in no way influences the supply of capital. Only when what are basically artificial tests are introduced, such as a required rate of return, a financial target, or whatever it may be called, is it possible to measure the effectiveness of the capital employed. If the concern makes losses, the losses are borne by the taxpayer. Every year, for as far back as one can remember, the Financial Statements presented to the House have contained provision by the taxpayer for the losses of nationalised concerns. If the capital of a nationalised enterprise is lost, it has disappeared but the obligation to pay interest on it continues, and, instead of this interest being paid by the concern which had the capital employed in its business, it is paid by the taxpayer as part of the National Debt, and this continues in perpetuity.
        The two are entirely different animals and, in particular, for the reasons I have just given the public concern is from its very nature, subject to far less stringent disciplines. I was very interested yesterday in what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) told the House about the advice of Professor Edwards and others as to the possibility of trying to inject into public enterprises some of the disciplines which, in general, are so effective in ensuring the deficiency of the private sector.
        744
        The Minister does not accept that this difference in kind exists. He believes that a large public concern can be treated in the same way, or very nearly the same way, as a large private concern. At one point in Committee, he committed himself to a very strange reaction on this question. We were talking about the subject raised by this new Clause, the diversification of activities of the Corporation, and he said:
        "There is only one major difference between the position in the nationalised industry and the same industry in private ownership, and that is that in the nationalised industry they have to get the Minister's consent to acquiring companies outside the iron and steel field. In the private sector, the Minister has no direct powers.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committte D, 10th November, 1966; c. 451.]
        The right hon. Gentleman said that in reply to a debate in which the differences I have just described had been impressed throughout. This is extremely important in diversified activities.
        In the last new Clause we dealt with the relations of the Corporation to the private sector. In this Clause we deal with fair competition, as much as anything, between the public sector and private sector in the activities other than iron and steel. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) said in his closing speech in our last debate, the Corporation's powers to engage in industry and activities outside iron and steel are stupendous. The Minister has gone some way to recognise that in that under the new Clause debated yesterday he will provide certain figures of turnover, capital employed and profits for each diversified activity of the Corporation. We hope that the information will be available to enable Parliament to probe, and competitors to judge, the effectiveness and efficiency of the operation of those activities.
        But will there also be the sanction to make sure that a poor performance or a failure meets with the consequences that it should? The purpose of the Clause is to inject into the Bill, in relation to diversified activities, a substitute for the sanction of the market, which is so effective in the case of private concerns. Our proposals on the non-iron and steel activities are modest. We suggest that if a diversified activity is shown by the

        745
        statistics which are to be published under the Bill, or as a result of a report which the Corporation will prepare, not to have made a profit or to have had a loss for five consecutive years there will be an obligation on the Corporation to review that activity and prepare a report and present it to the Minister. Then the Minister must pass it on to Parliament with his comments. There is nothing more to it—review, report, and report to Parliament.
        In Committee, we moved a rather more stringent and elaborate Clause, at column 2463. We put forward a five-year period, but also sought to import into the Bill the concept of a standard profit which the diversified activity would have to attain. That would have been the average profit for the rest of the trade in private hands. We also provided that if the diversified activity failed to reach that standard there would be an automatic cessation of that activity. The Minister directed harsh criticisms at that proposed Clause.
        Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot debate now an Amendment we are not discussing.
        Mr. JenkinI shall move straight on. The point I wish to make is that the new Clause we now propose goes the whole way to meet all the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms. First, he said that the standards suggested were inevitably haphazard and generally narrowly based. We have abandoned the concept of a standard and in the Clause we now have only the question of whether or not the activity is making a profit.
        The standards involved the valuation of the assets, and the right hon. Gentleman described our suggestion of valuation as obscure. But the statistics involve valuation of the assets, because he must determine the capital employed. However, we are happy to accept the Minister's own proposals in his new Clause which became part of the Bill yesterday for the method of determining the capital employed.
        The right hon. Gentleman criticised most strongly the proposals we then put before the Committee for automatic cessation after five years if the activities did not come up to the standard. He kept on asking if there were to be no chance
        746
        to review and to take account of special circumstances and if there were to be no appeal.
        We have abandoned the idea of automatic cessation. The statistics will provide the raw material and commercial judgment may well provide a yardstick to determine whether an activity should go on even though it has made a loss or is not showing a profit. But the point of the Clause is the question which still arises, "What is the sanction?"
        There must be a sanction, some pressure, some influence to determine whether or not a loss-making activity should continue. It cannot, of its very nature, be the same as that which applies to the private concern. What then can be the check on management's enthusiasm running away with itself, becoming over-optimistic and always believing, "Although we made a loss last year and the year before, there will be a profit next year. Just round the corner large profits can be earned and, therefore, it is worth while carrying on this activity"? One can go on year after year with losses being made over and over again, and with no effective sanction or pressure to recognise reality and wind up the operation.
        7.45 p.m.
        There are examples in the coal industry at the moment. The National Coal Board will soon have to face the problem of the Coventry plant making smokeless fuel, which has acquired the soubriquet of "Bronowski's Bullets". It has been pouring millions into corrective engineering on a plant which, I am advised, will never operate successfully as designed. My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) asked at Question Time on Tuesday about the company at Slough, the Draysley Company on which the National Coal Board lost £¼ million because the company produced domestic fuel appliances which turned out to be defective, and ceased to produce that particular model.
        There are examples where commendable enthusiasm may take a nationalised industry into activities which it believes may be to its advantage. But it is essential that they should be carefully controlled. In another debate in Committee, on the question of statistics, I described the case of J. H. Sankey and Son,

        747
        Ltd., a recent acquisition of the National Coal Board, to which reference was made at page 24, Vol. 2, of the Coal Board's accounts for 1965–66. I then said that there were no proper figures in the Coal Board's report to indicate the financial performance of that company, in which the Board has a 60 per cent. interest J. H. Sankey and Son, Ltd. distributes solid fuel appliances.
        I incurred the wrath of one or two of my hon. Friends when I suggested that it was perhaps not an improper acquisition for an industry wishing to continue to press the sale of solid fuel. I adhere to that view, but it must be watched and carefully controlled.
        I was therefore more than a little disturbed when I came across an article in a publication which rejoices in the name of Sankey News, a news sheet that circulates in the firm. The article was headed, "Just Partners …'", with a sub-heading, "And 'eager to help' says Robens", and was accompanied by a picture of Lord Robens, addressing what we are told is a large number of the staff at one of the premises of Sankey's
        The article starts:
        "Commercial links that the National Coal Board make with private firms like Sankey's do not mean that the Board wishes to be a big brother' but an eager-to-help 'partner on the basis of complete equality'".
        Lord Robens is quoted as saying:
        "We are not out to run people out of business. In pursuing the commercial objects of the Coal Board we…will be able to improve the homes of the people. It is something a great deal more than sheer commercial enterprise."
        He went on to describe in glowing and enthusiastic terms what the objects of the partnership will be.
        I do not wish, in drawing attention to this, in any way to cast any doubts at all on the wisdom or correctness of the National Coal Board in going into that acquisition. It is true that the figures quoted in the National Coal Board's Report show that the Board has invested over £1 million and that in 1965 the total profit of J. H. Sankey and Son Ltd. was £7,257 before tax. But there is exactly the sort of sentence that I am frightened of and to which we must have regard when considering the new Clause:
        748
        "Substantially increased profits are, however, expected for 1966 as the company benefits from the developments which have taken place in 1965."
        I shall read with very great interest the next accounts of the National Coal Board to see what has happened to J. H. Sankey and Son Ltd. and whether the hopes and expectations which the Board had for this enterprise have turned out in the event. But suppose they do not. Suppose the enterprise fails. It should be remembered that the National Steel Corporation has vastly wider powers to go into these diversified activities than the National Coal Board, whose objects clauses are very very circumscribed.
        The venture was launched, as was clear from Sankey News and the quotations that I have given from Lord Robens, in a blaze of high enthusiasm. I do not blame the noble Lord for that; he is very good at that sort of thing. But it would be a terrible temptation for the managers of this concern when faced with what might turn out to be losses—I say this purely as a matter of hypothesis and not in any sense as a matter of forecast—to soldier on for some years as the losses mount up. There is no effective sanction on the National Coal Board to bring this sort of thing to an end.
        The new Clause is intended to provide what in these circumstances can be the only effective sanction—publicity—to ensure that the matter is brought to the notice of those responsible, that the Minister becomes aware of it, that Parliament becomes aware of it and that Parliament can then use all the means of Parliamentary pressure on the Minister to ensure that proper consideration is given to it.
        I do not say that this would necessarily and automatically lead to the closure of a business. Indeed, I felt that there was some force in what the right hon. Gentleman said—all the same, five years is a long time—that there should not be automatic closure. Our new Clause meets every single objection which the Minister advanced to the comparable new Clause that we moved in Committee. We have set no rigid standard. We have no automatic closure. All we want to do is to ensure that the case should be reviewed and that there should be a report on it.

        749
        The broad financial targets were also relied upon by the Minister. The required rate of return is not enough to take account of the individual, separate diversified activities. That may be right with the financial discipline on the Corporation as a whole, but it does not touch this problem. The only way in which this problem can be dealt with—it is a real problem, one which has worried bodies like the C.B.I. for some years—is by publicity. This is what the new Clause is intended to do. I believe that it would be a useful, salutary and valuable additional safeguard.
        Mr. Nott: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) that in both the private sector and the public sector there is always the constant feeling when a company is going wrong that profits are just round the corner; next year will herald some magnificent rise in profitability which was not seen in the previous years. But the next year comes round and the profits do not meet expectations, and so the years go by. In the case of the private sector, the company in due course goes bankrupt, but in the case of the public sector it goes on being bolstered up by the taxpayer year after year.
        I also agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the new Clause is completely innocuous. All that it requires the Ministry to do is to carry out a review of the company after it has been making losses for five years and to lay that review before Parliament. I cannot think of any conceivable reason why it should be rejected. Surely, financial control in the public sector must be something which both parties require and desire, and, after all, information lies at the heart of financial control.
        I declare a personal interest. I was very much involved in the Sankey transaction at the time that the National Coal Board took an interest in it. I drafted the Press statement on behalf of the National Coal Board and Sankey to which my hon. Friend referred, and the blaze of publicity to which he referred was as a result of my drafting. So I am very much aware of the details of the Sankey transaction, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in what he says about it.
        One thing can be said about the Sankey situation however, and that is that its
        750
        accounts are still filed in the Companies Registry, because the National Coal Board does not own the whole of Sankey. It only has control. Thus the accounts of Sankey can still be seen in the Companies Registry. We can still go along there and get a true idea of how the company is doing.
        But what happens is that as soon as a firm like Sankey becomes wholly owned by a nationalised industry and no longer files its accounts in the Companies Registry, it enters into a murky darkness and no one has the slightest idea how much cross-subsidisation there is, how many special rebates there are and precisely what is going on. I am sure that it must be recognised that, although we are told by the electricity boards and the National Coal Board that they produce subsidiaries' accounts at arm's length from one another, in practice there are cross-subsidisation and special rebates as between one company and another.
        Therefore, I suggest that the Clause is completely innocuous and that the Minister cannot object to it. It merely seeks information and a review of the activities of loss-making companies which are outside the production of iron and steel, and it requires the Minister to lay the review before Parliament. Surely this meets the objectives which all parties in the House are trying to achieve in the public sector.
        Mr. Michael Shaw: I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). On the question of not being able to see the accounts if a company is taken over wholly by the Corporation, I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) that this will not apply in this case, because these accounts will still be filed at Company House. There is a difference in that respect.
        The interesting point about the new Clause is that it does not necessarily deal with a separate company. It deals with any principal activity. This is important in considering the matter because there is the very real problem of cross-subsidisation with which we have been very much concerned throughout our deliberations in Committee. There remains the very difficult problem of trying to judge whether the company is achieving a fair return on the capital used. To judge that exactly by means of a report to Parliament is very difficult. We thus have to

        751
        have a fairly rough measure by which to gauge it and, of course, that measure is whether or not there is a profit.
        8.0 p.m.
        I prefer this new Clause to the Amendment that we moved in Committee. It would mean that a report would be made and a justification sought for the continued losses rather than that the company would cease altogether. That is a preferable course because, as I know from my own experience, many companies or activities are carried on by a group although they do not make a great profit. But this is balanced by their value to the group being very great indeed. For example, they may be getting rid of some waste matter at a better price than the main companies would get. Very often the profitability of a company cannot be judged on its own but only in relation to group profits as a whole.
        Of course, there is always an explanation and in such a case the information would come before this House and an explanation be given. But one thing is certain. In private industry, an activity of this nature is watched very closely indeed and is checked with competitors' prices to see whether or not, due to new circumstances, the company ought now to be closed down.
        Mr. Kenneth Lewis: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about these things as an accountant. If a company is selling to the main company and not outside then presumably the main company ought to pay the proper price for the service that it is getting. Although there may not be a profit, there should not be a loss. If that is so, I cannot see why this should not be the case under the N.S.C. A product should not be sold by such a company at a loss which the public has to pay for.
        Mr. Shaw: We have been trying to ensure that all transactions are arm's length transactions, because otherwise this would put the subsidiary company in an advantageous position as against companies in the private sector also trying to sell to companies within the nationalised group. It is essential to have this type of Clause in the Bill. My hon. Friend asked why should not a company owned by the N.S.C. always sell at a
        752
        profit. It may well be that one of the group's processes, for example—I am not very conversant with the steel industry and must be rather theoretical but I have had experience elsewhere—gives off a waste which has little market. But by an additional process a market may be found. It may not be a profitable market but, by sale at just above cost, there is no loss on the disposal of waste which would otherwise be an expensive business to get rid of.
        The other case that springs to mind is that of using a subsidiary company to carry on a not very profitable activity. It may be able to make special articles that can be dovetailed in with the main products of the group and so give an additional market which the main company would not otherwise have.
        There is the ever-present fear in my mind that, as soon as an industry or company is nationalised, its success becomes a political matter and political reputations are at stake. There is always perhaps the great temptation to "duck" the issue of having to admit that a venture has failed. The disciplines must therefore be present in order to force projects that appear to be failing out into the open for full discussion to see exactly what is going on and for a decision to be made as to whether or not the activity should be continued. I have a great liking for this new Clause and wholeheartedly support it.
        Mr. Gresham Cooke: This is the most important new Clause we have been discussing today and perhaps attracts me more than any of the others. The most difficult decision that any businessman has to make, and which he hates to make, is to close anything down—for example, a piece of research which has gone on for several years with great hopes. There is always great reluctance to close down a works. Hon. Members should think of the fuss when a branch line is closed down. I can give two examples from the steel industry.
        I was secretary of the United Steel Company before the war. It owned the Workington Iron and Steel Company, a very large concern which for a long time made a loss for almost every year up to 1938. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us about hard and greedy capitalists but in my view they are not hard enough.

        753
        Every year before the war the position was reviewed by the board of directors, who considered whether the Workington Iron and Steel Company should be closed down. But then the chairman and others would say, "What about the 5,000 men employed there and all the collieries and ore mines dependent upon it?" The company was not closed down—probably rightly, because, in the end, the war came and it was useful then. After the war, when the great shell-making plant erected at Distington became empty, that was taken over by United Steel as an engineering plant for coal mining machinery and now it makes steel-making machinery. I do not know the position now but the plant did not make money for the first year or two after the war. That sort of fringe activity must be looked at every few years to see whether it should be carried on in an area a long way from possible markets of other steel companies. We in Parliament should know whether fringe activities like Distington are really profitable.
        In the steel industry there are many temptations to take on other companies. I remember that a serious proposition was put up in United Steel when it was said that because the men in the melting shop drank a lot of beer we should take shares in a local brewery so as to have a lien on the supplies of beer. We acquired an outside company which had a little chain of ironmongers shops. It was kept for some time, although I expect that it has been got rid of now. That is the kind of thing which happens in big groups, and these things are acquired almost by accident.
        I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some concession and say that he will tell Parliament about these fringe activities which may or may not be profitable and which may be carried on in areas in which there is no natural market and from which tens of hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds can be quickly lost. I regard the new Clause as extremely important and I hope that it will receive the commendation of the House.
        Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make a concession and accept the new Clause, or declare his intention to provide a similar
        754
        provision in another place. If he is in any doubt, he should make the concession as a salute to his old office and his last parting shot on the Bill, as his last contribution to it. I shall think a good deal of him if he does and he will be doing a great public service. He should tell the Minister that he requires this opportunity to make a contribution at this late stage. This is a reasonable and realistic Clause, so reasonable that I do not think that it goes far enough, but I am prepared to accept it, and therefore the Parliamentary Secretary should.
        It applies to activities not connected with iron and steel production, subsidiary activities. It is concerned with the Bill's diversification provisions. I do not support that diversification and I am suspicious of it. The Tory Party as a whole is suspicious of it and I think that the country is. If the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister want to get rid of that suspicion, they can help themselves to do so by accepting the new Clause. If they do not it will be apparent to the country that they want to cloak the losses, that they do not want to tell the House of Commons and to issue reports about losses.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) was extremely generous when he said that subsidiary companies of nationalised industries would often carry a loss, hoping to make a profit. Unhappily, they carry a loss whether they hope to make a profit or not. They are inclined to carry losses willy nilly. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) said that political reputations depended on losses in the nationalised industries and that political reputations had been broken because of them. In the last few years, it seems to me, political reputations have been made on losses in nationalised industries.
        8.15 p.m.
        The public has not been assisted by those losses, for the public has had to pay the bill. The taxpayer, the ordinary man on his "pay-as-you-earn" and the executive who has to pay high Income Tax and who then gets drubbed for Surtax and then a 10 per cent. surcharge on his Surtax, have to pay the losses of the nationalised industries, which are bad enough in all conscience. If to those

        755
        losses are added the losses from subsidiary activities, the whole exercise will be made a nonsense.
        In private enterprise business, when a company is started it is normally expected that a loss will be made in the first and second years, breaking even in the third year, with a profit then starting to be made. We are asking for a report in the fifth year, so we are being generous to the nationalised industries and giving the Corporation an opportunity not normally available to free enterprise, which is expected to make a profit much sooner than five years.
        If a company under the Corporation is not making a profit in five years, whether engaged in some activity which may be marginally useful to the Corporation or not, at least it should be put on the market. At least the Minister should take the view that he is justified in directing the Corporation to sell that company to free enterprise, if free enterprise will buy it, because a free enterprise company might be able to make it pay, while the Corporation could not do so, being too busy producing iron and steel.
        About five years ago, diversification used to be very popular. Many of our large private enterprise companies diversified all over the place, thinking that that was the way in which to maintain their profits. They are now doing exactly the reverse and many of our big corporations are getting rid of their fringe activities because they cannot run them well, because it has come home to them that the cobbler should stick to his last. The Corporation's job is to produce iron and steel at a profit and not to go into all sorts of outside activities.
        I do not like that power being in the Bill at all, but, if it is, let us consider it from time to time to make sure that these losses are not becoming repetitive. There are all sorts of reasons why a nationalised industry would put up with losses when a private enterprise industry could not or would not do so. It might be loth to get rid of certain executives, the managers of the subsidiary companies. After all the Minister and the party opposite must be as aware as we are that when an industry is nationalised, people are inclined to regard it as a Civil Service set-up and to say, "We cannot be sacked; we cannot be thrown
        756
        out". The people at the top take the view that they ought not to dismiss an employee or group of employees because the industry is a State concern, and they put up with losses, maintaining staffs which are not always justified.
        Then there are losses created by a subsidiary company of the Corporation because there is a desire to compete with free enterprise and to create a kind of loss leader situation, for loss leaders are to be found not only in supermarkets. They can be found in nationalised industries which want to cut profits and make it difficult for free enterprise. It may be making it difficult for free enterprise companies which are exporting, and that would not be to the advantage of the Government any more than to the advantage of the iron and steel industry in the long run, because the markets for its main activities would be found to be running down.
        There is no question but that the losses of our nationalised industries are a scandal. I do not think that the Government will tackle it, but certainly it is something which we shall have to tackle when we get back to office. I am against the Bill, because I think that it will create another industry loading losses on the public purse. We have to stomach that because we are outnumbered, but at least let the Government give us credit for wishing this industry to review its diversified interests, its activities which are making losses for which the public will have to pay and which, if hived off to free enterprise, might be profitable. I hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause.
        The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): Neither the Minister nor the Corporation would wish the steel industry, under its management, to continue for one moment any unessential activity which was unprofitable and which could be wound up. This is obvious common sense. It is surely unnecessary to spell out in the Bill the A.B.C. of management to the Corporation. There will be the overall financial objectives. These will he clearly laid down, they will be debatable, they will be monitored and subjected to a degree of scrutiny to which no shareholders' meeting every subjects its board of directors. In addition, there will be a degree of disclosure which will at

        757
        least match that required by the Companies Bill and, in many respects, go far beyond it.
        Mr. Nott: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how the disclosure will go far beyond that contained in the Companies Bill?
        Dr. Bray: Because the interpretation of the Companies Bill will be a matter for the courts, whereas the interpretation of the terms of this Bill will be subjected to the Minister's instructions and the Minister will be answerable to Parliament. If it is said that this is unrevealing I would like hon. Members opposite to examine the reports of the nationalised industries, to examine reports of Select Committees of this House and to look anywhere in private industry to produce a comparable degree, not only of disclosure of the accounts, but of examination of the technical information and the structure of management, of the whole complex operation of the industry.
        Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The Parliamentary Secretary is dealing with the situation affecting nationalised industries as we have them. In the Bill, we are dealing with a new situation. It is what all the battle upstairs has been about. There will be a great deal more diversification. The House cannot accept the pattern of the past as the pattern for this. The Parliamentary Secretary must say that he will go a good deal further than the present system affecting nationalised industries if he is to convince us that he is realistic in his approach to this matter.
        Dr. Bray: I entirely take the hon. Member's point. As the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said yesterday, we go far beyond the measures in any previous nationalisation Statute in the statutory disclosure required. It is evidence of this to some extent that the Opposition Amendment that we are now debating relies on the degree of disclosure in the Bill for identifying where there is a possibly unprofitable activity which ought to be wound up.
        This is not a matter of dispute between the two sides—at least not a fundamental difference. The volume of turnover at which one draws the line is a matter for experience. The principle is agreed between us about the type of degree of disclosure required. If there is disclosure
        758
        how effective is the response of the ultimate sanction, the instructions of the Minister in the case of the National Steel Corporation or the pressures on the management of a private company? Hon. Gentlemen opposite have today, and at every previous stage in the debate on this Bill, referred to the National Coal Board plants to make "Homefire" and "Roomheat".
        This project will not be caught by the terms of this Amendment, because it is a capital project, and there has been no trading account in respect of these projects upon which any loss could have occurred. This is not just a quibble, because it is the questionable investments which need to be examined, either direct purchasing of already existing operations, companies, and so on, or the actual physical building of plant, where the most careful scrutiny needs to be made. It is here that the criteria by which the Minister exercises his responsibilities in relation to the Corporation will be decisive.
        If we look at the record of the Coal Board it is now closing down more uneconomic capacity in respect of total volume of its uneconomic operations than any sector of British industry. We have a redevelopment programme in the Coal Board, in the closure of pits, against the most extreme social considerations and political pressures of all kinds, which is if anything, evidence that this kind of programme can be carried out with a degree of economic reality possibly greater than that which many private companies—I except many private steel companies in their exercise of social responsibility—have felt able to carry out. Why? Because it is possible to fit in with other aspects of Government economic policy in relation to regional development, public expenditure in certain areas and so on.
        The theory which hon. Members have held in this debate is that private industry is a fundamentally different situation in respect of possible uneconomic activity from that of the nationalised industries, and that there is a kind of pressure on the private firm to review its uneconomic activities, to see whether they should be discontinued. The type of situation to which this Clause refers—a sustained loss for a long period over a particular trading activity—reflects in many instances a

        759
        degree of cross-subsidisation, where although a certain operation is not profitable, other operations of the group to which the company belongs are profitable.
        Consider the degree of cross-subsidisation in the oil industry. For example, why did Distiller's find it desirable to dispose of its chemical interests to British Petroleum? Why has I.C.I., following up its petro-chemical interests, found it desirable to go into oil refining operations? It is very well known that there is a network of integration of industrial activities which does not always rest on the technical economies of the situation, where there is a certain amount of bargaining of strength from commercial positions behind it.
        From the national point of view as well as from the point of view of the balance of payments, this is not always undesirable. There is at least one steel company with steel-producing and steel-using companies which exports at an apparent loss in respect of one particular sector of its activities. But it is in the interests of the group to operate in this way and in the interests of the balance of payments.
        If this is the situation because it is in private industry, and if it may sometimes be genuinely right that it should do so then a situation can well arise where it would be right that the National Steel Corporation should do so. Hon. Gentlemen opposite accept this. What they are asking is that this situation revealed, by information published as required by the terms of this Bill, should be further probed by a review—let us say over five years in the case of a recurring situation, but certainly not more than five years in the case of a new situation—and that that review should be published. That the review will go on is indubitable.
        8.30 p.m.
        Hon. Members opposite who have taken part in scrutinising the accounts of the nationalised industries know that when a trading activity shows a loss it is a matter of course that it is examined most carefully by the Department responsible for the nationalised industry concerned. In this case, it would be examined most carefully by the Ministry of Power. It will be examined with a greater degree of toughness, with the Treasury looking
        760
        over the Ministry of Power's shoulder, than happens in most private companies.
        Therefore, the review will go ahead and will penetrate the economics of the situation in terms of the profitability of the Corporation and of the national interest. It will be carried out at a time when there is debate on these activities in the House, in the Press and in industry. If there is a situation which should be brought to an end, surely the pressures of the circumstances are sufficient to do this.
        Mr. Gresham Cooke: Has the hon. Gentleman considered this point? The pressures of the Press, Parliament and Select Committees, will be on the iron and steel-making activities. Those are what everyone will be talking about. Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether these fringe activities will be considered at all?
        Dr. Bray: I do not think that it is the view of anyone who has sat through all the stages of the Bill that attention will be focused simply on the iron and steel activities. A great deal of interest will be focused on other activities, and it is right that this should be so.
        I ask myself why the Opposition are pressing this proposal. If it is through concern for the objective management of the affairs of the Corporation by accepted good business criteria, then their point is met by the Bill as drafted. I cannot think that they are pressing their proposal out of any wish to put British industry at a disadvantage in relation to its overseas competitors in any arrangement which might produce an apparent loss in one of the Corporation's activities.
        Mr. Kenneth Lewes: I am puzzled about a comment which the hon. Gentleman made just now. Is he suggesting that some excuse will be made of secrecy on losses? This was the impression which he gave. He suggested that we on this side of the House were trying to put these subsidiaries in a worse position vis-à-vis their competitors. The only way in which we could do that would be by pressing that they should open their books and disclose their balance sheets and profit and loss accounts.
        Dr. Bray: There will be full disclosure to the extent required by the Bill. It is

        761
        on this disclosure which the new Clause rests. The point about whether there should be a deep special inquiry into a particular operation and that the results of that inquiry should be laid before the House requires a degree of examination of a possible commercial situation which hon. Members opposite, if they were in power, would not always wish inevitably to draw to the attention of overseas competitors.
        Mr. Nott: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman realises that what he is saying is in almost complete contradiction to the philosophy behind the Companies Bill which his own Government are to bring before the House in the next few weeks. If he says that complete disclosure would give something away to foreign competitors, he is talking in completely contradictory terms to the Companies Bill.
        Dr. Bray: If the Opposition claim that there is no difference between the review which they want to have carried out and the information which they wish to be published—which will be published anyway—there is no point in the new Clause. Presumably what they mean by "a review" is something which goes into greater detail and which gives deeper consideration to the commercial situation. We accept that an apparent loss may be shown in a particular activity. If hon. Members opposite wish to see the reason for that fully and exhaustively explored in a public inquiry and the results of that inquiry published, then this is the kind of exercise which they would not wish to have carried out when it affected the question of overseas competition.
        Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the new Clause. There is nothing in it about an inquiry. It simply asks that a duty should be imposed on the Corporation
        "forthwith to undertake a review of such activity"
        The hon. Gentleman is making much more of this than we are. He is trying to suggest we want an inquiry. For myself, I ask: why not? If an activity is making a loss, I cannot see why there should be any objection to an inquiry. But we are not asking for that. We are asking that directions should be given to the Corporation to undertake a review. This is reasonable in all con-
        762
        science. The hon. Gentleman is simply trying to justify rejection of our proposal by going off at a tangent and suggesting that we are asking for something that is not in the Clause.
        Dr. Bray: Let us not quarrel about the words. The review is to be carried out. This is to result in a report to the Minister. Under subsection (2) of the new Clause the report is to be laid before each House of Parliament. That is what I meant by an inquiry. This was simply an aside. I concluded that there were situations in which hon. Members opposite would not wish to have carried out the kind of review which might result from the new Clause.
        The only remaining reason for hon. Members opposite pressing the new Clause is that they are perhaps seeking to protect a private firm from competition from public enterprise in a way in which they would not protect it from competition from another private enterprise concern. They are basically concerned, not with the efficiency of management of the Corporation, but with the competitive relations between the Corporation and private industry. I accept that the terms on which the Corporation competes with private industry should be the same as the terms on which private industry competes with private industry. We have said that repeatedly. The Minister has said it over and over again throughout our debates on the Bill. The new Clause would go further than that. It would put the Corporation in a different position from private firms in competition with other sectors of industry.
        It has been said that, because the Corporation is different from private firms in one way, it must therefore be put in a different competitive position in another way. It is a matter of judgment as to where the balance lies between this grievance and the method of redress. My argument is that the method of redress has not been related to the kind of situation which the hon. Gentleman fears constitutes the main difference between the private and public sectors.
        I accept that this is a difference of judgment. Hon. Members opposite have perhaps begun to appreciate that we wish the Corporation to act in a fully competitive way, being thoroughly businesslike in its own management, completely realistic

        763
        in the appraisal of its activities and governed by commercial criteria in its operations. But we do not want to see the National Steel Corporation subjected to a kind of constraint which would limit it in a way in which private enterprise would not be limited.
        If, therefore, the new Clause is pressed, I must advise my hon. Friends to resist it.
        Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I appreciate that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has tried to deal with some of the points which were made by my hon. Friends and myself in the debate. I also appreciate that there is some force in one or two of the points which he put, and I will come to them later. But I challenge some of the arguments which he addressed to the House in seeking to resist both this Clause and apparently any other Clause like it.
        The hon. Gentleman mentioned the "Homefire" and "Roomheat" project. The fact is that this plant is not yet trading—if a plant can trade; it is not yet producing anything. I find it a strange argument to suggest this plant as a reason for not including the new Clause in the Bill. I find it a strange argument that because one cannot catch the case of the capital investment which is not yet trading, therefore one should make no attempt to catch the case in which the capital investment is trading and making a loss. It may well be that in this respect the Clause requires strengthening, but as an argument for not accepting the Clause—especially taken in conjunction with the hon. Member's other arguments —it was strange.
        Nor is his argument about the National Coal Board closures in any way germane. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) rightly said, attention will always be directed to the main activities of a nationalised corporation. This has happened in recent years in the National Coal Board. As part of a national energy policy, the economics of the different areas and divisions of the Coal Board have been examined very closely, and there is now in train a substantial programme, which I believe will have to be an accelerated programme, of pit closures in order to achieve what the
        764
        Minister said he seeks—a viable and profitable coal industry in this country.
        I therefore do not accept that argument. The next argument was about cross-subsidisation. This is the kind of case that can arise in these diversified activities where there is crosssubsidisation—where some part of the overhead is being borne in a certain activity, and if that activity were closed down the overhead would have to be borne somewhere else. The argument continues that it is worth carrying on the activity in order to prevent that overhead from being transferred to another part of business. This is often a false argument, but it is an argument used to justify public and private enterprise in carrying on activities which on their merits ought to be closed.
        The hon. Member sought to rely on the argument about the Parliamentary pressure which would arise from the disclosures which are being written into the Bill. I question how effective they can be. It has been calculated that an industry comes under the eagle eye of the full Select Committee on Nationalised Industries once every 12 or 14 years. There may be plans to step that up, but with the increase in the nationalised industries, that is the kind of period which is likely.
        Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is always complaining of the limited opportunity to put Parliamentary Questions on the day-to-day management of the nationalised industries. We have a debate on the Floor of the House every two or three years on the borrowing powers for each of these industries. This is about what it amounts to, and it certainly cannot be relied on as adequate justification for not examining the profitability of the subsidiary, ancillary activities of a nationalised industry, certainly not an industry which is to have the vast and sweeping powers of diversification which the National Steel Corporation will have under the Bill.
        I accept that the statistics here will be much more than have ever been provided for—and that is right—particularly on the question of the profits and capital employed in diversification activities. However, I really cannot accept the argument that it is an adequate substitute

        765
        for the pressure which exists on private industry to wind up non-profit-making activity.
        8.45 p.m.
        The Minister said in the Standing Committee:
        "I accept the arguments which have been made in the past, to some extent at any rate, on the lack of information; and if that information is available, those companies should be open to no less pressure than any private company but certainly should not be open to any more pressure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 15th December, 1966; c. 2488.]
        "No less pressure than any private company". What the hon. Gentleman has failed to satisfy me, at any rate, about is that there is adequate pressure which replaces the pressure of the market, the pressure on boards of directors to stop loss-making activities, the disciplines of the capital market. That does not exist to the same extent.
        However, there is one point which the hon. Gentleman has made which I do concede, and I am sure my hon. Friends would also concede, has some force in it, and that is we do not in this new Clause give any discretion to the Minister to withhold from publication if publication of the report could be of damage to an export business or, indeed, to the competitive position of an industry. The Clause in that respect is uncompromising. Therefore, I do not think it would be right and I hope my hon. Friends will accept this—that we should press this new Clause to a Division.
        I am perfectly certain that we shall study very closely what the hon. Gentleman has said, and no doubt my friends in another place will be able to return to this matter and perhaps at the third attempt get a Clause to deal with this undoubtedly very important aspect, for here we are breaking new ground, and write into the Bill something which will ensure, to an extent which would not otherwise be possible, the Minister's objectives of a fully commercial organisation, which he believes the National Steel Corporation will become. As I say, I hope my hon. Friends will accept that it would not be right, in these circumstances, to press this new Clause to a Division, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
        Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

        New Clause 11.—(FURTHER OBLIGATIONS OF THE CORPORATION AND THE PUBLICLY-OWNED COMPANIES.)
        Notwithstanding anything in sections 2 and 34 of this Act, neither the Corporation nor a publicly-owned company shall, without the consent of the Minister, make any substantial alteration in the organisation of the activities that, in the case of the Corporation, have fallen to be carried on under their ultimate control or, in the case of a publicly-owned company, are being carried on by that company and its subsidiaries at the date of the passing of this Act, until the first report has been made by the Corporation under section 4(1) of this Act.—[Mr. van Straubenzee.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
        I shall try to explain so eminently reasonable a new Clause very shortly indeed. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that to explain it I must make reference to Clause 4 of the Bill, an unhappy Clause for hon. Members opposite to discuss, I realise, a Clause which places upon the Corporation the duty to review its affairs and present a report to the Minister. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that that Clause places upon the Minister, or will place upon the Minister, in addition a duty to place that report before the House. That will be discussed later upon a later Amendment, which stems directly from an undertaking given by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)—and that was one of the many great services performed by my hon. Friend to the Standing Committee.
        In brief, what the new Clause is now suggesting is that the Corporation should not carry out any substantial reorganisation based on that report till the first report has been made. I draw the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who, I fancy, is going to reply, to three facets of the wording which, of course, has been carefully chosen. Neither the Corporation nor a publicly-owned company shall act
        "without the consent of the Minister".
        The Minister comes into this. It says that the alterations are limited to "substantial" alterations. The hon. Gentleman will notice the word "substantial". It says that this is limited to the
        "organisation of the activities".

        767
        All those words are important; they all have a purpose behind them; and the importance of them all has, I hope, been taken by the hon. Gentleman.
        The argument which we put forward, briefly, is that if there were a reorganisation before the first report was received, it would make a mockery of the whole procedure. The first report, in particular, obviously will be of great importance in this context. To do that would be to make a complete mockery of the first report if substantial alterations in the organisation—all those words being important—were made before the report was received.
        It is even more important because, later in the Order Paper, the Minister himself has tabled Amendments to bring that first report and others before the House. What is the purpose of bringing that report before the House if action has already been taken on the very matters with which the report deals? The strengthening of Clause 4, for which we owe so much to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, would be of no point if substantial changes had been made already.
        What are the possible objections which one can imagine the Parliamentary Secretary raising? I suppose that he could say that it would be intolerable that comparatively small matters should not be dealt with until the first report was received. I hope that I have dealt with that possible objection by pointing out that only substantial alterations are involved. That is the reason for the drafting of the Clause as it is.
        I suppose that he might say that he cannot deal with comparatively detailed matters of shareholdings, and so on. That is dealt with, because the new Clause is concerned only with alterations in the organisation of the activities.
        I suppose that he might say that it is intolerable for him to be bound hand and foot and that he must be given some latitude to make a judgment. The answer to that is that he can. Under the Clause, they cannot act without the consent of the Minister. In other words, the Minister is in a position to give his consent to such a substantial alteration even though the report has not been received.
        I find it difficult to see a more reasonable Clause and one which flows more
        768
        obviously and logically from the short discussion which we had on Clause 4 at an ungodly hour in the morning when the Parliamentary Secretary was lucky not to be in his present office, because he would have been worn down, as his predecessor was. It flows quite logically from the undertakings given by the Minister on that occasion. For that reason, in a spirit of compromise and good will, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will feel free to accept it.
        The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): It is intended that the general reorganisation of the industry after nationalisation should be preceded by a report, required under Clause 4. In fact, excellent progress is now being made by the Organising Committee in the preparation of such a report. It is hoped and expected that it will be made to the Minister at an early date.
        However, it is possible that the extended kind of consultations that might arise during the course of the preparation of such a report could cause unexpected delay which, as time went on, might result in the need for substantial changes in the industry, as has been referred to by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). Therefore, there is the possibility that the kind of situation which he has sought to meet in the Clause will arise. It is possible that the consultations with trade unions and with the many other interests, including the managements of the nationalised companies, would take longer than we envisaged at present. It is possible that the completion of the first report will be unexpectedly delayed as a result. It is because of this that under Clause 4 there is a requirement that the report be submitted within a year of vesting date, and the Clause gives the Minister power to extend this period if necessary.
        If, for some reason which we cannot foresee, the first report and the general reorganisation of the industry were delayed in that way, it might be necessary to undertake a substantial alteration in the organisation of the industry on an interim basis.
        Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman said that the wording which I had used "sought to close the gap", as though there were something technically

        769
        wrong with it. This may be so. If it is I hope that he will make it clear, because it seems that the proposed wording meets the situation which the hon. Gentleman has now outlined and which we, too, had thought of.
        Mr. Freeson: I shall describe as I proceed, and it will not take very long, our reaction to the Clause. In the meantime, I must apologise if from time to time my wording is a little loose in a technical sense. I am not speaking as a drafter of Clauses.
        Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I did not take part in the Committee debates, but I have not quite followed what the right hon. Gentleman said. Does he mean that when the report is made there will be consultations and long discussions before it is published? I imagined that the report would be published and then the discussions would take place. I got the impression that there would be delay while the discussions took place before the report was laid before the House.
        Mr. Freeson: That might arise, but we do not expect it to. It could arise during the preparation of the report. During the preparation of the report there are bound to be ideas, schemes, and details to be worked out about the future reorganisation of the industry. This will involve consultations, during which queries might arise which could lead to extended discussions. I am not describing what is happening. I am not making a forecast of what we think will happen. I am simply stating what might happen. As I said at the beginning, excellent progress is being made, and we expect the report to be made fairly promptly, as required by the Bill.
        The Corporation can, in practice, be expected and relied on to act in a way which will not prejudice the decisions of the Minister and the views and decisions of Parliament on the first report which is required under Clause 4. Indeed, we can expect the Corporation to consult the Minister before making any substantial changes in organisation. The Corporation will no doubt ensure that the publicly-owned companies do the same.
        There are, however, advantages in formalising the matter, as is sought in the new Clause, and in imposing on the
        770
        Corporation a statutory requirement to obtain the Minister's consent for the issue or reissue of which the Minister would be answerable to Parliament in the case of any substantial reorganisation which might arise before there were any general reorganisation acceptable by way of the report.
        The proposed Clause is, therefore, acceptable in principle, but the drafting is capable of some improvement, and some detailed changes are desirable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be happy about this. On this basis the Government will, in another place, introduce provisions to give effect to the intention of the Clause, and I am sure that we can be united in accepting this as a happy situation.
        Mr. van Straubenzee: For once I am almost speechless, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that is rather rare for me. I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am very pleased with him at the moment, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.
        Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

        New Clause 13.—(DUTY OF CORPORATION RELATING TO NAMES AND TRADEMARKS OF PUBLICLY-OWNED COMPANIES.)
        It shall be the duty of the Corporation, in formulating any recommendations to the Minister relating to the activities that have fallen to be carried on under their ultimate control whether by way of conclusions reported to the Minister under Section 4 of this Act or otherwise and in carrying on those activities, to have regard to the advantages of preserving the good will attached to the names and trademarks of the companies specified in Schedule 1 to this Act and of their subsidiaries.—[Mr. J. H. Osborn.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        9.0 p.m.
        Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
        I am greatly encouraged by the change of heart of the Government, and because of that I shall endeavour to be brief. Perhaps that will encourage the Minister to be generous. Although the Clause may not mean very much to us it is vital to those who have charge of the destiny of the steel industry when it is nationalised. The Minister has implied that I

        771
        might have a bias towards the private sector because of my interest in it. I hope that he will have realised by now—especially from my comments last night—that I am anxious that the Corporation should be a success and that it should take whatever decisions are necessary to ensure a healthy, successful and prosperous industry.
        I also assure the Minister that any member of the private sector who will be competing against the public sector will hope that the Minister will accept the Clause or the sentiments behind it, because if the Corporation were too rapidly to abandon trade marks and names which have become well-established, the customers of the Corporation, whether at home or overseas, would become restless and look elsewhere. It would be a disaster if, within a few weeks of vesting date, we found that all the trade names were amalgamated under specifications starting with National Steel Corporation Specification No. 1 and that if a person wanted some bonded or coated steel he had to ask for N.S.C.S. No. 503. If that system were put into practice it would mean that we had completely failed to sense the demands of customers, and it would absolutely wreck not only part of the home trade, but certainly the export trade of this valuable industry.
        The Benson Report refers on pages 28 and 29 to the export trade and it is estimated that by the mid-1970s the gross exports will be 5·4 million ingot tons and that net exports will be 4·2 million ingot tons. These estimates may have to be revised, but unless the Corporation sells with delicacy those forecasts will never be achieved.
        It is worth considering how we sell steel, and what methods are applied. There may be a difference between selling bulk steels and special steels such as alloy, tool, and heat resisting steels, many of which are made by the private sector, but I have emphasised before, and I do so again, that a technical salesman must find out what the customer wants. The customer will have the specification. He wants to know what the heat treatment will be, or what kind of finish the product will have. When the customer knows what he wants he usually settles on a brandname that gives it to him
        772
        and thereafter he finds that he can have consistency in his machine shop or engineering shop.
        One may ask how a customer identifies his requirements. There are many national and international specifications which may be used. I always keep in my diary a list of specifications used by the company with which I am associated, but correlated to the specifications of EN, Aircraft D.T.D., British Standards, and S.A.E., and sometimes the company's specification is related to national or international standards.
        I do not want to digress too far, but the customer—either the engineer or the technician—will usually refer to an international specification when defining what he wants and tell the supplier or the steel manufacturer, but the steel manufacturer also has specifications of his own relating to various well-known trade marks. I have a list here of some of the names. There is Stelvetite, Dragonite, Silverfox and Fortiweld—all names well known by customers. I suggest that the importance of goodwill cannot be measured or quantified. Over the years, companies have made reputations for specialities like steel erecting, fencing, coated steel sheets, and steel work. All this may be kept, or lost within one vast organisation, unless the principle of the Clause is preserved in practice, whether it is accepted in the Bill or not.
        I suggest that the Minister's interests must rest with this principle and I hope that the generosity which he showed before will be repeated—
        Mr. Marsh indicated dissent.
        Mr. Osborn: I see the Minister shaking his head, but I hope that he will justify that view. Unless he accepts the sentiments behind the new Clause, the Corporation will have difficulty in selling at home, but more particularly overseas. This is an important new Clause and I hope that the Minister will change his mind and accept it.
        Mr. Freeson: I accept the hon. Member's sentiments. We have a great deal of sympathy with the object of the new Clause and recognise that considerable commercial goodwill is attached to the names of the present companies. It is not just a historic goodwill but is associated with the quality of the product and related

        773
        to certain company names. There is no doubt that this would be as important an asset after nationalisation as before. We recognise also that, as a result of the associations with names over many years, a considerable loyalty to particular companies and groups has grown up.
        These are particularly powerful considerations, which is why I begun by saying that we accept the sentiments expressed. They will no doubt influence the Corporation in its conduct of affairs and will be borne very much in mind by it when deciding how the public sector is to be organised. However, we cannot accept that this kind of provision should be written into a Bill. It does not require statutory expression. There might be situations in which it would be unfortunate to have such a requirement in the Bill, in view of the wide options which must be maintained in the Organising Committee to decide how it recommends future organisation of the industry.
        Recommendations on the new framework might cut across the legislative insistence on retaining certain names. One must balance the two things fairly equally and leave it open for the Organising Committee. We are certain that the Corporation will have great regard to the considerations involved. However, the new Clause, if accepted, would merely be a declaration. It could not be particularly effective in organisation.
        They are not the only considerations. I have indicated that there are others—those of loyalty and commercial goodwill associated with quality. Matters of organisation are ahead of us. The industry is to undergo major changes in this respect and it is well known that various concerns in the industry are already organised in different ways. They may be restructured according to the future grouping of the industry and it would be difficult to insist, by law, in these circumstances on the retention of names of particular concerns which were restructured to fit in with the recommendations of the Organising Committee.
        Although we accept, in association with this idea, the need to maintain the vitality of what one would rightly describe as subordinate units of the industry, we must leave it open to central advisory authority, the Organising Committee, to make structural recommendations, which
        774
        will be decided upon, and upon which the Corporation will go about organising the industry. It is widely agreed—this has been referred to time and time again during the past two days, and I have no doubt it was referred to time and time again in Committee—that the nationalised steel industry will have to be reorganised into a smaller number of large groups. There may be differences as to the precise number, but this will undoubtedly be the future of the industry.
        As I have said, some of these groupings are likely to cut across the existing pattern of organisation with which names of particular companies are associated.
        I do not propose to deal with what might come out of the report which the Organising Committee will put to the Minister, and consequently to Parliament, but this is undoubtedly a consideration which we shall have to bear in mind. It may be that in the future, when the reputation of the National Steel Corporation is established, the Corporation will wish to trade under its own name. It is true that there is nothing in the Amendment which would prevent this, but there seems to be little point in inserting into the Bill a provision which may become less and less appropriate as circumstances change in the future history of the industry.
        For these reasons, which I hope I have put fairly, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the point he has made.
        Mr. Barber: This is for me a very sad moment because, after all the strictures which I heaped upon the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary in a previous speech, listening to him winding up the discussion on this Clause, it was my intention to make a nice conciliatory speech, a few happy observations, and to congratulate him. But, alas, I cannot do so. I will say in his favour that he has dealt with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) in moving this new Clause, but the arguments which he adduced do not carry conviction. He said, on the one hand, that the new Clause would be completely ineffective, and then he said that it would be insistence by law. He cannot have it both ways. The truth is that there would be, to use his phrase, no insistence by law if the Clause were to be carried.

        775
        The Clause would lay upon the Corporation a duty in making recommendations to the Minister merely to have regard to the advantages of preserving the goodwill attached to the names and trademarks of the companies. That is not asking for a great deal. The Minister and the Corporation, at the end of the day, can make their decision, and they are fettered only to the extent that they must have regard to those advantages,
        which are accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Government.
        I found his reply singularly unconvincing, but it is quite obvious that we shall not make any progress by pursuing the matter further. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support my hon. Friend by voting in the Lobby.
        Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes. 228, Noes 301.

        Division No. 238.]

        AYES

        [9.14 p.m.

        Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

        Forrest, George

        Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

        Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

        Fortescue, Tim

        Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

        Astor, John

        Foster, Sir John

        Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

        Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

        Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

        Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

        Awdry, Daniel

        Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

        Longden, Gilbert

        Baker, W. H. K.

        Gibson-Watt, David

        Loveys, W. H.

        Balniel, Lord

        Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

        McAdden, Sir Stephen

        Barber, Bt. Hn. Anthony

        Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

        MacArthur, Ian

        Batsford, Brian

        Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

        Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

        Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

        Glover, Sir Douglas

        Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

        Bell, Ronald

        Glyn, Sir Richard

        Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

        Berry, Hn. Anthony

        Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

        Maddan, Martin

        Biffen, John

        Goodhart, Philip

        Maginnis, John E.

        Biggs-Davison, John

        Goodhew, Victor

        Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

        Black, Sir Cyril

        Grant, Anthony

        Marten, Neil

        Blaker, Peter

        Grant-Ferris, R.

        Maude, Angus

        Body, Richard

        Gresham Cooke, R.

        Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

        Bossom, Sir Clive

        Grieve, Percy

        Mawby, Ray

        Boyd-Carpenter, Rt Hn. John

        Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

        Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

        Gurden, Harold

        Mills, Peter (Torrington)

        Braine, Bernard

        Hall, John (Wycombe)

        Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

        Brinton, Sir Tatton

        Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

        Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

        Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

        Bruce-Gardyne, J.

        Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

        Monro, Hector

        Bryan, Paul

        Harris, Reader (Heston)

        More, Jasper

        Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

        Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

        Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

        Buck, Antony (Colchester)

        Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

        Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

        Bullus, Sir Eric

        Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

        Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

        Burden, F. A.

        Harvie Anderson, Miss

        Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

        Campbell, Gordon

        Hastings, Stephen

        Murton, Oscar

        Carlisle, Mark

        Hawkins, Paul

        Neave, Airey

        Cary, Sir Robert

        Hay, John

        Nicholls, Sir Harmar

        Channon, H. P. G.

        Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

        Nott, John

        Chichester-Clark, R.

        Heseltine, Michael

        Onslow, Cranley

        Clark, Henry

        Higgins, Terence L.

        Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

        Clegg, Walter

        Hill, J. E. B.

        Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

        Cooke, Robert

        Hirst, Geoffrey

        Osborn, John (Hallam)

        Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

        Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

        Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

        Costain, A. P.

        Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

        Page, Graham (Crosby)

        Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

        Holland, Philip

        Page, John (Harrow, W.)

        Crawley, Aldan

        Hooson, Emlyn

        Pardoe, John

        Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

        Hordern, Peter

        Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

        Crouch, David

        Hornby, Richard

        Peel, John

        Crowder, F. P.

        Howell, David (Guildford)

        Percival, Ian

        Cunningham, Sir Knox

        Hunt, John

        Peyton, John

        Currie, G. B. H.

        Hutchison, Michael Clark

        Pike, Miss Mervyn

        Dalkeith, Earl of

        Iremonger, T. L.

        Pink, R. Bonner

        Dance, James

        Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

        Pounder, Rafton

        Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

        Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

        Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

        Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

        Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

        Price, David (Eastleigh)

        Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

        Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

        Prior, J. M. L.

        Digby, Simon Wingfield

        Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

        Quennell, Miss J. M.

        Dodds-Parker, Douglas

        Jopling, Michael

        Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

        Doughty, Charles

        Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

        Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

        Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

        Kershaw, Anthony

        Rees-Davies, W. Ft.

        Drayson, C. B.

        Kimball, Marcus

        Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

        du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

        King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

        Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

        Eden, Sir John

        Kirk, Peter

        Ridsdale, Julian

        Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

        Kitson, Timothy

        Roots, William

        Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

        Knight, Mrs. Jill

        Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

        Farr, John

        Lambton, Viscount

        Royle, Anthony

        Fisher, Nigel

        Lancaster, Col. C. G.

        Russell, Sir Ronald

        Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

        Langford-Holt, sir John

        St. John-Stevas, Norman

        Scott, Nicholas

        Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

        wells, John (Maidstone)

        Sharples, Richard

        Tilney, John

        Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

        Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

        Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

        Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

        Sinclair, Sir George

        van Straubenzee, W. R.

        Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

        Smith, John

        Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

        Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

        Stainton, Keith

        Vickers, Dame Joan

        Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

        Steel, David (Roxburgh)

        Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

        Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

        Stodart, Anthony

        Walker, Peter (Worcester)

        Woodnutt, Mark

        Summers, Sir Spencer

        Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

        Worsley, Marcus

        Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

        Wall, Patrick

        Wylie, N. R.

        Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

        Walters, Dennis

        Younger, Hn. George

        Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

        Ward, Dame Irene

        Teeling, Sir William

        Weatherill, Bernard

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

        Temple, John M.

        Webster, David

        Mr. Pym and Mr. Eyre.

        NOES

        Ahse, Leo

        Dewar, Donald

        Hunter, Adam

        Albu, Austen

        Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

        Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

        Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

        Dickens, James

        Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

        Alldritt, Walter

        Dobson, Ray

        Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

        Allen, Scholefield

        Doig, Peter

        Jeger, George (Goole)

        Anderson, Donald

        Driberg, Tom

        Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

        Archer, Peter

        Dunn, James A.

        Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

        Armstrong, Ernest

        Dunnett, Jack

        Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W

        Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

        Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

        Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

        Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

        Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

        Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

        Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

        Eadie, Alex

        Judd, Frank

        Bagier, Cordon A. T.

        Edelman, Maurice

        Kelley, Richard

        Barnett, Joel

        Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

        Kenyon, Clifford

        Beaney, Alan

        Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

        Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

        Bence, Cyril

        Edwards, William (Merioneth)

        Lawson, George

        Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

        Ellis, John

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

        English, Michael

        Ledger, Ron

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Ennals, David

        Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

        Binns, John

        Ensor, David

        Lee, John (Reading)

        Bishop, E. S.

        Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

        Lestor, Miss Joan

        Blackburn, F.

        Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

        Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

        Blenkinsop, Arthur

        Fernyhough, E

        Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

        Boardman, H.

        Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

        Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

        Booth, Albert

        Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

        Lipton, Marcus

        Boston, Terence

        Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

        Lomas, Kenneth

        Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

        Foley, Maurice

        Loughlin, Charles

        Boyden, James

        Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

        Luard, Evan

        Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

        Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

        Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

        Bradley, Tom

        Ford, Ben

        Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

        Bray, Dr. Jeremy

        Forrester, John

        Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

        Brooks, Edwin

        Fowler, Gerry

        McBride, Neil

        Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

        Fraser, John (Norwood)

        McCann, John

        Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

        Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

        MacColl, James

        Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

        Freeson, Reginald

        MacDermot, Niall

        Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

        Galpern, Sir Myer

        Macdonald, A. H.

        Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

        Gardner, Tony

        McGuire, Michael

        Buchan, Norman

        Garrett, W. E.

        McKay, Mrs. Margaret

        Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

        Ginsburg, David

        Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

        Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

        Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

        Mackie, John

        Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

        Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

        Mackintosh, John P.

        Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

        Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

        Maclennan, Robert

        Cant, R. B.

        Gregory, Arnold

        MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

        Carmichael, Neil

        Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

        McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

        Carter-Jones, Lewis

        Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

        McNamara, J. Kevin

        Chapman, Donald

        Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

        MacPherson, Malcolm

        Coe, Denis

        Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

        Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

        Coleman, Donald

        Hamling, William

        Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

        Concannon, J. D.

        Hannan, William

        Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

        Contan, Bernard

        Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

        Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

        Corbet, Mrs. Freda

        Hart, Mrs. Judith

        Manuel, Archie

        Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

        Haseldine, Norman

        Mapp, Charles

        Crawshaw, Richard

        Hattersley, Roy

        Marquand, David

        Cronin, John

        Hazell, Bert

        Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

        Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Mason, Roy

        Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

        Henig, Stanley

        Mayhew, Christopher

        Cullen, Mrs. Alice

        Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

        Mellish, Robert

        Dalyell, Tam

        Hilton, W. S.

        Mendelson, J. J.

        Darling, Rt. Hn. George

        Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

        Mikardo, Ian

        Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

        Hooley, Frank

        Millan, Bruce

        Davies, Dr Ernest (Stretford)

        Horner, John

        Milne, Edward (Elyth)

        Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

        Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

        Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

        Davies, Harold (Leek)

        Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

        Molloy, William

        Davies, Ifor (Gower)

        Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

        Moonman, Eric

        Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

        Howie, W.

        Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

        Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)

        Hoy, James

        Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

        Delargy, Hugh

        Hughes, Rt. Hn. cledwyn (Anglesey)

        Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

        Dell, Edmund

        Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

        Murray, Albert

        Dempsey, James

        Hughes, Roy (Newport)

        Neal, Harold

        778

        779

        Newens, Stan

        Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

        Tinn, James

        Norwood, Christopher

        Robertson, John (Paisley)

        Tomney, Frank

        Oakes, Gordon

        Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kennet(St. P'c' as)

        Tuck, Raphael

        Oram, Albert E.

        Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

        Urwin, T. W.

        Orbach, Maurice

        Rodgers, William (Stockton)

        Varley, Eric G.

        Orme, Stanley

        Roebuck, Roy

        Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

        Oswald, Thomas

        Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

        Walden, Brian (All Saints)

        Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

        Rose, Paul

        Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

        Owen, Will (Morpeth)

        Ross, Rt. Hn. William

        Wallace, George

        Palmer, Arthur

        Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

        Watkins, David (Consett)

        Panneli, Rt. Hn. Charles

        Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

        Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

        Park, Trevor

        Ryan, John

        Weitzman, David

        Parker, John (Dagenham)

        Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

        Wellbeloved, James

        Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

        Sheldon, Robert

        Whitaker, Ben

        Pavitt, Laurence

        Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

        White, Mrs. Eirene

        Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

        Shore, Peter (Stepney)

        Whitlock, William

        Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

        Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'stle-u-Tyne)

        Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

        Pentland, Norman

        Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)

        Wilkins, W. A.

        Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

        Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

        Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

        Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

        Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

        Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

        Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

        Silverman, Julius (Aston)

        Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

        Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

        Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

        Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

        Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

        Skeffington, Arthur

        Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

        Price, William (Rugby)

        Slater, Joseph

        Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

        Probert, Arthur

        Small, William

        Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

        Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

        Snow, Julian

        Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

        Randall, Harry

        Spriggs, Leslie

        Winnick, David

        Rankin, John

        Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)

        Woodbum, Rt. Hn. A.

        Redhead, Edward

        Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

        Woof, Robert

        Reynolds, G. W.

        Taverne, Dick

        Wyatt, Woodrow

        Rhodes, Geoffrey

        Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

        Yates, Victor

        Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

        Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

        Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

        Thornton, Ernest

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES

        Mr. Harper and Mr. Grey.

        Clause 1.—(THE NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION.)
        Mr. Alison: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 11, at the end to insert:
        Provided that the Minister may by order change the name of the Corporation.
        I trust that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, fortified by the appreciable majority which they scored on the last Division, and mollified by the rapid progress that we are now making, will return to the earlier disposition which they showed and accept this reasonable and flexible Amendment which, I believe, may stand them in very good stead later on because it gives them the possibility at a later stage in the development of the activities of the Corporation of changing its name.
        There are some genuinely unsatisfactory aspects of the present title with which, for understandable reasons, the Minister has had to saddle the new entity which the Organising Committee will bring into existence. One of the most unsatisfactory aspects is the somewhat narrow but genuine point that there already is in existence a National Steel Corporation, one in the United States, a substantial private steel company producing on its own equivalent to a quarter of the present output of the British steel industry.
        780
        When we touched earlier on the subject of the difficulties which might arise over patents as between the British National Steel Corporation and the National Steel Corporation in the United States, the Minister on the whole tended to wave aside our arguments, saying that he had gone into the facts and figures and only five patents were registered in the United Kingdom by the American National Steel Corporation. The implication of what he argued in Committee was that our Corporation and the one already in the United States are operating in two quite different spheres.
        This reminded me of the days when the C.B.I. used to be called the F.B.I. When they looked up F.B.I. in the international commercial directories the Americans were always very surprised to find that it stood for the Federation of British Industries. This is because the F.B.I. is an American national organisation, and it is probably just as well that the American F.B.I. did not overlap. The truth was that it was reasonable that an international commercial directory should register the F.B.I. as the Federation of British Industries because the American F.B.I. was a national body and the British F.B.I. operated throughout the world.
        But we are now reaching a situation in the way in which steel markets throughout the world are developing in which it

        781
        is clear that an increasing volume of steel, in the conditions of over-supply and over-capacity, will be flowing into the international markets. I believe that there genuinely is a growing possibility, particularly with the export trade and the cutback in demand for steel products in the domestic markets, for the National Steel Corporation of the United States and the National Steel Corporation of the United Kingdom to tangle in the international sphere. I believe that the Government should take cognisance of this because it is a real possibility, and on this narrow ground alone we want the Minister to give himself power to change the name if the need arises.
        There is a wider aspect. We must now build into this British steel enterprise and the whole British steel industry an international flavour. It is self-evident that if we cannot earn our keep in steel in international trade—although we already export about a sixth of our output—there is no future for British steel. It is significant that the Government or public corporations which operate to some extent overseas—for example. B.E.A., although we know that its most popular route is from London to Scotland—deliberately include in their title "British". We believe that the Corporation should explicitly carry the title "British".
        9.30 p.m.
        In Committee, the Minister argued that there are already in existence, as subsidiaries of the Federation, a body calling itself the British Steel Corporation and another calling itself the British Iron and Steel Corporation. That objection is no longer valid. On Second Reading, the Minister said:
        "It is clearly essential that the nationalised companies should withdraw as quickly as possible, on fair terms, from the B.I.S.F. and that the central trading services operated by the Federation should be transferred to the Corporation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1234.]
        This clearly shows that the subsidiaries of the Federation which carry the title "British" are to be taken over by the Corporation to become its subsidiaries. What an anomalous position it will be if the National Steel Corporation has two subsidiaries bearing the title "British" while, as the parent company, it cannot have the title but must retain the name
        782
        "National", which implies that "British" means a smaller grouping than "National", because "National" takes direct account of Northern Ireland.
        We want to give the Minister flexibility without commitment now to a definite title. We want to give him the opportunity to be able to take on the title "British" for the Corporation, which will be a great national undertaking. This would facilitate its operations abroad. The right hon. Gentleman has hinted that for some time the overseas trading of the undertaking will be carried on by the old companies but he used that rather mischievous, ambiguous and shadowy word "initially", seeming to imply that the Corporation would eventually lend its title to the operations of British steel overseas.
        Let him now give himself power without commitment to change the name. Any honest man proposing to go into the future would want to be in a position to change someone's name if he was a bachelor. Let us give the Minister power to change the name of the Corporation in the future, launching it into international trading with the full title of Britain. We hope that he will see his way to accepting this modest, constructive and reasonable Amendment.
        Mr. Gresham Cooke: This is typical of the facility of the Labour Party for calling something by the wrong name. When we have unemployment, it calls it redeployment. When we have inflation, it calls it reflation. This Corporation is being set up to control the iron and steel industry and the Government call it the National Steel Corporation, disregarding the fact that the industry not only produces 27 million tons of steel, but 17 million tons of iron. The obvious name is the British Iron and Steel Corporation.
        To call it the National Steel Corporation is the Labour Party falling into the old trap. It can never call a spade a spade, but must always choose a flowery title, usually to disguise what the thing is or is supposed to be.
        Mr. Freeson: Unlike the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), the Government do not believe that the fact that the Corporation will have the same name as the American company which he mentioned need cause any difficulty.

        783
        In this country there will be no complications and no difficulty about registration, as the name "National Steel Corporation" will be conferred on the Corporation by an Act of Parliament. The American company has no branches in this country. It has some patents, but the register of patents clearly identifies it as a Corporation organised in the State of Delaware in the United States, so there is no difficulty, Finally, the choice of name for the Corporation is entirely within the purview of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In overseas countries where difficulties could arise it would be open to the Corporation to register subsidiary companies under appropriate names which would avoid any confusion in the countries concerned, America or anywhere else. However, as my right hon. Friend said in Committee, the Government have considered calling the Corporation the "British Steel Corporation" or the "British Iron and Steel Corporation", which would be more happily received by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). But at present those names are pre-empted by the subsidiaries of the Federation which already exists.
        As I understand it, the difficulty could be readily overcome when the Corporation is set up and there is a transfer of the central trading companies of the Federation to the Corporation. It would certainly be an advantage to the Corporation, if it were thought desirable, to adopt one or other of these names without having to have another Act of Parliament, and we will certainly want to take into account the advantage of having the word "British" in the title, one of the points made by both hon. Members.
        The incorporation of a provision in the Bill which would allow the Minister to change the Corporation's name if it proved, contrary to expectation, that having the same name as the American company caused difficulties would also allow for speedy action without further Parliamentary action. The Amendment would certainly allow this to be done by Order and therefore, hon. Members will be happy to know, once again we accept the Amendment in principle.
        There are certain drafting defects as the Amendment stands. Difficulty about
        784
        language is not confined to one or other parties in the House or anywhere else.
        Mr. Alison: Is the difficulty about the wording connected with word "Order"? Is it a question of whether it would be an affirmative or negative procedure by which the change would be made?
        Mr. Freeson: As I have said in a previous debate this evening, I do not speak here as drafting lawyer or officer, and I cannot say what the difficulties are. We must accept advice on these things and our advice is that there are drafting defects. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment, we will undertake to introduce an appropriate Amendment in another place.
        Mr. Alison: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Mr. John Peyton: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 12, to leave out 'having perpetual succession' and to insert:
        'the powers and duties of which as conferred and imposed by this Act shall lapse after a period of ten years unless then renewed by Parliament'.
        I must admit that when, seeking some relief during the Recess, I returned to the Bill, I found my eye lighting almost for the first time on the words "perpetual succession". Reflecting, as I have for a good deal of time over the last few months, on the subject of the nationalisation of steel, I found these words at the very beginning of the Bill so odious that I thought that it would not be a bad idea if we left them out and substituted for them the modest and mild Amendment which I have moved and which would allow a review by Parliament of the successes or failures of the Corporation after a period of 10 years.
        I do not believe that this is at all unreasonable. It might commend itself to the House, and I am confident that it will have the support of my hon. Friends. The Minister and the Government have had a great deal of time in which to prepare their plans for the future of the steel industry. Some of us suspect that those plans have not yet reached the stage of readiness which one might have expected after the long years of threat which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have

        785
        seen fit to hold over the head of the steel industry.
        I suggest that now, as they are confident that they are doing the right thing, the best thing by the industry and the country, and that they are not pursuing merely doctrinaire aims in taking over this industry, it would be a very reasonable thing, in 10 years' time, for there to be a judgment. At the moment, the right hon. Gentleman will say that we have strong feelings against nationalisation, that we do not think that it is right but that he does.
        I am not altogether certain that, from time to time, in his heart of hearts, the right hon. Gentleman has felt this to be wrong. It is his job to say that this is not so, but I feel that the Minister ranks among those in the Socialist Party—I do not, of course, refer to the garrulous and cackling Left-wing, but to the more respectable section of the Socialist Party, and there is such a section—who feel that this is really a quite unnecessary experiment, which will not get anyone anywhere. All that I am suggesting in this very modest Amendment is that after 10 years the matter should be put on trial.
        I must admit that there is a certain pessimism lurking in this Amendment, which I wish to discount immediately. It is only inserted there upon the unlikely premise that there will be a Socialist Government for another 10 years. I feel very confident that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) has a large responsibility for this country's affairs, which his abilities make almost essential, one of the first things that he will wish to do is to disembarrass the State of the steel industry and return it to private enterprise and a state of competition, initiative and all the rest. We look forward to that day, but just in case the worst occurs, and we should have a Socialist Government in another 10 years, it would be a very becoming exercise in modesty for the right hon. Gentleman or his successor to be called to account at that Box, and to renew the mandate which this Bill is now giving him to take over this industry.
        Sir D. Glover: This is the first time for many years when I cannot support my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil
        786
        (Mr. Peyton). He has forgotten that no Parliament can bind another and that this Amendment is, therefore, irrelevant. Long before the 10 years are up another Parliament will have another opportunity of rescinding this business.
        9.45 p.m.
        Mr. Barber: It is quite clear that my own party is divided fifty-fifty on this particular issue and it is right that I should express an opinion. It is a personal opinion, and I do not wish to fall out with either half of the Conservative Party.
        I should not go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for the simple reason that, as he said, this Amendment is proposed on the unlikely premise that we have a Socialist Government for the next 10 years. To me, that is such a remote possibility that I do not think that it is worth wasting Parliament's time to divide upon it.
        Mr. Freeson: I trust, also, that the possibility of denationalisation is so remote as not to be worth considering.
        Hon. Members will not expect me to receive this Amendment with the satisfaction with which I received one or two previous Amendments. In fact, it is a nonsense, as I believe the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) realises. It would insert in the Bill a provision which would effectively change the whole character of the Bill into a subsection making purely formal provisions for the Corporation. The absurdity is seen clearly when one realises how the Clause would read if the Amendment were inserted:
        "The Corporation shall be a body corporate the powers and duties of which as conferred and imposed by this Act shall lapse after a period of ten years unless renewed by Parliament having a common seal."
        Apart from the drafting point, the Amendment is absurd on more general grounds. It would prolong the uncertainty which I think everybody accepts has been a curse on the industry for long enough and which it is important to end. It was for that reason as well as for others which have been ably pinpointed by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) today and yesterday in quoting from my election address that I referred to the remoteness of denationalisation.

        787
        It is important that that should be said, because one or two Members have hinted that this was in their minds. Very few Members on either side of the House and in the country would advocate a further measure of that kind.
        Mr. Barber: I intervene only to urge the hon. Gentleman not to be unnecessarily provocative and to prolong the debate. I say this with great respect. We on these benches made our position on denationalisation absolutely clear on Second Reading. I do not want to have to go over the ground again. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not refer to the matter again, otherwise he will prolong our proceedings.
        Mr. Freeson: I must be allowed to say what I wish to say in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman has had a great deal of fun on this issue. One or two other Members have referred to the subject. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the graciousness to allow me to refer to it as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members should allow me to complete my remarks.
        I have said that the Amendment is an absurdity, and I have given the reason for saying that. I do not believe that any hon. Member wishes to divide on the issue. I ask the House to reject the Amendment if the hon. Member for Yeovil will not agree to withdraw it.
        Sir J. Eden: I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary took the Amendment seriously enough. He seemed to take exception to the advice given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). Had he been a member of Standing Committee D, he would have learned very rapidly how wise he would be to heed what my right hon. Friend said to him. Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity at this stage of going too far in encouraging him to listen more attentively to the words which my right hon. Friend may say to him at a later date.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who moved many Amendments throughout the Committee stage, which contributed greatly to the improvement of the Bill, has clearly given much thought to this Amendment. While I share with my right hon. Friend every
        788
        doubt as to the possibility of the maintenance in office of a Labour Government for such a long period as to necessitate the bringing into force of the Amendment, it would nevertheless be wise for the Government seriously to consider writing into the Bill every power which may save time later.
        What is important in this context is that this would give them a chance to haw a second view of the matter. They cannot posibly get the whole structure and organisation right at first go, and I am therefore sure that my hon. Friend was correct in trying to write into the Bill some long-stop provision of this nature to give the Government an opportunity of a second look.
        But I see the force of the speech made by my right hon. Friend and the contribution interjected by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), and I am tempted not to encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil to insist on forcing the Amendment to a Division. However, having had the opportunity of listening to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, I discount completely the matter of the speech, but what is worth voting against now and on every conceivable opportunity in the future is the hon. Gentleman's attitude.
        It is precisely this arrogant, high-handed offensive approach which he is bringing to the conduct of the nation's affairs that I shall vote against on every conceivable occasion, and it is against this attitude that I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil to divide the House.
        Mr. Peyton: May I have the leave of the House to make one or two comments?
        Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member does not need that permission.
        Mr. Peyton: I should like to make one or two comments. Yesterday was the first performance of the Parliamentary Secretary at the Box. Without being particularly impressed by what happened, we gave him forbearance. Today he delivered his opinion on the subject of absurdity. On that, I am bound to concede, he is an expert. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General came in. He never contributes anything positive—
        Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come to his Amendment.
        Mr. Peyton: My comments on my Amendment were interrupted by the unusual intrusion of the Paymaster-General and I was tempted to comment on the fact. At this time the Minister of Power, who during these proceedings, if I may say so, has developed a habit of courtesy towards us which has not been uninfluential in our proceedings, left the Chamber for a moment or so, which allowed the Parliamentary Secretary the opportunity to get up and to reveal his inexperience to the full.
        The hon. Member said that we were having fun. One thing I wish to make absolutely clear: if I could wreck this Bill, I would. The only reason why we did not intend to take the Amendment to a vote was that we knew perfectly well that at the right hon. Gentleman's beck and call, at the call of a bell, are hundreds of Members who will obediently come to vote for anything that their masters say. So we have decided that such an Amendment as this, which is plainly wrecking—I concede that—was probably not one worth voting on. It is not for me to decide. It is for my right hon. Friend, really. I would accept any advice he likes to give.
        Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member may disagree with his right hon. Friend.
        Mr. Peyton: No. My hon. Friend has co-operated with every person who sat behind him—so well, he now deserves our full support, and gets it. This is not the kind of thing which, I know, would be understood easily by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). If he wishes to interrupt me I shall be very glad to give way to him, because of all people whose presence we missed on the Standing Committee he perhaps, and his hon. Friend—
        Mr. Speaker: Order. We may, too, have missed his presence—in the Standing Committee—but that is not what we are discussing here, and the hon. Member must come to the Amendment.
        Mr. Peyton: I was terribly provoked. Knowing as I do, Mr. Speaker, your great dislike of sedentary interruptions, I allowed myself that modest protest. I
        am so sorry. I will endeavour, so long as I am not greatly provoked again, not to repeat my error.
        Mr. Michael Foot: Oh.
        Mr. Peyton: Your influence, Mr. Speaker, is communicating itself to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
        But to return to this Amendment and the Parliamentary Secretary's astonishing performance on it. He then went on to dismiss the whole thing with the suggestion that we had had our bit of fun. I should like once again to re-echo and affirm, as I have done frequently in the past months, what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said, and so just dismiss this. I can agree with what he has said. I would only add to it that the Parliamentary Secretary has given a very good example of the insolence of puppyhood, and I think it worth while, if my right hon. Friend agrees with this course, that we should vote against the Parliamentary Secretary, just to show him.
        Mr. Barber: By leave of the House, I spoke to this Amendment with great brevity for two reasons, first, because the case had been adequately put with great clarity by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), and, secondly, because, as my hon. Friend has just said, he did not intend to take his Amendment to a Division; but the whole House has witnessed what has happened during the past 10 or 15 minutes. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Power, at the beginning of our deliberations in the Standing Committee, started, if I may say so, with much the same approach to Members of Parliament, but by Christmas time he had, I think, learned a thing or two.
        The Parliamentary Secretary has brought this on himself, and I have not the slightest doubt, in view of his performance and of the things which he said, provocative in the extreme, that we should, in protest, divide the House.
        Question put, That 'having perpetual succession' stand part of the Bill:—
        The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 216.

        Division No. 239.]

        AYES

        [9.59 p.m.

        Abse, Leo

        Alldritt, Walter

        Archer, Peter

        Albu, Austen

        Allen, Scholefield

        Armstrong, Ernest

        Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

        Anderson, Donald

        Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

        Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

        Ford, Ben

        MacPherson, Maicolm

        Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

        Forrester, John

        Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

        Bagier, Gordon A. T.

        Fowler, Gerry

        Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

        Barnett, Joel

        Fraser, John (Norwood)

        Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

        Beaney, Alan

        Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

        Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

        Bence, Cyril

        Freeson, Reginald

        Manuel, Archie

        Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

        Galpern, Sir Myer

        Mapp, Charles

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Gardner, Tony

        Marquand, David

        Binns, John

        Garrett, W. E.

        Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

        Bishop, E. S.

        Ginsburg, David

        Mason, Roy

        Blackburn, F.

        Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

        Mayhew, Christopher

        Blenkinsop, Arthur

        Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

        Mellish, Robert

        Boardman, H.

        Gregory, Arnold

        Mendelson, J. J.

        Booth, Albert

        Grey, Charles (Durham)

        Mikardo, Ian

        Boston, Terence

        Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

        Millan, Bruce

        Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

        Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

        Milne, Edward (Blyth)

        Boyden, James

        Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

        Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

        Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

        Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

        Molloy, William

        Bradley, Tom

        Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

        Moonman, Eric

        Bray, Dr. Jeremy

        Hamling, William

        Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

        Brooks, Edwin

        Hannan, William

        Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

        Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

        Harper, Joseph

        Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

        Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

        Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

        Morris, John (Aberavon)

        Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

        Hart, Mrs. Judith

        Moyle, Roland

        Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)

        Haseldine, Norman

        Murray, Albert

        Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

        Hattersley, Roy

        Neal, Harold

        Buchan, Norman

        Hazeil, Bert

        Newens, Stan

        Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Norwood, Christopher

        Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

        Henig, Stanley

        Oakes, Gordon

        Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

        Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

        O'Malley, Brian

        Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

        Hilton, W. S.

        Oram, Albert E.

        Cant, R. B.

        Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

        Orbach, Maurice

        Carmichael, Neil

        Hooley, Frank

        Orme, Stanley

        Carter-Jones, Lewis

        Hooson, Emlyn

        Oswald, Thomas

        Chapman, Donald

        Horner, John

        Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

        Coe, Denis

        Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

        Owen, Will (Morpeth)

        Coleman, Donald

        Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

        Palmer, Arthur

        Concannon, J. D.

        Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

        Pannnell, Rt. Hn. Charles

        Conian, Bernard

        Howie, W.

        Pardoe, John

        Corbet, Mrs. Freda

        Hoy, James

        Park, Trevor

        Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

        Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

        Parker, John (Dagenham)

        Crawshaw, Richard

        Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

        Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

        Cronin John

        Hughes, Roy (Newport)

        Pavitt, Laurence

        Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

        Hunter, Adam

        Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

        Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

        Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

        Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

        Cullen, Mrs. Alice

        Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

        Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

        Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

        Darling, Rt. Hn. George

        Jeger, George (Goole)

        Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

        Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

        Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

        Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

        Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

        Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

        Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

        Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

        Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

        Price, William (Rugby)

        Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

        Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

        Probert, Arthur

        Davies, Harold (Leek)

        Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

        Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

        Davies, Ifor (Gower)

        Judd, Frank

        Randall, Harry

        Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

        Kenyon, Clifford

        Rankin, John

        Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

        Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

        Redhead, Edward

        Delargy, Hugh

        Lawson, George

        Reynolds, G. W.

        Dell, Edmund

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Rhodes, Geoffrey

        Dempsey, James

        Ledger, Ron

        Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

        Dewar, Donald

        Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

        Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

        Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

        Lee, John (Reading)

        Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

        Dickens, James

        Lestor, Miss Joan

        Robertson, John (Paisley)

        Dobson, Ray

        Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

        Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kcnneth(St.P'c'as)

        Doig, Peter

        Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

        Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)

        Driberg, Tom

        Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

        Rodgers, William (Stockton)

        Dunn, James A.

        Lipton, Marcus

        Roebuck, Roy

        Dunnett, Jack

        Lomas, Kenneth

        Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

        Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

        Loughlin, Charles

        Rose, Paul

        Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

        Luard, Evan

        Ross, Rt. Hn. William

        Eadie, Alex

        Lubbock, Eric

        Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

        Edelman, Maurice

        Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

        Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

        Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

        Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

        Ryan, John

        Edwards, William (Merioneth)

        Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

        Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

        Ellis, John

        McCann, John

        Sheldon, Robert

        English, Michael

        MacColl, James

        Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

        Ennals, David

        Macdonald, A. H.

        Shore, Peter (Stepney)

        Ensor, David

        McGuire, Michael

        Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

        Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

        McKay, Mrs. Margaret

        Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)

        Fernyhough, E.

        Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

        Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

        Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

        Mackie, John

        Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

        Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

        Mackintosh, John P.

        Silverman, Julius (Aston)

        Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

        Maclennan, Robert

        Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

        Foley, Maurice

        MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

        Skeffington, Arthur

        Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

        McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

        Small, William

        Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

        McNamara, J. Kevin

        Snow, Julian

        Spriggs, Leslie

        Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

        Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

        Steel, David (Roxburgh)

        Walden, Brian (All Saints)

        Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

        Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

        Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

        Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

        Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

        Wallace, George

        Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

        Taverne, Dick

        Watkins, David (Consett)

        Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

        Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

        Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

        Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

        Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

        Weitzman, David

        Winnick, David

        Thornton, Ernest

        Wellbeloved, James

        Winstanley Dr. M. P.

        Thorpe, Jeremy

        Whitaker, Ben

        Woof, Robert

        Tinn, James

        White, Mrs. Eirene

        Wyatt, Woodrow

        Tomney, Frank

        Whitlock, William

        Yates, Victor

        Tuck, Raphael

        Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

        Urwin, T. W.

        Wilkins, W. A.

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

        Varley, Eric G.

        Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

        Mr. McBride and

        Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

        Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

        Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

        NOES

        Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

        Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

        Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

        Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

        Gibson-Watt, David

        Maddan, Martin

        Astor, John

        Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

        Maginnis, John E,

        Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

        Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

        Marten, Neil

        Awdry, Daniel

        Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

        Maude, Angus

        Baker, W. H. K.

        Glover, Sir Douglas

        Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

        Balniel, Lord

        Glyn, Sir Richard

        Mawby, Ray

        Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

        Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

        Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

        Batsford, Brian

        Goodhart, Philip

        Mills, Peter (Torrington)

        Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

        Goodhew, Victor

        Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

        Bell, Ronald

        Grant-Ferris, R.

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Berry, Hn. Anthony

        Gresham Cooke, R.

        Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

        Biffen, John

        Grieve, Percy

        Monro, Hector

        Biggs-Davison, John

        Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

        More, Jasper

        Black, Sir Cyril

        Gurden, Harold

        Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

        Blaker, Peter

        Hall, John (Wycombe)

        Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

        Body, Richard

        Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

        Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

        Bossom, Sir Clive

        Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

        Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

        Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

        Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

        Murton, Oscar

        Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

        Harris, Reader (Heston)

        Neave, Airey

        Braine, Bernard

        Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

        Nott, John

        Brinton, Sir Tatton

        Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

        Onslow, Cranley

        Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

        Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

        Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

        Bruce-Gardyne, J.

        Harvie Anderson, Miss

        Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

        Bryan, Paul

        Hastings, Stephen

        Osborn, John (Hallam)

        Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

        Hawkins, Paul

        Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

        Buck, Antony (Colchester)

        Hay, John

        Page, Graham (Crosby)

        Bullus, Sir Eric

        Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

        Page, John (Harrow, W.)

        Burden, F. A.

        Heseltine, Michael

        Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

        Campbell, Gordon

        Higgins, Terence L.

        Peel, John

        Carlisle, Mark

        Hill, J. E. B.

        Percival, Ian

        Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

        Hirst, Geoffrey

        Peyton, John

        Cary, Sir Robert

        Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

        Pink, R. Bonner

        Channon, H. P. G.

        Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

        Pounder, Rafton

        Chichester-Clark, R.

        Holland, Philip

        Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

        Clark, Henry

        Hordern, Peter

        Price, David (Eastleigh)

        Clegg, Walter

        Hornby, Richard

        Prior, J. M. L.

        Cooke, Robert

        Howell, David (Guildford)

        Pym, Francis

        Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

        Hunt, John

        Quennell, Miss J. M.

        Costain, A. P.

        Hutchison, Michael Clark

        Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

        Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speithorne)

        Iremonger, T. L.

        Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

        Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

        Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

        Rees-Davies, W. R.

        Crouch, David

        Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

        Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

        Crowder, F. P.

        Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

        Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

        Cunningham, Sir Knox

        Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

        Ridsdale, Julian

        Currie, G. B. H.

        Jopling, Michael

        Roots, William

        Dalkeith, Earl of

        Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

        Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

        Dance, James

        Kershaw, Anthony

        Royle, Anthony

        Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

        Kimball, Marcus

        Russell, Sir Ronald

        Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

        King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

        St. John-Stevas, Norman

        Digby, Simon Wingfield

        Kirk, Peter

        Scott, Nicholas

        Dodds-Parker, Douglas

        Kitson, Timothy

        Sharpies, Richard

        Doughty, Charles

        Knight, Mrs. Jill

        Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

        Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

        Lambton, Viscount

        Sinclair, Sir George

        Drayson, G. B.

        Lancaster, Col. C. G.

        Smith, John

        du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

        Langford-Holt, Sir John

        Stainton, Keith

        Eden, Sir John

        Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

        Stodart, Anthony

        Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

        Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

        Summers, Sir Spencer

        Eyre, Reginald

        Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

        Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

        Farr, John

        Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

        Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

        Fisher, Nigel

        Longden, Gilbert

        Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

        Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

        Loveys, W. H.

        Testing, Sir William

        Forrest, George

        McAdden, Sir Stephen

        Temple, John M.

        Fortescue, Tim

        MacArthur, Ian

        Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

        Foster, sir John

        Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

        Tilney, John

        Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

        Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

        Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

        van Straubenzee, W. R.

        Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

        794

        795

        Vickers, Dame Joan

        Wells, John (Maidstone)

        Worsley, Marcus

        Walker, Peter (Worcester)

        Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

        Wylie, N. R.

        Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

        Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

        Younger, Hn. George

        Wall, Patrick

        Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

        Walters, Dennis

        Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

        Weatherill, Bernard

        Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

        Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Grant

        Webster, David

        Woodnutt, Mark

        It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That the Proceedings on the Iron and Steel Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[The Prime Minister.]

    IRON AND STEEL BILL
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
    Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "sixteen" and to insert "twenty".
    Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 15, leave out "sixteen" and insert "eleven", and Amendment No. 129, in line 15, leave out "sixteen" and insert "twelve".
    Mr. Marsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Following the last Division, perhaps it is in order to say, with great moderation, that I hope we shall not have another experience of a situation in which hon. Members having said that they do not think that there is a case to support an Amendment and do not intend to vote on it, nevertheless then do so wholly and solely because they are offended on personal grounds.
    Mr. Barber: There is no point in the Minister's pursuing this matter. We made it quite clear that we did not intend to vote for that Amendment on the merits, but that in view of the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary behaved—which will be within the recollection of the House—we were quite justified in protesting as we did. What is more—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That Amendment is over. Let us get on with this one.
    Mr. Marsh: I hope that the only question which hon. Members will take into account on this occasion is whether or not they agree with the Amendment. It follows discussions that we had in Committee about the maximum size of the proposed Corporation. The Bill then proposed that the maximum number
    798
    should be 16. In the debate a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee expressed the view that 16 was too large a figure. There is no absolute figure; nobody knows what is the right size of a body of this type. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and some hon. Members opposite said that they were not satisfied with the existing limit on the size of the Corporation.
    Powerful arguments were adduced on the matter. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) talked about the problems of large Cabinets, which I will not go into because my remarks might be embarrassing to both Front Benches. Nevertheless, doubts were expressed about the value of having a body consisting of as many as 16 members. I took these arguments into account and gave an undertaking that I would consider the question carefully and see whether, in the light of further examination, the figure could be reduced.
    Unlike the situation in regard to many other Amendments, I am afraid that the discussions which I subsequently had and my examination of the problem led me not only to believe that the arguments which had been put forward did not have as much weight as I had thought, but that the figure which we had included was too small, for reasons that I shall come to. This was in no way intended to be deliberately awkward; in fact, it has created a great deal of embarrassment generally.
    The Bill does not set out the actual type of structure for the industry after nationalisation. It does not set out the groupings or the way in which the industry will be rationalised. It is no secret that the Government are listening to the views of such bodies as the Organising Committee, which has been working on this subject, and the Benson Committee. The Corporation will have a statutory responsibility to report to the Minister on the structure of the industry. There are many arguments about how this should be done. There was agreement in the Committee that the Corporation should be a functional body, the members of which had specific responsibilities. It was agreed that there should be a deputy chairman or chairmen.

    799
    10.15 p.m.
    However, there was some dispute on two other types of member. One was the part-time membership and there were forceful views against the principle of part-time members on a body of this type. There was also some argument about how far, when the industry was rationalised into large groups, it would be wise to include the chairmen of those groups in the Corporation proper. There are now real arguments of principle on both sides. I am convinced that a number of part-time members on a body of this size, providing that they are few in number, can provide a level and variety of outside experience which one would not get in a purely functional board restricted to members with specific expertise. There is a case for the part-time member.
    There is another argument about the chairmen of the groups after rationalisation. It is now clear that the industry will have to be concentrated into probably not fewer than three and not more than five sizeable groups within the Corporation's orbit. It might be argued that if the chairmen of these groups, powerful figures in their own right, were on the Corporation, precisely because the Corporation's most difficult decisions might involve deciding between conflicting interests of the groupings, they might have a virtually vested interest within the councils of the Corporation.
    It is argued that this might lead the Corporation to avoid some more difficult issues and to seek compromise where a clear decision might be better and that it might involve delay. It was said that it might not be advantageous to have them on the Corporation. This would be a peculiar position, in that the groupings would be subsidiary to the Corporation, as the latter would be appointed by the Minister and the former set up by the Corporation.
    These arguments can be fairly made against including the chairmen of the groups on the Corporation. It can be argued, on the other hand, that chairmen of groups of this size—a quarter or one-fifth of the whole British steel industry—will be powerful figures and that it would be unrealistic to believe that one could take decisions within the Corporation without having the expert knowledge
    800
    and advice of these people available on equal terms within the Corporation.
    Therefore, after discussions with many different bodies, we found a level of advice which made it clear that if the figure remained 16—we are talking about a functional body—this would not only limit the size of the Corporation but would greatly restrict the types of organisation open to it. Considerations like different forms of organisation, number of boards, a second tier of deputy chairmen—factors which are crucial to different types of organisation to the industry—would themselves be dependent upon the size of the board or the Corporation which it was open for them to work within.
    It is interesting to look also at the experience of a number of nationalised industries in the past. When the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act was passed in 1946, a maximum-size Board of eight was set up, but it was necessary to come back to Parliament within three years with a request to extend the size of that Board. The Gas Council, after it was set up, waited a period of years before it could obtain Parliamentary time and support to have the original Act changed.
    One can look also at some of the very large industrial groups. The Corporation will be a very large company, and the position in the initial stages will, I think, be different from what it will be subsequently; a larger board might well be justified in the earlier stages, but not to the same extent in the later stages. Looking at some of the sizeable companies which exist, one finds that I.C.I. has 21 directors, Unilever has 24, British-American Tobacco has 20, Imperial Tobacco has 26, G.K.N. has 22, and Distillers has 22.
    I am not arguing that there is a direct similarity between nationalised boards and boards of that sort, to which different considerations apply, and neither am I arguing that the Government Amendment is intended to produce a Corporation necessarily of 20. I am saying that, according to the advice which we have received so far, and as a result of the discussions we have had, it is clear that if we cannot raise the maximum size of the Corporation—recognising that this is a maximum size—we cut out of consideration a whole range of viewpoints on the organisation.

    801
    I apologise for this. In a way, it is an example of the value of a Committee stage. We started off, I confess, by looking at the possibility of reducing the size. I am now firmly convinced, as are people in industry—certainly the Organising Committee is—that the present maximum would circumscribe too much the discussions which are at present in progress. I therefore ask the House to agree to the Amendment to enable us to have a greater degree of flexibility.
    Mr. Peyton: All of us on this side of the House were very relieved that the right hon. Gentleman did not follow the earlier trend of his remarks and yield to the temptation to follow, quite wrongly, the example of his Parliamentary Secretary, who, we all hope, will learn.
    I yielded to the temptation in Standing Committee to hope that we would not have too large a body. I base my fears of large bodies upon the size of Cabinets. I have observed that successive Administrations have this much in common, that those who are members of Cabinets have profound respect for that body, whereas those who are not sometimes fall short of that very desirable degree of veneration. Even though that ill be foisted upon the country as a whole, it would be wrong to impose it also upon this unfortunate industry which is already being called upon to suffer so much.
    I was very much impressed—and here I am about to be civil, so I hope that I may have the Minister's attention—by the fact that, during the whole of the Minister's remarks, after his first few sentences, he was exclusively concerned with problems of an industrial or commercial nature. That emerged quite obviously. The Minister has moved an Amendment quite other than what he expected during the Committee stage, always a difficult position for a Minister to be in. If he will say quite plainly that the considerations which led him to move the Amendment arise purely from commercial and industrial factors, I should be more than satisfied, and, out of respect for the Minister's argument, I would refrain, in the interests of time, from moving Amendment No. 6, which stands it my name and those of my hon. Friends. I consider this to be a reason-
    802
    able offer and, if the Minister wishes to intervene now, I gladly give way.
    Mr. Marsh: Before the hon. Gentleman changes his mind, the answer to his question is "Yes".
    Mr. Peyton: This is a most happy exchange. Assuming that "Yes" means "Yes", I am very glad to fall in with it.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to spoil the harmony of the moment, but I have not selected the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
    Mr. Peyton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
    Over many years, it has been a bad habit of mine to go racing from time to time, and on those occasions I have made it a practice to mark cards. I had marked the Amendment in my name as having been selected for discussion in this debate. But I see your point, Sir. I am not in a position to move it. Nevertheless, the opportunity for discussing my Amendment is something which I gladly forgo in view of the Minister's clear, monosyllabic and unqualified undertaking. I welcome this occasion, and I salute some common sense even from this Administration
    Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance in response to an Amendment which is not before the House? Ought not he to withdraw his "Yes"?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a question of theology rather than of order.
    Mr. Ian Mikardo: Before this somewhat unnatural alliance between Yeovil and Greenwich is finally consummated—out of my regard for hon. and right hon. Members, I refrain from saying "unholy" alliance—the House could with advantage spend a few minutes in considering this not unimportant subject.
    We are here changing the character, structure and method of organisation and management of one of the country's major industries. The way in which it will be run will depend on many factors, but it will depend to some extent on the way in which the members of the Corporation are chosen, on the way the Corporation is constituted and on the method by which the Corporation

    803
    functions. We ought, therefore, not to pass too glibly over the question.
    I have some views on the matter, to which my right hon. Friend was kind enough to refer, but I say at once that this is not a point on which I should be willing to go to the stake. It is possible fairly to take different views on the question according to—one might almost say—one's philosophy of industrial management and organisation. I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulty, and I have no doubt that the members and chairman of the Organising Committee have so advised him, in trying to figure out in advance, before the thing is settled, exactly how it will be run, and I can, therefore, understand his de sire to have an arrangement which will give him the maximum flexibility. But I hope that he will not use to the full the powers which he is seeking, at least not for any length of time.
    Notwithstanding the list my right hon. Friend gave of companies having boards of directors of 20 or more, I do not consider that a committee as large as 20 affords a good way to run an industrial enterprise, large or small. From some points of view —I shall not develop them now because it would take too long—there is a case for saving that a large organisation ought to have a small board rather than that a small organisation ought to have a small board. The large organisation has resources enabling it to call upon expertise of all kinds, either from among is functioning managers or from ad hoc advisers, which some small companies have not.
    My right hon. Friend talked of the necessity for getting various types of expertise and experience. He is right, but if the Corporation wants somebody's ideas and expertise, it is not necessary to sit him on it, where he will sit through long meetings listening to things which have nothing to do with his expertise.
    10.30 p.m.
    One can get expertise without sticking it on a board of directors, and sometimes it is better to use it without doing so. I appreciate my right hon. Friend's point about the chairmen of subordinate groupings, whether regional, product or other kinds of groupings. We know that we are talking about four or so people. I
    804
    think that it is right to allow places for them, but I do not think that the best way to get their best co-operation with the Corporation is necessarily to have them as members.
    One thing one must always avoid in this situation is turning a board which should be of one mind, with a single purpose, to do a single job, into a group of rivals for the same resources, each rolling his own little logs. One can get that, above all, if there are regional representatives. Probably no hon. Member on either side of the House would now dissent from the view that the decision made a few years ago to divide the additional rolling capacity then being provided between Scotland and Wales, instead of having the whole lot together in one place, was a very bad decision. It was made against all the right technical indications, because of regional logrolling. I fear that there might be that danger if the chairmen of the groupings are on the Corporation.
    However, let us concede the point. That gives four. Amendment No. 129, to which my name is added, proposes a total Corporation of 13, which would give the chairman, deputy chairman and the four regional chaps with room for seven functional directors. I would have thought that that was enough and more.
    What really worries me about this large Corporation is that a lot of part-time directors might be brought in. My right hon. Friend quoted some of the existing corporations. I wish he would go to the chairmen of those organisations, get each of them in a confidential mood and ask him how much value he thinks he gets from his part-time directors, because I think that I know the answer.
    Mr. Marsh: To reassure my hon. Friend, I can say that none of the advice I have received has been based on a large number of part-time directors. With such an enormous industry, which has such a wide range of activities as well as a number of groups, there might well be an argument for a larger number of full-time functional people. I accept the argument that a Corporation that has a large number of part-time members kills the whole point of that.
    Mr. Mikardo: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. It depends what is meant by "large number"

    805
    Usually, there are four or five such members, which is a grossly large number. I would want to do without them altogether, because one can get their expertise much better without clogging up a board.
    If we get this change there will be the chairman and one or two deputychairmen—I make no complaint about that—three, four or five regional chaps, and half a dozen functional directors. Because there is a terrible Parkinson's Law about boards of directors, the tendency will be for them to say, "We have 15 chaps. We are entitled to 20. Does anybody know any good 'bods' knocking around whom we could co-opt? "That is what I am frightened about.
    One thing that has confirmed me in my views since the discussion in Committee to which my right hon. Friend referred is that a case has recently arisen in which a full-time member of a board—with a full-time member's salary—has been reappointed a part-time member of another corporation. It seems a colossal piece of nonsense and to smack a little of patronage rather than of selecting people entirely on merit.
    Having said that, I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he gets his Amendment, as doubtless he will, will tell the Chairman of the Corporation when he is appointed "For goodness' sake, look upon this as a maximum to be used temporarily and in need, and not as a number to he filled up quickly at any cost with a lot of part-timers".
    Mr. Mendelson: In supporting the Amendment and the ideas behind it as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), I do not want to rehearse again some of the arguments that were gone through in Standing Committee. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has covered part of the ground in his initial statement, but I should like to add two points that I think are relevant to the discussion in Committee and to the new Amendment.
    One of the reasons why I and my hon. Friend are apprehensive that there should not be too many part-time members of the board is that we feel that all those appointed to the board of the Corporation should be people who are capable of being in charge of one of the major departments or activities of the Corporation.
    806
    My second point concerns the circles from which the members might be drawn. In Standing Committee, we had a long discussion about the people who might be drawn from management—not necessarily only former directors but people from various levels of management—and from the workpeople in the industry or people who have made their career in the trade union movement in various industrial organisations. One of the points on which we were all agreed can be summed up in the phrase "Competence and confidence should go together."
    It is important that the people who work in the industry and whose future depends upon the success of the industry should have confidence in those who are appointed to the board and be sure that they are the right kind of people, both in competence and in approach, to lead the industry under public ownership. There is a long history to this, as my right hon. Friend knows, in other nationalised industries, and I need not labour the point and delay the House by giving details.
    I hope that when the composition of the board comes to be finally decided by my right hon. Friend—I am not making the mistake of thinking that the appointments to the Organising Committee necessarily entirely predetermine the full composition of the board once it finally comes to be appointed—he will be very careful not to accept the doctrine that has sometimes been voiced in the Standing Committee, and indeed outside the House, that people who have the necessary expertise to serve in a position on the board and be responsible for one of the major activities of the Corporation must inevitably be drawn from the circles of former directors or senior management.
    I should like my right hon. Friend, in implementing the formula of "competence and confidence," to look for talent and experience among the work-people, among those who have made their career in the trade union movement —those in the steel industry particularly will have a great deal of seniority, because without that they would not have the confidence of their fellow workpeople—and also some of those who might have made a further career in one

    807
    of the steel-producing activities somewhere at an early age, accepted a full-time position in the trade union movement and then made their career for another 10 or 15 years as officers of the trade union movement.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend would then be able to find a number of these people who are looking forward to another 15 or 20 years' active work and would be able to appoint some of them as full time members of the Corporation. In other words, I would not like to see a situation where a rather large number of part time appointments were being made, with most of the trade union representatives given only part time jobs. I realise that my right hon. Friend has already appointed one trade union officer to a full time position.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Amendments, which are concerned with the number of members of the Board and not with the qualities required in the appointees.
    Mr. Mendelson: When I put down Amendment No. 129, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was not inspired merely by an abstract figure and clearly I have to put to the House the ideas that prompted me to put it down. But, of course, I gladly take your guidance and move on.
    Mr. Peyton rose—
    Mr. Mendelson: No. I cannot give way
    Mr. Peyton rose—
    Mr. Mendelson: No.
    Mr. Peyton rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has made it clear that he will not give way. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) must not persist.
    Mr. Mendelson rose—
    Mr. Peyton rose—
    Mr. Mendelson: All right, then.
    Mr. Peyton: I am obliged. I only want to ask whether the hon. Gentleman's representations in Committee on behalf
    808
    of one of his constituents have been successful or not.
    Mr. Mendelson: That is another example of the time wasting of the hon. Gentleman, to which we have become accustomed. I suspected that this would be the case. That is why I did not at first give way. But this gives me the opportunity to state that it is completely untrue that I have ever supported the name of any one of my constituents for any of these appointments. I want to return now to the serious point, although it is difficult to have a serious debate when the hon. Member tries to take part.
    What concerns me is that, if the Minister accepts the principle that we should have mainly full-time members, he might find that the figure he is asking for is too large. We want to be assured that he will only make as many appointments as are absolutely necessary on functional grounds, apart from a chairman and a deputy chairman. Perhaps four deputy chairmen might be too many. At the same time, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be looking for more part-time members representing the work-people and the trade union movement but will give them their full share of the full-time appointments.
    Mr. Barber: The Minister's speech was remarkable because whereas, in Committee, he indicated that he would consider reducing the maximum number of members from 16, he now proposes an increase to 20. Having said that, two aspects of his speech were gratifying to me.
    First, there is a refreshing change in that he is now prepared to change his mind. Secondly, I understand that this change of opinion is consequent on a unanimous recommendation of the Organising Committee. The number of members of the Corporation is surely crucial to the whole of the first recommendations of the Committee, whatever they might be. This seems to be so because whatever organisation the Committee has in mind is bound to be reflected in the composition of the Corporation and the number of directors. Clearly, the Organising Committee has given a great deal of thought to this matter and members of that Committee, as we know, are men of great industrial experience.

    809
    This being the case, while I still have some of the reservations which were expressed n the Standing Committee, I for one am certainly prepared to go along with this proposal. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the number of 20 is a maximum, which is in line with quite a number of large companies in the private sector. For all those reasons, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and will not take the matter to a Division.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert:
    Notwithstanding the generality of this subsection at least one member of the Corporation shall have experience of or shown capacity in steel matters in Scotland and at least one shall have similar qualifications in respect of steel matters in Wales.
    As the Minister has just increased the maximum size of the Corporation to 20, I am confident that he will accept this Amendment. All I ask is that one of the number should have experience of steel matters in Scotland and that one should have experience of steel matters in Wales. This is a very small request, and I hope that the Minister will accede to it.
    I accept that the members of the Corporation will not be delegates or representatives of areas, regions or pressure groups, but the special problems of Scottish and Welsh steel are such that they deserve some attention.
    Why should they have such representation? First, there is the simple importance of Scottish steel. About 30,000 people are directly employed in the Scottish steel industry and more than 100,000 are dependent on it directly for their employment and there are many thousands who depend indirectly on this great industry for their livelihoods. It has been estimated that about 250,000 people in Scotland, mainly in the west of Scotia id, depend directly or indirectly on the industry for their livelihoods.
    There are many other ways in which steel is very important for Scotland. Local authorities provide one instance. Those of Motherwell and Wishaw take 41 per cent. of their rates revenue from
    810
    one Scottish steel works and if there were to be a major change in the organisation of Scottish steel, it could have devastating consequences for Glasgow, Lanark, Motherwell, Wishaw, Coatbridge, Port Glasgow and Ayr. To that extent steel is vital to Scotland and there should be someone on the Corporation with some knowledge of our special Scottish problems.
    The second main reason is the vulnerability of the Scottish steel industry which in fair and free competition starts with a ball and chain around its feet, because we have the appalling problem of the coal differential to the extent of 33s. a ton, the gas differential, making the price of gas in Scotland one sixth higher than in the rest of the country, the electricity differential and the rates burden which is such that on average on every ton of Scottish steel 27s. 9d. must be allowed whereas in England and Wales the corresponding figure is around 12s. 6d. In view of these special circumstances, it is essential that we should have someone on the Corporation who can bring reassurance to the Scottish steel industry.
    The third reason is the lack of confidence in the Scottish steel industry, a lack of confidence which has been caused by many things. For example, we had the proposals in the Benson Report which said:
    "The Committee wishes to emphasise that, if the upward course of British fuel prices, and particularly coking coal prices, continues as over the last decade, at very least, the viability of some long-established U K. steel-making areas—for example, Scotland—may be put in hazard".
    This is only one small indication of what has been a general feeling in Scotland, that our great steel industry is at risk. We also saw this from the results of our major Scottish steel company, Colvilles, who in 1965–66 lost almost £2 million. This was not because of inefficiency, or because it was not progressive and go-ahead, but because of the actions of other nationalised industries in imposing a crippling fuel differential.
    To that extent we do not want to see happening in the steel industry what has happened in every other nationalised industry, namely that the interests of Scotland are discriminated against. It is

    811
    essential to that extent to have the reassurance that someone on this board will be aware of the special problems of Scotland and prevent this Corporation hitting Scotland as hard as has been the case with the other nationalised industries.
    We have not been happy with our experience in pricing and other matters. Only a few months ago we had the cancellation of almost every single forward contract of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. Technical advance is now stopping. There will be no more projects there. The Minister may say that we can depend on the Government to protect the interests of Scotland, but really this is one argument that he cannot put forward. Yesterday we had a splendid example of the extent to which the Government are protecting Scottish industry. In the ten years after the war the Scottish shipyards, directly related to Scottish steel, got one half of the naval work going. Last year only £6 million out of £48 million came to the Scottish shipyards.
    In 20 years we are down from one half to one eighth. Since then we have had S.E.T., which clearly discriminates against Scotland and the Highlands. We have seen the housing figures, issued yesterday, which are disastrous for Scotland—[Interruption.] This is only a brief reference, directly relevant to the Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep the reference brief.
    Mr. Taylor: I have two further examples, the abolition of free depreciation, which was something which this Government did, and our unemployment figures—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the mark. Will he come back to the Amendment?
    Mr. Taylor: I quote these as examples of the extent to which this Government is discriminating against Scotland, to show how we cannot depend upon the Government to protect the interests of Scotland. For that reason, it is essential that this Amendment should be approved, not only in the letter, but in the spirit. It is vital to Scotland, that we should not
    812
    have the same experience as we have had with other nationalised industries. We have special problems which need special attention.
    We need representation, and most of all we need people with knowledge of the special problems of Scottish steel on this Corporation. I have suggested only one member, but I hope that there would be more than one. It is important that this should be the case. The Minister may say that any sensible Government would make sure that at least one Scot, or someone with experience of Scotland's steel industry, would be on the board, but I want this Bill to make sure that it is binding on all future Governments, so long as the industry is nationalised, and I certainly hope that that will not be for too long.
    Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. On the last Amendment we discussed, I suggested that during Committee stage the hon. Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) referred to the submission of a name by himself to the Minister. He denied that he had ever made such a submission and told me that I was misleading the House. [Interruption.] I merely want to get the record straight.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is very clear that this not a point of order.
    Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman told me that what I was saying was untrue. In col. 183 of Standing Committee D, on 1st November—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman feels this way, he has other remedies. This is not a point of order.
    Mr. David Steel: It is a bit hard that the House should have had to listen to a rehearsal of the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for the Pollok by-election.
    Sir D. Glover: That was a very good speech indeed.
    Mr. Steel: Nevertheless, the hon. Member was making a valid point in suggesting that there should be a Scottish member of the Corporation. This is clearly a sensible point which any Government would obviously accept and it

    813
    would be ludicrous to waste the time of the House trying to write this into legislation.
    Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: After that intervention by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) one wonders where his interests really lie in relation to Scotland. I sincerely hope that it will be noticed in the right quarters.
    I support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), not only for putting down the Amendment, but for the way in which he presented it. He demonstrated clearly to all of us in the House how necessary it is for the special needs of Scotland to be looked after, special needs which, over the past two years, many of us have become concerned whether they were being looked after.
    I support the Amendment for one particular reason. The past five years in Scotland have seen a growth of two quite new types of industry. We have seen a far greater growth of science-based in-dusty, such as in electronics, and a much greater growth of consumer-based industry, such as in the manufacture of domestic appliances.
    The one thing in common in these new industries that have come to Scotland is that they use specialised steel products, in great contrast to the older industries of Scotland such as the railways, heavy engineering and shipbuilding, which use the products of our indigenous iron and steel industry in Scotland. The interesting feature of many of these new firms which are coming to Scotland is that nearly 80 per cent. of the steel they use comes from south of the Border and is steel for special products.
    If those firms are to use these specialised steel products, they must keep close liaison with the firms south of the Border which supply them. They must make sure that they get steel of the right quality and specification and they must maintain close liaison to ensure quick delivery.
    Because we depend on firms of this kind in Scotland, it is essential that the interests of Scotland are looked after. That is why I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    Mr. Marsh: I will not detain the House long on this subject. The Government
    814
    naturally accept the importance of Scotland, and the importance of Wales. For many years now, no Government has been allowed for one day to forget it. Indeed, one sometimes feels that it might be interesting if half the amount of attention that is given in this House to Scotland and to Wales were given to London. That is a purely objective opinion.
    Mr. Michael Foot: London does not produce any steel.
    Mr. Marsh: The importance of these areas is very much recognised and clearly we understand this.
    It would be a great pity if we were to start introducing into our legislation a belief that we had people serving on boards not because of their innate ability or the exceptional qualifications which they have to offer but wholly and solely because they were Scotsmen or Welshmen. A person so appointed would be in an intolerable position because, although he might be a scientist or an economist, he would be there primarily as the Scottish or the Welsh member of the board.
    All experience shows that the natural charm, ability and eloquence of the Scots and the Welsh has always enabled them to get what at least could be described as a fair share, and a very large share, of the posts which the British people have to offer in this country. I would regard it is a great pity if we sought to fudge the contribution which they have to make by designating a particular post on these boards. We have never done it on any board. It would mean that the person on the board would be there with this tag.
    11.0 p.m.
    I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and other hon. Members who have spoken have sufficient confidence in their fellow countrymen to recognise that such people would be able to get there on their own abilities. To do as the hon. Member has suggested would be a pity. It would be yet another example of the numbers of Scotsmen there are about. One has only to look at the number of Cockneys in this Government to be certain that it is ensured that there is no need for a great campaign to protect the Scots and the Welsh. The Government

    815
    is very fully alive to the importance of these areas, and I hope that the House will accept that our heart is in the right place. I assure hon. Members that the Government's heart is in the right place, but I cannot accept this Amendment.
    Mr. G. Campbell: I do not ask for a Scotsman or a Welshman, but somebody who has shown knowledge and ability in steel matters. It would not matter who he was so long as he had those qualities.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: If he were a Chinese or a Pakistani with a special knowledge of Scottish steel I would have no objection, but we want people with special knowledge of Scottish and Welsh steel, and, if that is understood, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Marsh: We have made some progress, and in view of the nationalistic feeling which we seem in danger of engendering, I beg to move,
    That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, to be further considered tomorrow.

    REDEVELOPMENT (PORTSMOUTH)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. McBride.]
    11.3 p.m.
    Mr. Frank Judd: I call the attention of the House to a problem affecting my constituency, although it is a problem which has far wider implications for the country as a whole. Professor Buchanan, in his interesting study of South Hampshire, drew attention to the obsolescence of much of the housing in Portsmouth. In examining this question, I would emphasise that one has to look at the history of Portsmouth.
    There was the vast expansion of the Royal Navy during the 19th century, accompanied by expansion of the dockyard and the consequent building of many houses as homes for the people working there. These were mainly in streets of small, two-storeyed houses in terraces, but
    816
    there were few tenements, and no back-to-back houses. Of the 64,000 dwellings in the city, more than 14,000 are more than 100 years old, and more than 15,000 are older than sixty years. All are in intensely developed areas, and Portsmouth, with 23 people to the acre, has one of the highest densities in the country, outside London.
    Since 1957, there have been 4,850 dwellings dealt with as unfit under the terms of the Housing Act, 1957, out of a total clearance, including business premises, of about 5,500 buildings. The city is to undertake a new programme of building at least 4,800 houses, and this is the time to take stock of some of the social consequences of this programme, and of the cost, and the distribution of the financial burden of urban renewal.
    There is a severe shortage of land, as well as of houses, in Portsmouth. Extensive destruction of artisan type houses occurred during the last war. Owing to the insular character of the city it can only extend northwards into the mainland, and its geography is therefore important. The older houses are near to the dockyard, and the newer property is comparatively far from it although the dockyard is the main employer of labour.
    All of this, coupled with the fact that most property now to be dealt with, although technically unfit by standards laid down in the Housing Act, is not what would usually be regarded as slum property, means that prices remain high. The average market price for houses compulsorily acquired is between £1,400 and £1,600.
    The local authority, looking at this problem, had hoped that there might be some chance to proceed with the new programme under procedure other than that in Section 4 of the Housing Act; for example, under the planning Act. But the general economic situation meant that there were considerable doubts about the certainty of Government financial support. Having discharged, as a city, its statutory obligations most efficiently, in any case the number of substandard houses had in fact been notified.
    Looking at the deeper social implications of this policy, we see that 41 per cent. of the houses to be affected are owner-occupied. There are hardly any large-scale landowners in the area, and

    817
    those houses which are owned other than by the occupiers are mainly owned by people of limited means who have invested in one other house as a means of securing an income, for example, in old age. Of the owner-occupiers themselves, most are on small incomes or on old-age pensions.
    As people look at this new programme, they see their security in jeopardy. They see themselves faced with the higher cost of accommodation in local authority housing. Looking at the situation in perspective, we can see the development of vast council estates without any real study of the social and sociological implications of reduced proportions of owner-occupiers in the community.
    In an operation of this sort, it is essential that justice should be seen to be done. As ordinary people look at existing legislation, what they see, in fact, is a jungle. They see different provisions and subsections under the Housing Act, and they see different Acts, even, under which compulsory purchase can be handled.
    If we are looking at this apparent injustice, we could hardly do better than read an interesting article contributed to the Portsmouth Evening News by a correspondent. I should like to quote from the article. I should like to quote the effects of this plan in a particular street, and he says:
    "Stamford Street, Landport, is coming down. A survey by officials of Portsmouth Public Health Department revealed it to be in an area where most houses were unfit for habitation, and Portsmouth Corporation obtained a compulsory purchase order as the first step towards demolition and redevelopment.
    Three typical houses in Stamford Street are numbers 18, 51 and 77. In them the whole injustice of the Housing Act compensation system is represented—the story could be repeated again and again all over the city.
    All three were considered by the Health Department to be unfit—which means, in money terms, worthless. The market value of an unfit house is nil; for it cannot be lived in, by law. All three were owner-occupied.
    With No. 18 there was no problem for the owner, for by a peculiar quirk of law he qualified for what is known in local government language as an owner-occupier's supplement'.
    This paid him the difference between site value of his house, which he would receive anyway, and market value. In other words he got full compensation, amounting to some £1,200.
    The condition of the house—the vital issue in the cages of 51 and 77 Stamford Street—
    818
    made no difference. He qualified for full compensation because he bought his house between 1st September, 1939, and 13th December, 1955, and had lived in it for fewer than 15 years.
    The owners of both the other houses appealed against the designation of their property by the Medical Officer of Health as 'unfit'–51 successfully, 77 unsuccessfully.
    Both were marginal cases; the official report on each listed much the same defects as the other. Both, for instance, were said to suffer from rising and penetrating damp, both were poorly lit inside, and both were said to have inadequate facilities for the storage of food and disposal of waste water.
    Indeed, No. 51 which was reclassified on appeal as 'fit', had more defects listed against it than No. 77.
    After hearing the evidence at a public inquiry, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government inspector decided that No. 51 was not 'so far defective as to be unfit', whereas No. 77 was, although he conceded that it had been well looked after.
    So, No. 51 was eventually bought by Portsmouth Corporation for its full market value of £1,600, whereas the owner of No. 77—who did not qualify for the owner-occupier's supplement—received just £230 for the land on which the house stood, with £232 compensation in the form of a 'well maintained payment', an amount calculated as four times the rateable value."
    It is quite clear that the dividing line between fit and unfit, and between eligibility and non-eligibility for owner-occupier supplement is too rigid, and in Portsmouth, in particular, the gap is too wide. If we look at the way in which an authority, backed by the Ministry's inspectors, comes to its decision, we see that it is still dependent on subjective interpretation. It is impossible to demonstrate absolute objectivity.
    The recent report of the Central Housing Advisory Committee spells all this out, and I should like to quote briefly from it. First, the report says
    "that greater objectivity was possible than had been achieved in the past. It is easy enough to express some of the items in the present fitness standard in more objective terms, for example, by spelling out what equipment is required for the storage, preparation and cooking of food."
    It also says:
    "We have also been struck by the extent to which, in the last resort, decisions must depend on the judgment of an experienced person."
    A further comment was:
    "There is a need also for simple explanations for members of the public."
    The report came to the conclusion that
    "the best method of obtaining greater objectivity for the purposes of applying housing

    819
    standards was, while expressing the standards in fairly broad terms, to define those terms as far as possible in explanatory notes."
    In the City of Portsmouth there is uncertainty about the future as it affects property. This affects prices. It may even lead to an unwarranted inflation of prices in areas not immediately declared. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that the Portsmouth City Corporation has not been able to follow the lead of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in scheduling planning arrangements far ahead.
    When looking for solutions to this problem, I think that there are several approaches. First, of course, there is the possibility of abolishing the present limiting dates of the owner-occupier supplement, as proposed in Clause 13 of the Bill to be promoted by the Portsmouth City Council. Another approach might be a move towards sliding scales, with a more generous well maintained payment.
    Whatever the solution is, it is certain that something must be done, and done urgently. For if we look at the situation we see that the purpose of the Housing Act is to deal with the quality of life for large numbers of people in Britain, and if we are concerned with the quality of life of people in Britain, we must be concerned about the psychological and social problems which affect people who find themselves faced with the problem of large-scale redevelopment, and find themselves losing the security to which they have been looking forward for many years.
    I think that we must all agree that a Government which is so obviously concerned with introducing adequate and proper housing for this half of the twentieth century must also look at the corollary, which is to make sure that the way in which this is done does not detract from the effects which will subsequently be enjoyed
    11.13 p.m
    Mr. Graham Page: I shall detain the House for only a moment or two. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) has called attention to an injustice which is becoming more and more known to the public. A householder who paid £1,000 for his house three or four years ago may be offered £30 if it is in a clearance or redevelop-
    820
    ment area. A householder who has paid perhaps £1,400 by way of mortgage for a period of 25 years is now offered gross value of £30 for his house if he happens to be in a redevelopment area, and a tenant who has spent perhaps £300 or £400 on improving the house is offered nothing.
    Local authorities are revolting against this at the present time, and the hon. Gentleman has shown that Portsmouth has come forward with a sort of banner of justice in its Bill to the House. The problem which faces the Government is that many local authorities will not carry out the terms of the law as it stands because they think that it is such an injustice on their citizens. They think that it is an injustice to sacrifice their citizens to this confiscation in the name of progress.
    I think that we will find difficulty in getting local authorities to proceed with redevelopment areas when they consider that there is such an injustice on their citizens
    11.15 p.m
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) has raised an issue about which I know he feels very deeply. It is, moreover, an issue which is causing concern to many citizens of Portsmouth and to large numbers of owner-occupiers elsewhere in the country. I would go so far as to say that the situation we find in Portsmouth represents in a dramatic form conditions to be found where local authorities have succeeded in clearing the worst of their unfit houses and are now turning their attention to areas where the stark gap between fit and unfit houses is no longer so obvious as it unfortunately was in the past.
    My hon. Friend is well aware of the sympathy that my right hon. Friend has for those who may at present suffer hardship through the operations of slum clearance. The answer that he gave to my hon. Friend on 6th December last, when he indicated that this is one of the many problems relating to older houses which are under review, is evidence of that.
    My right hon. Friend is well aware from his visit to Portsmouth last year

    821
    of the conditions and feelings there, and he has studied the memorandum that was submitted to him during his visit on behalf of the Owner-Occupiers' Protection Association. Further, my hon. Friend has more than once written to me in cogent terms of the problems faced by owner-occupiers whose houses may be caught up by clearance operations and I hope sincerely that my replies have done their part in convincing him and his people that the Government take these problems very seriously indeed.
    If I went beyond that on this occasion and said exactly what the Government intend to do I might well swiftly be called to order, for I should be embarking upon a discussion of possible amendment to existing legislation. That is what the review which my right hon. Friend mentioned is all about and, in any case, at this stage of the review I could give no precise undertakings. So I know my hon. Friend will understand if I concentrate upon the administration of existing Statutes, recognising problems but at the same time indicating how their effects have been already mitigated or can be offset short of legislation.
    Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak): I am interested in what the Minister is saying. Has he overlooked the fact that I have brought in a Bill to clear away this injustice a long time ago and that he and his colleagues rejected it?
    Mr. Mellish: Any legislation we introduce will be concerned not only with this one item. There must be a broad approach to this problem. I am quite prepared—as I know my right hon. Friend is—to discuss this matter with the hon. Member, and with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and others, to try to resolve it. I do not deny that there is still some injustice, which must be put right. The question is how and when we should do it, but for goodness sake let us introduce legislation which is agreed on both sides and which will stand for some time, rather than the patchwork quilt that we have had in the past.
    On the basis of returns made by local authorities in 1965, the numbers of unfit houses remaining to be dealt with in England and Wales still total about
    822
    three-quarters of a million, despite the fact that over 700,000 slums have been demolished or closed since the war. Of course, the remaining unfit houses are not spread evenly over the country and half of them are to be found within the area of 24 authorities. It may surprise the House to learn that Portsmouth is one of those 24 authorities
    It is true that its figure of 5,500 does not compare with Liverpool's 74,000, or Manchester's 55,000. But there should be no denying that Portsmouth has a real and significant problem that must be tackled as quickly and effectively as possible. As I mentioned right at the beginning of my remarks, the worst conditions in Portsmouth have perhaps been swept away with the clearance of 3,800 unfit houses since 1955 but, as 14,000 of the 65,000 dwellings in the city are over 100 years old, I can well appreciate the reasons that have led to a new clearance programme involving some 4,800 houses.
    Naturally, I cannot pronounce on the fitness or unfitness of individual houses in any general programme. That is something that must be determined by a very careful procedure and I hope the House will forgive me if I think it is worth while spending a few minutes describing it for the benefit of those who read my speech in the local Press. If a local authority is satisfied that the dwellings in an area are unfit for human habitation, by standards set down in Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957, and that they should be demolished, the authority must declare a clearance area.
    It must then take the next step towards getting the houses demolished by making either a clearance order or a compulsory purchase order. By the former, the owners of the houses are required to carry out the demolition but are left with the land; under the latter the authority acquire and then demolish the houses.
    But in neither case can the authority act simply on the strength of its own order: that decision is for the Minister to take after a public local inquiry, held by one of his inspectors, at which objections are heard. An owner may object to a clearance order or a compulsory purchase order on the grounds that his house is not unfit. He may, of course, object to compulsory purchase, whether or not he accepts that his house is unfit. The Minister reaches his decision

    823
    only after very careful consideration of his inspector's findings and recommendations, and he may confirm the order with or without modification, or reject it completely.
    There is one further matter that I should like to mention in connection with a compulsory purchase order whose prime purpose is to clear unfit houses. It is this: fit property may be included in the order, by virtue of Section 43 of the 1957 Act, when its acquisition is reasonably necessary for the satisfactory development of the cleared area.
    Here I pause, before I turn to compensation payable upon clearance, and make a basic point about the powers and duties of local authorities faced with unfit houses in their areas. When seeking to develop or redevelop parts of their areas authorities may have a choice of statutory powers available to them depending upon the purpose they have in mind. They may indeed find a combination of powers appropriate. But their freedom of choice when dealing with what, in their view, are areas of unfit houses is much more restricted.
    It is, I hope, clear from what I have already said that the Housing Act of 1957 imposes a duty upon authorities to deal with areas of unfit houses. Not only that: it tells them how they should set about doing it in the ways I have described. For all practical purposes, there is a strong obligation upon an authority to make use of the provisions of the Housing Act and, in particular, those provisions in Part III of the Act, where they are satisfied that the area is one of unfit houses which should be demolished. The clearance of the houses is in fact the first objective of their action.
    Of course, the local authority's initial judgment about the condition of the houses may be wrong. Indeed, it may have formed its view with considerable caution, having regard to the worse conditions of houses declared unfit and cleared in the past, but yet have come to the conclusion that the houses were unfit. I will not speculate on considerations of that sort, in case I appear to be anticipating in any way a formal decision of the Minister in respect of a particular order.
    824
    But the point is that the grounds of the authority's action will be tested by the due processes leading up to the Minister's decision. In the circumstances of the case, he may uphold the authority or, in effect, indicate that the conditions in an area are not such that they justify clearance on their own account. Then the authority must look to other powers in tune with the purposes it has in mind for the area; those powers may be available in the Housing Acts or the Town and Country Planning Acts, or elsewhere.
    I can appreciate that owners of houses affected by clearance operations may see more clearly the proposals for the redevelopment of an area than its existing conditions. Necessarily, clearance usually implies redevelopment of one sort or another consistent with the future character of the neighbourhood, and clearance operations may, as I have said, incidentally take in fit property reasonably necessary for satisfactory redevelopment.
    But—and I make no apologies for repeating this point—the test of the authority's action is the condition of the houses in the area. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that this is the test which the present Minister stringently applies.
    The level of compensation payable upon compulsory acquisition also follows as a general principle from the condition of the houses within the order. This rule has been applied since 1919. Where a house has been found unfit for human habitation, compensation is limited to the value of the site upon which it stands. The justification for this rule, essentially, is that public money should not be payable in respect of bricks and mortar that have been condemned and should be cleared as soon as possible. Successive Governments have upheld this philosophy and it would be quite wrong for me to suggest that the present Government were prepared to abandon it.
    Nevertheless, over the years, the basic proposition of site value compensation for unfit houses has been modified to meet changing circumstances and the acquisition of fit houses is compensated at full market value. There are two major modifications of the site value rule that I want to deal with and each is of

    825
    especial concern to owner-occupiers who, as my hon. Friend has made clear, make up such a large proportion of Portsmouth's population.
    My understanding—from his expert knowledge, my hon. Friend will know about this—is that between 40 and 50 per cent. of the city's houses are owner-occupied and that many of these are to be found in areas where redevelopment is probably not that far off. Moreover, older people tend to live in and own these houses, and this is an additional reason why we should take the greatest possible care to avoid incidental hardship wherever possible.
    Payments in addition to site value are made where unfit houses have been well maintained, despite their inherent defects. This prevision dates from 1935, and payments now amount to at least four times the rateable value of the house for owner-occupiers and, in other cases, at least twice the rateable value. They may be more where the local authority is satisfied that a greater sum has been spent on maintenance during the preceding five years. In any case, they are payable to whoever is responsible for the work. About £1 million annually is paid out by local authorities in respect of well-maintained payments in, perhaps, 12,000 cases.
    Mr. Graham Page: On the question of well-maintained payments, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to consider this? The victims do not understand what is meant by well-maintained payments. Could the local authorities recommend to the Minister which houses ought to have well-maintained payments, or, alternatively, could the Minister's inspector inspect all the houses, not just those in respect of which people have claimed the well-maintained payment?
    Mr. Mellish: That is a fair point. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall take it back to my right hon. Friend—I shall not take up the time of the House now—to see whether we can apply such instructions.
    There is no reason why it should not be done. Where clearance orders are made, and a great number of houses are, in fact, in fit condition, but they happen to be unlucky enough—if that is the right word—to be involved in a re-
    826
    development area, we ought to fall over backwards to make sure not only that those houses are given fair compensation but that well-maintained payments are given. There should be a careful test to see how generous we can be in these cases. I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about that.
    I had referred to the well-maintained payments, and I was coming to the next point. The most significant modification of the site value rule that has so far been made, however—it is important to say this—is the supplemental payments to owner-occupiers who bought their houses between 1st September, 1939, and 12th December, 1955, while slum clearance was in abeyance. In those cases, the payments bring compensation up to the full market value as if the house had not been found unfit.
    The statutory provisions were due to expire in December 1965, but they were continued by the Housing (Slum Clearance Compensation) Act, 1965, for qualifying owner-occupiers who have not had 15 years' possession of their houses. Recently, these supplementary payments have amounted to £3 million a year and are being made in about 6,500 cases. So, with payments for good maintenance, getting on for one-third of all cases receive more than site value today. This should help to dispel the idea that the Government, with the connivance of the local authorities, go out of their way to pay only the minimum.
    It could well be argued, and it has been argued, that the degree and extent of these modifications to the site value rule serve only to demonstrate that the good is the enemy of the best. Payments in respect of good maintenance frequently do comparatively little to bridge the gap between site and full market value, although the quality of the house has gone some way towards bridging the gap between the old-style slum and fitness.
    Again, the supplemental payments to owner-occupiers do not extend to all owner-occupiers and only to those who otherwise qualify if they have had their houses for less than 15 years. Portsmouth Council has in mind its own legislative proposals to remove some at least of those restrictions upon the entitlement of owner-occupiers to full market value, but the House will understand if I do not

    827
    comment on that. All I can say now is that those people, whether owneroccupiers or others, who have lavished care and affection upon their houses and have turned them into comfortable homes for the time being, despite their inherent defects, merit our care and encouragement.
    I understand and appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend, and by hon. Members opposite, too, who, with no party bias on this question, merely want to see that justice is done. I have listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend has said. I respect him for being
    828
    a first-class constituency Member who feels these things personally and deeply. I assure him that the points he has raised will be given the fullest consideration in our review of these problems relating to older houses.
    I further assure my hon. Friend that, in the meantime, my right hon. Friend will continue to administer the existing legislation dealing with the clearance of houses with the strictest regard for hardship that might inadvertently be caused
    Question put and agreed to
    Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Theatre for Young People
  Theatre for Young People
  National Youth Theatre
  National Youth Theatre
  Sport (Financial Assistance)
  Sport (Financial Assistance)
  School Milk and Meals
  School Milk and Meals
  Great Baddow Church of England Primary School
  Great Baddow Church of England Primary School
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Herpes Virus Infection
  Herpes Virus Infection
  National Gallery (Rubens Picture)
  National Gallery (Rubens Picture)
  Business Schools Overseas (Awards)
  Business Schools Overseas (Awards)
  National Advisory Council for Training and Supply of Teachers
  National Advisory Council for Training and Supply of Teachers
  Technological University (North-East)
  Technological University (North-East)
  University of the Air
  University of the Air
  Playing Fields (Out-of-School Use)
  Playing Fields (Out-of-School Use)
  Elham Church of England Primary School
  Elham Church of England Primary School
  Pre-School Education
  Pre-School Education
  Graduates (Emigration)
  Graduates (Emigration)
  Students (Grants)
  Students (Grants)
  Direct Grant Schools (Comprehensive Education Schemes)
  Direct Grant Schools (Comprehensive Education Schemes)
  Burnham Committee (Teachers' Panels)
  Burnham Committee (Teachers' Panels)
  Secondary Schools (Milk)
  Secondary Schools (Milk)
  Schools Sports Organisations (Grants)
  Schools Sports Organisations (Grants)
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Primary Education (Plowden Report)
  Primary Education (Plowden Report)
  Gloucestershire (Reorganisation Plans)
  Gloucestershire (Reorganisation Plans)
  Decimal Currency and Metric System
  Decimal Currency and Metric System
  Teaching Machines
  Teaching Machines
  Royal Shakespeare Company (Grant)
  Royal Shakespeare Company (Grant)
  The Arts (Regional Associations)
  The Arts (Regional Associations)
  National Film School
  National Film School
  Comprehensive Education Scheme (Norfolk)
  Comprehensive Education Scheme (Norfolk)
  Educational Expenditure (Rate Support Grant)
  Educational Expenditure (Rate Support Grant)
  Colleges of Education (Government)
  Colleges of Education (Government)
  Schools (Minor Works Programme)
  Schools (Minor Works Programme)
  Secondary Education (Harrow)
  Secondary Education (Harrow)
  School-Leaving Age
  School-Leaving Age
  Cambridge and Oxford Universities (Entrance Selection)
  Cambridge and Oxford Universities (Entrance Selection)
  Technological University (Northern Region)
  Technological University (Northern Region)
  Teachers' Technical Training (Northern Region)
  Teachers' Technical Training (Northern Region)
  Teacher Training Colleges (Students)
  Teacher Training Colleges (Students)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Obscene Pictures (Prosecutions)
  Obscene Pictures (Prosecutions)
  Air-raid Shelters (Liverpool)
  Air-raid Shelters (Liverpool)
  Incadine Dresses
  Incadine Dresses
  Police (Non-Essential Duties)
  Police (Non-Essential Duties)
  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Deputations
  Deputations
  Traffic Wardens (Powers)
  Traffic Wardens (Powers)
  Prison Reform
  Prison Reform
  Hornby Road Prison, Liverpool
  Hornby Road Prison, Liverpool
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  India (Food Situation)
  India (Food Situation)
  Aid Programme
  Aid Programme
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Overseas Students (Fees)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Motor Manufacturing Industry (Economic Development Committee)
  Motor Manufacturing Industry (Economic Development Committee)
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Grocery Items (Price Increases)
  Grocery Items (Price Increases)
  Economic Development Committees (Information from Industry)
  Economic Development Committees (Information from Industry)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  B.B.C. Popular Music Programme
  B.B.C. Popular Music Programme
  Adult Programmes (Viewing Times)
  Adult Programmes (Viewing Times)
  Independent Television Programme Companies
  Independent Television Programme Companies
  Local Radio Stations (Liverpool)
  Local Radio Stations (Liverpool)
POST OFFICE
  Office Hours (Scotland)
  Office Hours (Scotland)
  Postage Stamps (Design)
  Postage Stamps (Design)
  Rhodesian Mail
  Rhodesian Mail
  Special Stamp Issues
  Special Stamp Issues
  Regional Stamps
  Regional Stamps
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Subscribers (Advance Rentals)
  Subscribers (Advance Rentals)
  Surtax
  Surtax
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation and Social Security Contributions
  Taxation and Social Security Contributions
  Foreign Currency Securities
  Foreign Currency Securities
HOUSING
  Noise
  Noise
  B.B.C. (OVERSEAS BROADCASTS)
  B.B.C. (OVERSEAS BROADCASTS)
  EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY
  EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY
  PIT CLOSURES
  PIT CLOSURES
  NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
  NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  CHINA
  CHINA
  CAPTAIN O'NEILL'S VISIT (COMMUNIQUÉ)
  CAPTAIN O'NEILL'S VISIT (COMMUNIQUÉ)
  NORTH VIETNAM (UNITED STATES BOMBING)
  NORTH VIETNAM (UNITED STATES BOMBING)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  GIBRALTAR
  GIBRALTAR
  CHEQUERS
  CHEQUERS
  TYNESIDE (FUTURE)
  TYNESIDE (FUTURE)
  PUBLIC RECORDS (CLOSED PERIOD)
  PUBLIC RECORDS (CLOSED PERIOD)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Royal Navy (Boy Entrants)
  Royal Navy (Boy Entrants)
HOSPITALS
  Rampton Hospital (Rehabilitation Courses)
  Rampton Hospital (Rehabilitation Courses)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Unemployed Disabled Persons (Bury St. Edmunds, Newmarket and Haverhill)
  Unemployed Disabled Persons (Bury St. Edmunds, Newmarket and Haverhill)
  Employment (Orders XIX-XXIV)
  Employment (Orders XIX-XXIV)
  Unemployment (Haverhill)
  Unemployment (Haverhill)
  Darlington Forge Limited (Redundant Workers)
  Darlington Forge Limited (Redundant Workers)
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Land Commission (Levy)
  Land Commission (Levy)
GAS
  Tariffs (Domestic Consumers)
  Tariffs (Domestic Consumers)
SCOTLAND
  Selective Employment Tax (Agricultural Contractors)
  Selective Employment Tax (Agricultural Contractors)
  Commonwealth Games
  Commonwealth Games
TECHNOLOGY
  Business Machines
  Business Machines
BOARD OF TRADE
  Exports (B.B.C. Broadcasts)
  Exports (B.B.C. Broadcasts)
  Darlington (Industrial Development)
  Darlington (Industrial Development)
  Motor Vehicle Insurance (Government Control)
  Motor Vehicle Insurance (Government Control)
ROADS
  Lowestoft Swing Bridge
  Lowestoft Swing Bridge
TRANSPORT
  Motoring Offences (Fines)
  Motoring Offences (Fines)
WALES
  Motorways
  Motorways

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

TERRITORIALS AND THE CIVIL DEFENCE CORPS
3.6 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: 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 they will make a statement on the intended relationship between the reorganised Civil Defence Corps, the Territorial Army Associations and the Territorials; having regard to the Statement to Parliament made by Her Majesty's Government on December 14, 1966.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the primary role of the Territorials will be to assist the civil authorities in the maintenance of law and order, whereas the future role of the Civil Defence Corps is the rather different one of helping the local authorities to man the control system and providing limited numbers of specialists. Arrangements are, however, being made for liaison between the Armed Forces and those local authorities who are responsible for raising divisions of the Civil Defence Corps.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. He said that arrangements for liaison are being made. Can he say by whom they are being made, and what the arrangements are? Are they being made at this moment, or does the noble Lord mean that they will be made if an incident occurs?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, my words were carefully chosen. Arrangements are being made at this moment; in other words, the new organisation is
212
being set up. The authorities concerned are the counties and county boroughs, who are also the Civil Defence Corps authorities, and the Ministry of Defence are considering the appointment of suitable officers from all three Services to act as joint liaison officers between the majority of these local authorities and the Armed Forces as a whole. These officers will be available (and this, I think, deals with part of the noble Lord's point) to assist in peace-time planning and co-ordination.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am afraid there was a certain amount of noise when the noble Lord was giving his main Answer, and I did not quite catch whether he made any mention of the Territorial Army Associations. Are these officers now liaising with the Associations?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Territorial Army Associations have specific functions, which were outlined in the course of the debate, and those functions will continue. The Associations will not, as I understand it, be directly involved in this specific operational liaison, but they are fully in the picture and are being fully consulted. Here again, this is in process of being worked out. Perhaps I might add, as I am sure the noble Lord would wish, that Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to the work of the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces' Associations.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the greatest risk immediately after a nuclear attack is uncontrolled fire, and that at one time numbers of Territorials were to be trained in fire-fighting to help the fire authorities? Has that idea been dropped; and, if so, what alternative do the Government propose?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, think that is another matter, and perhaps he would like to put down a further Question. Broadly, his statement is correct, and the limited role of the Territorials in this respect will now, so far as I can judge from the present development, cease. The role of the Territorials is primarily that of supporting the Civil Power in maintaining law and order. This was fully explained in the debates that we had last summer.

SALMON DISEASE
3.11 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the disease which broke out amongst salmon in Southern Ireland was caused by bacteria or a virus or some other infection.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am afraid there is little I can add to the statement which my noble friend Lord Champion made on November 29 in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, when he informed the House of the work which is being done both in this country and in Ireland into the causes of the disease. It has still not been established whether the disease is caused by a bacterium or a virus, either separately or in combination. This type of research is by its nature a slow and laborious process, and I am afraid that it is impossible to predict how long it may take to establish the nature of the disease.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, can the noble Lady state whether the Government have considered the possibility of unification of research by all those countries which harvest the North Atlantic salmon?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think the simple answer to that is, No. If the noble Lord needs more information about the international arrangements already in existence, I can give this, but it all adds up to the fact that at this moment the reply to his question is, No.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether there is any danger to human beings from this disease?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I regret that I am unable to give a direct reply to the noble Lord, but if he would like me to obtain this information, I will do so. I think it might be dangerous for me to give an answer off the cuff to that question.

UNIVERSITY FEES OF OVERSEAS STUDENTS
3.12 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 on what grounds the fees of overseas students at British Universities have been increased.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, the Government do not lay down the fees to be charged by the universities. They have, however, decided that the next quinquennial settlement of recurrent grant to universities should assume a fee income of £250 a year from overseas students beginning courses in the next academic year. To avoid hardship, the increase in the fee assumed for those who have already started on courses which extend into the next academic year will be limited to £50 a year for the remainder of their present course. This decision was taken in the light of the recommendations of the Robbins Committee and the Select Committee on Estimates that the general level of fees should be increased so that they met at least 20 per cent. of expenditure. In the case of most United Kingdom students the general effect of such an increase would be to transfer expenditure from central Government to local government and thus would go counter to the Government's policy of trying to limit the rate burden.
However, the existing fee structure results in a concealed subsidy to overseas students at United Kingdom universities which grew from £3·4 million in 1955–56 to about £12 million in 1965–66. The Government were unable to contemplate an indefinite increase in this subsidy and reluctantly concluded that some increase in the fees for overseas students was justified. Even with the increased fee the element of subsidy to overseas students will be greater than it was five years ago.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, and appreciating the concession

215
which has been made to existing students, may I ask him whether it would not be possible to differentiate between overseas students from Europe, North America and Australia, who should not need this concession, and students from the developing countries, many of whom will be put in very great difficulties by the trebled fees which are to be charged?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. I ought to stress that no additional cost will fall on students who are now, or will be in the future, financed from British official sources, including the British Council. Moreover, the Government will reimburse the additional £50 payable by students who have already started their courses and are financed by the Governments of developing countries.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he realises the very great concern felt at this increase by teaching institutions, such as the Royal College of Art, and by universities, such as Essex University, which have been endeavouring to attract to this country students from overseas? Have the Government taken into consideration any representations made to them by the Vice-Chancellors' Committee? Have they consulted the Vice-Chancellors' Committee? And have they undertaken any consultation concerning the effects of this change with any educational authorities likely to be affected by it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Government are aware, of course, of the feeling that has been expressed by various people and organisations, and I have no doubt that the considerations which lie behind that feeling were taken into account by the Robbins Committee and the Select Committee on Estimates. But, even accepting the points that have been made by the various individuals and by the Press, and also direct to the Minister, I should have thought it was reasonable to say that some increase is essential and that the increase proposed is not an unreasonable one. Moreover, the off-setting arrangement which I described, both in the original Answer and in my answer to the supplementary question, is a highly selective one.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulties, and I understand that many of those students who
216
come even from developing countries have parents such as oil sheikhs who can well afford to pay the higher fees; but is it not also the case that the Governments of developing countries are compelled to limit their scholarships, and to cut them down, and that in addition to those students who come with Government scholarships there are many others who are coming here by the sacrifice of their parents and living in very great difficulties in this country? Would it not be possible to come to an arrangement with the British Council, or with other responsible organisations, that in the case of recommended students the lower fees should still be maintained in the future?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what the noble Lord is saying is that there is a case for increasing the fees of some students and not of others. The effect of these proposals will be that some students will pay an increased fee. I feel we should get this matter in proper perspective. As I think my noble friend indicated in his first supplementary question, 30 per cent. of overseas students come from countries such as the United States, Canada and the Scandinavian countries, and they are well able to pay a higher fee. In fact, many come to this country precisely because they get their university education here at a lower cost than is obtainable in their own country. And it is interesting to see the figures that Dr. Byatt quoted in a letter to The Times yesterday, in which he said that in the case of the London School of Economics, of 812 regular overseas students, no fewer than 451 came from Europe, North America and Australasia. The element of subsidy to those students ought in present circumstances not to be increased at the rate that would have been necessary owing to increased costs generally. So far as those coming from developing countries are concerned, if they are sponsored by the O.D.M. or the British Council, as I have already said, no additional cost would fall upon them.
LORD BROCKWAY: For future students?
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I think we should be very careful not to introduce the sort of colour discrimination advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether his last reply indicates that this will apply to future students as well as to existing students?
LORD BESWICK: What I said earlier, my Lords, was that no additional cost would fall on students who, now or in the future, are financed from British official sources.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, while agreeing with what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said about Lord Brockway's suggestion, I would ask: Are the Government aware that there is a great deal of anxiety, particularly in Scottish universities, over unsponsored students who have already started their courses? I think we all agree that something must be done about the future, but would the Government look into the problem of the existing students, of whom there are not many but to whom great hardship will ensue?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear that to those students who have already started their courses the increase will be limited to £50 a year, and if they are students from developing countries that £50 will be reimbursed.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the Government, before coming to this decision, made any estimate of the value of the services provided by men who have come to this country on these grants and afterwards stayed on to work in the universities, particularly in the medical and science faculties, and indeed in the medical and other services in this country—in other words the brain-drain in reverse?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure all these considerations were taken into account, and nothing that I have said about students coming from overseas should be construed as meaning that we do not welcome them or that their presence here is not highly valuable to students generally.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, what will be the net saving to the Government of this measure?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it will be something of the order of £2½ million a year. That will be the net saving when the scheme is fully effective.

RHODESIA: GRANT TO SALISBURY UNIVERSITY
3.24 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 what grant has been made to the Administration in Rhodesia for the period of the next three months in support of the University of Salisbury which was established as an inter-racial institution.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, no grant has been made to the illegal régime in Rhodesia, but £62,500 has been paid into the University College bank account in London in respect of the first quarter of 1967.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, whilst appreciating the necessity to maintain this University, pending the eventual collapse of the illegal Smith regime, is it not a fact that at present the academic board controlling bursaries for African students has been replaced by civil servants responsible to the Smith administration, and that scholarships are being denied to Africans for technical and academic studies and limited to subordinate studies for jobs to which the Africans are restricted in Rhodesia? Is this not a form of educational apartheid?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend that it is an advantage to everyone to have this University College operating fully, ready for the day when Rhodesia returns to legal government. But I should have thought it was also an advantage to have the College operating there in the meantime while it is offering places to African students. The number of African students who have applied for admission for the next academic year is higher than ever before. It is, as yet, too early to say how many of those applicants will be granted bursaries by the Rhodesian Scholarship Board.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords; but is it not the case that of the 121 university staff, 70 have either been expelled or have resigned, and that a fourth

219
of the African students have left, either compulsorily or voluntarily?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there have been changes, but I would advise my noble friend not to be too pessimistic about the effect of the changes. In fact I was interested to read the Press statement issued by the College Council, as at present constituted and reflecting the views of present staff, in which they say that they are determined
"to maintain the autonomy of the College under the Charter as a centre of higher education and research for the benefit of all, regardless of race, creed or political opinion."
I should have thought it was too early yet to say that they were not going to honour their commitments.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, it is not for me to know what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway is about to say, but I think the formula "Is it not the fact that…?"can be carried rather far, and it has led in the last few minutes to a number of statements of the kind that were rather deprecated in the recent Report of the Procedure Committee.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government been able to ascertain whether the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is in favour of, or against, giving a grant to this university?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend if the Government are prepared to reconsider, after this three months' grant, whether in fact this college is maintained on the multiracial basis of which, in reply to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I am entirely in favour?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the whole purpose of paying this grant in quarterly instalments is to enable Her Majesty's Government to have closer control, and certainly within the next three-monthly period there will be a number of factors which will make the future more clear. For example, it will be important to see how many of the Africans who have applied for scholarships will be granted them, and it will also be interesting to see the nature of the appointment of the Principal of the College.

MR. KOSYGIN'S VISIT
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House may well know that Mr. Kosygin, of the Soviet Union, will be visiting this country shortly and it is hoped that he will be able to meet Members of both Houses in the Royal Gallery on Thursday, February 9. I should like to suggest that as on previous occasions the House should adjourn at a suitable moment, so that noble Lords from all sides of the House may attend this meeting.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Simey to advance the Motion now standing in his name from Wednesday the 8th to Tuesday the 7th of February.—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
3.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In moving the Second Reading, which I count a great privilege, I am conscious of the fact that we have many Members on all sides of your Lordships' House who have served with distinction in the Government of London, both at county and local levels, and the list of speakers on the Bill leads us to believe that we shall have a lively and an informative discussion.
When the Bill which became the London Government Act, 1963, was before the House, we on this side urged the Government of the day to make provision for the two sets of elections in Greater London to be held in different years—after the initial elections of 1964—instead of in the same year, and eventually on the same day, as provided for in the Bill then under consideration. Our arguments did not prevail, and the 1963 Act provides for the elections to the

221
Greater London Council and to the London borough councils to take place in the same year, and ultimately to be held as combined elections on the same day. If the Bill we are to consider to-day is passed, it will achieve what we had in mind in 1963, in that the two sets of elections will be held in consecutive years. There will be no change in the year of Greater London Council elections: the next Greater London Council election will be held on April 13, 1967, the date already announced, and Greater London Council elections will continue to be held triennially thereafter. Ordinary elections to London borough councils will, however, be held in 1968 and each third year thereafter. Obviously as a result of this arrangement, the long-term provision for combined elections on the same day will go.
The scheme of the 1963 Act was that the combination of the two sets of elections would take place once Greater London had been divided for the purposes of Greater London Council elections into single Member electoral areas based on new Parliamentary constituencies. It was not known in 1963 whether this division would have taken place by this year, when the second set of Greater London Council and London borough council elections was due to be held. As will be appreciated, the division has not taken place, and cannot take place yet, because the new Parliamentary constituencies for the Greater London area have not been settled. Accordingly, for 1967 the short term arrangements for the two sets of elections to be held on different days in the same year will again operate as it did in 1964, unless there is amending legislation. It should be emphasised that the two sets of elections would not be combined in 1967, even without this Bill. Some confusion is understood to have arisen as to what would be the position this year under the London Government Act 1963, as it stands at present, and it should be made clear from the outset that we still have not reached a time when the long term arrangements envisaged under that Act would come into force.
Noble Lords will recall that these long term provisions for combined elections followed a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Local Government
222
in Greater London. In paragraph 856 of their Report the Commission said:
"We believe it would be possible, and if so we think it very desirable, that elections for the Council and elections for the Greater London borough councils should be held simultaneously, so that at one and the same polling booth at one and the same time an elector votes on a Parliamentary constituency basis for one member of the council for Greater London, and on a ward basis for his own borough, councillors as at present. It seems to us that this would bring about a very desirable measure of simplification and would help Londoners to understand better the type of council for which they are voting and the functions of the councils to which the candidates are seeking election."
The Government of the day made provision accordingly in the London Government Bill, which we considered in 1963. It should, however, be remembered that the Royal Commission had also recommended annual elections for the London borough councils and that this was a recommendation of the Royal Commission which the then Government found unacceptable. We did not quarrel with their decision on this point.
We on this side raised the question of the timing of elections on more than one occasion during our consideration of the London Government Bill in 1963. We pointed out that there were two distinct local government organisations with different functions. Some confusion admittedly existed at first as to whether the two sets of elections were to be held in the same year, though not on the same day, as a permanent arrangement. It transpired during consideration of the Bill in Committee that the ultimate arrangement would be, as has been said, for combined elections on the same day. The then Government said, agreeing with the Royal Commission, that they regarded the Greater London Council and the London borough councils as an integral part of the whole arrangement for local government in Greater London, and that it would be more effective to hold elections on the same day. They agreed, however, in view of the arguments advanced for taking a different view, to consider the matter further before the Report stage of the Bill.
When it came to Report stage, the Government of the day reiterated that they thought that combined elections would focus attention on local government

223
and bring a higher percentage of voters to the poll. They said that they thought that the Royal Commission's argument that combining elections might help to eliminate confusion and give a better chance of understanding the respective functions of the different authorities had a good deal of weight behind it. It transpired that there had been some consultations with the local authority associations concerned about the practical difficulties which might arise in holding the two elections on the same day and the Government thought that the difficulties need not be regarded as insuperable. Nevertheless, it was conceded that strong arguments could be advanced for a different view, and that the matter was very evenly balanced. The decision of the House went against us then and the provision for combined elections stood. The arguments we used in 1963 are still in our view valid. We now have as an additional factor the views of the new local authorities which were set up by the London Government Act 1963 and the views of the officials who will have to conduct both sets of elections.
To take the views of returning officers first. With the object of considering the practical problems involved when eventually the two sets of elections were combined, the Association of London Town Clerks set up a Working Party of Town Clerks. There seems to have been some misapprehension as to the origin of this Working Party. It was set up by a professional organisation for the purpose of making a survey of the situation once elections were combined. It was not set up by the Government. The Working Party's report was sent to the London Boroughs Association, which in turn sent it to the Home Secretary. Copies of the report have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. As will be known, the town clerks are returning officers for both London borough council elections and the Greater London Council elections. The Working Party in their report have mentioned a number of difficulties which can be foreseen, including the provision of equipment and staff, complications in postal voting and the greater risk that mistakes would be made. The Working Party came to the conclusion that, as we said in 1963, these difficulties may not be insuperable. Nevertheless, they also concluded
224
that the burden that would be placed on returning officers would be a very heavy one and that the resulting procedure might not be satisfactory either to candidates or to the electorate.
It seems to the Government that attention must be paid to the views of the experienced officials who would have to operate the provisions for combined elections. As was said in 1963, the question whether there should or should not be combined elections is not a Party issue. Clearly the town clerks were not politically biased, and they made their report of their own volition, in view of the serious problems which they thought might well arise were two sets of big local government elections to be combined. It should be emphasised, before we leave the views of the Working Party, that their report relates only to combined elections, and combined elections are not contemplated in 1967. There have been suggestions that an attempt has been made to use the report of the Working Party as an argument against elections in the same year but not on the same day. Therefore it must be made plain that the Working Party's report does not deal with closely following elections, but with simultaneous elections.
To turn now to the views of the new local authorities set up by the London Government Act 1963. The Greater London Council in February of last year represented to the Home Secretary that the law should be changed to provide for the two sets of elections to take place in different years. In support of their representations that the two sets of elections should be held separately, the Greater London Council pointed to the administrative difficulties entailed in combined elections. They also said that such elections would be confusing to the elector, making it difficult for him, approached by a political Party in presumably a single election address, to distinguish his preference for one Party for borough matters from his preference for another Party for the Greater London Council's policies. The Greater London Council were of the opinion that the holding of the two sets of elections not only on different days but in different years would help to foster a sense of civic awareness in an otherwise long interval without the opportunity to, vote.

225
The other elected bodies, the 32 London borough councils, considered the matter through their Association, the London Boroughs Association, formerly the London Boroughs Committee. The Association sought the views of all the constituent councils, and 27 of the 32 borough councils favoured a change to elections in separate years; 20 of those 27 wished to see the change effected by postponement of the London borough council elections from 1967 to 1968. The Association made representations accordingly to the Home Secretary last April. The town clerks then, who are quite clearly non-political, are very doubtful—to put it at the lowest—about the desirability of combined elections. A large majority of the elected bodies—and on this issue they have not split wholly on Party lines—are also in favour of elections in different years; and of those wishing to have a change, the greater number—once again, not all of the same political Party—wish the change to be made in the manner that is proposed by the measure now under consideration. In short, the views of the officials who will be running the elections and a majority of the authorities concerned are the same as our view was in 1963.
Indeed, it may well be that the question whether the two sets of elections should take place in the same year or in different years is no longer one which divides us here. The point of controversy in another place was when the new arrangement for elections in different years should begin. Let me explain therefore why we believe that the change should be made this year. Leaving on one side the fact that a majority of the borough councils would prefer the change to be made before the next London borough council elections, it seems to us plain common sense that there should not be two closely following local government elections of this magnitude in two consecutive months. The late Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in the debate in 1963, said that provision for such elections would invite low voting and apathy, and put a great strain on Party organisations which is not in the public interest. It is quite true, as will probably be mentioned by noble Lords on the opposite side, that county council elections which are due to be held this year in the same week as the Greater London Council election will be followed a month afterwards
226
by municipal borough and district council elections. Every third year, that is, the year of county council elections, closely following elections are unavoidable in the counties where there are annual elections for borough and district councils, and triennial elections for county councils. The situation is not the same in Greater London, where both sets of elections are held triennially. Where we can avoid closely following elections there seems to us to be every reason for doing so. This would restore the position as it was before 1963, when the former London County Council and metropolitan borough council elections were held in different years.
After all, we are now able to look back at the elections held under the 1963 Act in April and May, 1964. The voting figures bore out what we said would happen. Despite the fact that the Government of the day had argued that the matters dealt with by the Greater London Council were hardly likely to stir up much enthusiasm—and this was advanced as a reason for ultimately combining those elections with the London borough council elections—over 44 per cent. of the electorate voted at the Greater London Council elections which were held in April. 1964. But a month later, at the London borough elections, where it had been assumed that more interest would be aroused by matters dealt with at the local town hall, just under 36 per cent. of the electorate voted—a drop of over 8 per cent. This seems to suggest that the timing of local government elections has just as much, if not more, bearing on the turn-out, as the nature of the local authority for which the electorate are voting. These voting figures are Jower than we should wish to see, especially when we consider how much publicity and interest had attended the setting up of the new authorities in Greater London. We accordingly think that if there is to be a Bill to provide, in the long term, for these elections to be held in different years, then the sooner that effect is given to it the better. Elections held a month apart have neither the alleged advantage of a concentration of interest—and we in our turn will admit that some argument can be made out for combined elections—nor the advantage of well spaced elections which serve to keep alive an interest in local government during the three years' cycle. The phrase "the worst of

227
both worlds" has been used to describe the interim arrangement; and we wish to bring it to an end before the next elections.
The Bill itself consists of only two clauses of substance and is quite straightforward. The main provision is in subsection (1) of Clause 1, which postpones until 1968 and each third year thereafter the London borough council elections due under the 1963 Act to be held in 1967 and each third year thereafter. The remainder of Clause 1 contains consequential provisions in connection with the election of aldermen of London boroughs and the filling of casual vacancies—a process which has already stopped because we are in the six-month period before the next elections are due to be held.
As has been said, the Bill does not itself affect the years of election to the Greater London Council; Clause 2, however, makes provision as to the date of the Greater London Council elections. This provision is necessary if the two sets of elections are not eventually to be combined. The date for the 1967 Greater London Council elections, April 13, has already been announced. Thereafter, the Greater London Council will have power, like the former London County Council, to fix their date for ordinary elections within the week in April for county council elections.
Before closing, it is right to say that the origins of this Bill lie in representations from the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association about the arrangements they desired for elections throughout Greater London. The 1967 local government election period will soon be upon us. The election period for the Greater London Council will start within the next couple of months and, without this Bill, the period for the London borough council elections a month later. So long as this Bill is before the House a state of uncertainty must exist both among the officials of town halls and in Party organisations. We accordingly hope that this uncertainty will be brought to an end soon by the amendment of the present law which is proposed in this Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
3.46 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for introducing this Bill so charmingly, so clearly and so concisely. I do not think she really sought to conceal that this short Bill raises a grave issue. The issue is that, at the behest of what is at the moment the majority Party in the House of Commons, in the Greater London Council and in most of the London boroughs, the Bill proposes to deprive the people of Greater London of their right under the law, to decide four months hence whom they would like to represent them on the London borough councils for the next three years. It proposes to give those who were put in power by the electors in 1964 for a period of three years, and three years only, an extra uncovenanted twelve months of power during which they cannot be displaced, however strongly the feelings of the electors have turned against them.
The Government have no mandate whatever for this, either locally or nationally. The electors who are affected, millions of people, have not been consulted. One of the two main Parties on the borough councils affected, the Conservative Party, is bitterly opposed to this indefensible postponement of the elections—and no wonder! May I give an example? The Labour controlled council of the London Borough of Camden, where the Labour Party won a narrow majority by 34 to 26 when councillors were last elected in 1964 for the next three years, has been so conducting its affairs that it is running a deficit of no less than £1¾million a year on its housing revenue account; and it is no surprise that the district auditor, a wholly impartial official, has called attention to this as being a quite excessive burden thrown upon the ratepayers because of the failure of the council to charge reasonable rents to tenants who can afford to pay them. In the face of this sharp criticism from the district auditor, the council are taking quite inadequate steps to remedy the situation.
To judge by recent by-elections in that borough, the next borough council elections which, under the present law, are due to take place, as I have said, in May

229
of this year, will almost certainly result in the electors in Camden deciding to change a number of their present rulers and to replace them with people able to conduct the affairs of the borough with a greater sense of financial responsibility. That is one example only. The Labour Government, in the Bill now before your Lordships, are asking Parliament to keep the present councillors in power for an extra twelve months in Camden and in many other similar London boroughs. With the help of the Government majority, this shaming interference with the just working of democracy has been approved in another place, though it was vehemently opposed. That is how it now comes before your Lordships for consideration.
How has all this arisen? I will not go through the facts as they were stated by the noble Baroness, but I will pick out one or two of the salient points. The Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London recommended that both the Greater London Council and the London borough council elections should take place on the same day. As the noble Baroness has said, in practical effect the London Government Act of 1963 provides that that should happen in 1970, 1973, 1976, and so on. I grant that there are practical difficulties about having different elections for different councils on the same day, and that there is a good deal of feeling that it would be puzzling to a certain number of electors—I think that it is a fairly evenly balanced matter—but I am influenced considerably by the report of the Working Party of Town Clerks who would have to run the elections. I accept that as a wholly unbiased report, and I think that we in this House should pay attention to it.
For that and for other reasons I, for one, take no objection to the proposal in the Bill that the Greater London Council elections should take place in 1970, 1973 and 1976, and every three years thereafter, and the London borough council elections in 1971, 1974, 1977 and so on. But to achieve that object there is no need whatever to meddle with the 1967 elections. Under the present law they were not going to be held on the same day in 1967, anyhow. The noble Baroness remarked that some confusion is said to have arisen about that fact. So far as I know, the only confusion was caused by a junior Minister in another
230
place who persistently asserted on television, quite mistakenly, that they were taking place under the present law on the same day. However, it has no doubt been explained to him that that was not the fact, and nobody now is labouring under that misapprehension. Under the present law, the Greater London Council elections will be on April 13, 1967, and the London borough council elections on May 11, 1967.
The noble Baroness spoke of the disadvantage of closely-following elections. But we have had closely-following elections before. We had them in 1964; we also had the London County Council and Metropolitan borough council elections with a similar interval in 1949; and, whatever the result, it certainly gave rise to no practical difficulty, except that the Labour Party lost a great many seats at both of them. But as in 1964 the Labour Party won a good many seats in both of them, I should not have thought that either side could make much of that particular argument. I believe that the people of London, having done this twice, would not find it intolerable to do it again in 1967, if there are reasons for that—and there are. I can see no valid reason why Parliament, if it thinks fit, should not enact that, at an election which has not yet taken place, the candidates should be elected for a period of two years, four years or whatever Parliament wills. Everybody knows then where he stands: the electors know, the candidates know, and there is no element of "dirty play". What is inexcusable in this Bill, and a flouting of fair play, is that elected persons or Parties who have been elected for a stated period should have their office extended for an extra year when there is no need for it, and when the electorate have not been consulted about it in any way, and when the Party out of power is positively and vigorously opposed to it.
In each one of the so-called precedents which were quoted in another place, both the main Parties—indeed, all Parties—were in agreement on what was to be done. I do not think the noble Lady referred to it, but she might have referred to the fact that, by agreement between the Parties, the London borough council elections of November, 1948, were postponed until May, 1949. There was a unanimous view that May was a better

231
time for elections than November, and nobody felt that it was a bad thing to make the change in that particular way.
In another place it was said—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, will remember this—that the reshaping of Greater London local government, following the Royal Commission's Report, necessitated the postponement of county council elections in Surrey, Essex and Kent. What happened was that parts of each of those three counties were being carved away and added to Greater London, and it would have been absurd to hold the county council elections in 1964 when,12 months later, a substantial part of each of those three councils was to be transferred to the Greater London Council and the Greater London boroughs. If the elections had been held in 1964, one would have had a confused election when some people were being elected for the normal period of three years as county councillors, and others were being elected only for one year until their electoral district was transferred to Greater London. Consequently, again with general agreement, with no opposition so far as I know from anybody, the county council elections in Kent, Surrey and Essex were postponed for 12 months.
I have said before that, where there was general agreement or overriding necessity, quite clearly it could not be taken as a gross infringement of democratic arrangements if there were a postponement of elections. In every case in the past, so far as I am aware, the political Parties—who, after all, have some claim to be representative of the electors—agreed that the changes were necessary. The postponement of the London borough council elections from May, 1967, to May, 1968, as proposed in this Bill, is not necessary, is not agreed, and is a unilateral decision by the Labour Party to deprive the electors of Greater London of their present lawful right to choose four months from now, whether or not they wish to retain in office the people whom they elected three years ago for a period of three years and no more.
It is an outrageous proposal to which the Government are asking your Lordships to agree. I do not, of course, blame the noble Baroness in any way. She is not responsible. She has been given what must have been to her a distasteful
232
duty, the duty of presenting a Bill to Parliament to legalise electoral cheating. The responsibility for this shaming action lies on the Home Secretary. At any rate, I can say that in discharging my duties concerning the representation of the people when I was Home Secretary—and I am sure this was equally true of my three immediate predecessors, if not more—I set my face absolutely against doing anything that was not completely fair as between all Parties. But other times, other manners. I would rather have resigned than yield to Party pressure to do such a thing as this. I would advise my noble friends not to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, because it contains longer term proposals for 1970 and thereafter which are reasonable and acceptable. But when we reach the Committee stage next Thursday, we shall certainly seek to amend the Bill so as to restore to the London electorate their right to express their will in May next, a right which this Bill is designed to steal from them.
4.0 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, speaks as a real authority on matters concerned with London Government. He was for many years the leader of the Conservative Party on the London County Council, and during the whole of that period he did not, either by voice or by vote, give the slightest indication that he wanted to wipe that Council off the face of the earth and reconstitute a new Council with, as he hoped, a built-in Conservative majority to take its place. This afternoon the noble Lord has alleged that the Government have deprived the electors of their rights. That is precisely what he and his Government did in 1963, when the authorities were powerless under force majeure to raise any objection. He says that under this Bill an extra twelve months of uncovenanted power is being given to certain councils in London. That is precisely what he did in 1963 with the London Government Act. He says that the Government have no mandate. That was precisely the situation with regard to the reorganisation of London government, which he carried out in 1963.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would forgive me for interrupting for a moment

233
I do not want to enter into a quarrel with him, but I was not responsible for the 1963 Act. I was not the Minister in charge at the time. I was dealing with quite different things.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Of course not, my Lords. But the noble Lord was in the Cabinet and there is such a thing as the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility. The noble Lord accepts that. He alleges that there is to be interference with the just working of democracy. That is precisely what happened when he refused to allow me to lead my Party into a county council election in 1964, when he insisted by Statute that the Tory majority on my council should be extended for a further twelve months. He says that we are flouting fair play in order to let these councils have their office extended. That is precisely what he did under the 1963 Act, when he extended for twelve months the tenure of office of quite a number of councils. He alleges that this Bill is cheating. Then, by the same token, the 1963 London Government Act was also cheating, and we pointed that out in this House at the time.
I want to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Phillips for the clear, objective and, I think it will be agreed, non-Party way in which she introduced this as an administrative measure. She has saved me the trouble of saying many things which I should have chosen to say, because I think they were accepted without demur from the other side; therefore there will he no need for me to emphasise them.
We are often told that politics is the art of the possible. I accept that. But I think that there is something more in it than that. I think the question of right and wrong has also to come into the question of politics. I have no doubt that a very grievous electoral wrong was perpetrated in the London Government Act 1963. This Bill is aiming to right that wrong, and so I support it. What happened in the 1963 London Government Act? It is a few minutes since my noble friend explained it objectively, and I will repeat it so that we start from an agreed foundation. First of all, it abolished the scheme for holding the Greater London Council and London borough elections in separate years. It muddled them both together in the same year, with only a few weeks' interval
234
between the two. Secondly, it laid down that after this year there should be combined elections, with the elector going into the polling booth and being handed two long lists of candidates, which might have anything up to twenty candidates on each. He was then expected to be able to decide for whom he wanted to vote, in circumstances where he would have been voting for two separate authorities, with perhaps two separate sets of programmes and policies put before him by each one of the Parties. This Bill upsets those two pieces of confusion and restores the position to what used to be regarded as the normal.
I do not want to make a political speech, and so I am not going to suggest that there was any undue Party political malevolence in the Bill which the noble Lord's Government introduced in 1963. I am not going to suggest that, finding themselves unable to capture the London County Council at the polls, they picked out a number of Tory boroughs round the periphery and tacked them on to London. I am not going to suggest that they decided to have the two elections within a month of each other, merely in order to confuse the electors. I am not going to suggest that they had it in their minds that, after voting in April, people would perhaps feel rather mystified as to why they should be called upon to vote in May as well. I am not suggesting that there was any electoral trickery at all in the suggestion that you combine the two elections in one polling booth onone day at one particular hour of that day. I am going to assume that the Conservative Government regarded these electoral provisions of the 1963 Act as a tidying-up piece of administration carried out for the convenience of the public. But I suggest that under the Bill which the Government are introducing to-day this system will be made tidier still, and will be made even more convenient to the electors, and that it is an even more meritorious electoral exercise than was the 1963 Act.
What is to-day's Bill going to do? It is going to arrange that the Greater London Council elections shall be held in April, which is normal and about which there is no disagreement in any part of the House; and also, instead of confusing the electors with two elections in a few weeks, it is going to defer the

235
elections for the boroughs until next year. That seems sensible to me; otherwise a lot of people are going to say, "Why ever have we got to go and vote again? We voted only a few weeks ago." But this apparently sensible proposal seems to have caused an outcry from noble Lords of the Party opposite and from their colleagues in another place, who are telling us that a bonus year is being added to the period of office of the Labour-controlled councils in London—and incidentally, of course, to the Conservative-controlled councils as well.
On that point I want to say two things. The borough councils elected in 1964 did not really take over the full reins of authority until 1965, and they have therefore had only two years of real authority, real control of their municipal administrations. So the extra year which they are now being invited to carry will not be a particularly heavy burden. We know that there are large numbers of Conservative councillors who flew into office three years ago and who are now finding that the work entails more sacrifice of time than they ever imagined, and they are eager to lay down their burden. That was admitted by Members of another place.
The second point about this bonus year is one which I remember very well indeed. It concerns that same year, 1964. I was then the leader of my Party on the Essex County Council. I had been leader for many years and, by the grace of God, I am still the leader. We knew that an Election was due in 1964. The Tory Party was then at a very low ebb and Labour was riding the crest of the wave. We knew that we should regain control at that 1964 Election—nothing was more certain. But then the 1963 Act came in and robbed us of that opportunity of consulting the electors and saying to them in a democratic spirit, "Please will you return us to control in the Essex County Council?". We were robbed of that opportunity by the noble Lord and his Cabinet colleagues of that time.
This came about under Schedule 3, paragraph 7, of the Act for which the noble Lord's Government was responsible. That paragraph said:
236
"county councillors and county aldermen due…to retire on the ordinary day of retirement in 1964…shall…continue to hold office until…1965".
If what we are doing to-day be an offence, that was equally an offence on that occasion. As I say, the councils had to act under force majeure, with a very powerful Conservative Government in office at that time. I do not accept that it is necessarily immoral to extend the period for which a council has been elected if there are some kind of unusual circumstances. Even Mr. Quintin Hogg has some qualifications in this respect. It was done for Kent, Surrey and Essex, and you cannot have a moral thermometer which registers in Centigrade for one Party and in Fahrenheit for another.
My Lords, I consider that this agitation, the spearhead of which this afternoon has been the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is an entirely spurious one. Let us have a look at the history of this affair. Twelve months ago the Tories in London knew of the possibility of deferring the borough council elections. They knew that that suggestion was being considered. They did not oppose it on the Greater London Council. They knew in January last year, at the meeting of the London Boroughs Association, that that proposal was very much on the cards. They knew still further in April of last year, when the Home Secretary said that he was sympathetically considering the proposal. Was there an agitation then against this mythical monstrous injustice? Of course there was not. Nothing was said in another place. Nothing was said by noble Lords in this House. There was not even a single letter written by any borough to the Home Secretary in the three months following his April announcement and his announcement of the introduction of the Bill in July or August. As for the suggestion that in April, when Labour first intimated publicly, in the House of Commons, that this Bill was coming, Labour was then afraid of the electors, what was the position? We had just won a General Election with the greatest majority in our history, and all the public opinion polls were showing us on top and the Tory Party going down and down. To suggest that we made this change and announced it in April merely because we were afraid of facing the electors is about

237
the most rubbishy excuse which could be put forward.
But time marched on, and we found that the full effect, the full consequences, of the economic crisis were revealing themselves. The Government had to freeze and squeeze, and had to take all kinds of unpopular measures—and that is when a few clever Tories thought that here was a whip with which they could lash the Labour Party and pretend that the Labour Party was acting in an immoral way. They said to themselves, "We did it ourselves in 1963, but what does that matter? We are entitled to a double moral standard in political affairs". Then there was one of their leaders, a bit "too clever by half", who lifted his eyes up from the card table and said, "Ah! This is the time to pull out that ace of spades that I have been hiding in my slipper". So at that stage the Tory Central Office was called in and the agitation started—and, as I say, it is a spurious agitation from start to finish.
There has been a good deal of misrepresentation, springing from Tory circles—and very influential circles—about the proposal for deferring the London borough elections. The facts show that the Special Committee of the London Boroughs Association—the constitutional Committee—was unanimous in suggesting that the borough elections be deferred for a year; and when the matter came to the full Association, as my noble friend Baroness Phillips has said, 27 of the 32 boroughs voted for holding the elections in separate years; and, of that 27, there were 20 who said that this year's elections should be postponed. The others said they favoured postponement but wanted this year's elections to take place, as the arrangements for them would already have been made. There was a split Party vote on all the divisions that were taken in the Association. So it was not a question of all the virtue being on the Labour side and all the vice being on the Tory side: there was a split vote every time this was put to the meeting.
My Lords, it has been suggested in Tory circles—and I want to mention this because it calls into question the honour of a very respected London government politician—that the meeting of the Special Committee was not unanimous. The
238
chairman of that Committee was not actually called a liar, but a very prominent member of the Conservative Party said, "It is not true". So I have to inform your Lordships that Mr. Norman Prichard, the chairman of the Association, has received a letter from the deputy chairman, who is the leader of the Tory members of the Association, confirming that the vote in the Special Committee of the London Boroughs Association was unanimous. I have here(I do not want to read it to your Lordships because I am taking too long as it is) an impartial record drawn up by the officials of the Association—people like town clerks, and so on—which indicates beyond any shadow of a doubt that that original decision was unanimous; that it was not challenged in any way at all. There was one lady from Enfield who raised some questions but, of course, when one mentions the borough of Enfield, one begins to see cloven hooves leaving their footprints on the sands of time. But there was no serious challenge whatsoever to the unanimity of that decision.
I do not know what arguments there were which convinced the members of the Association that it was desirable not to have the two elections in the one year, but my own experience of conducting county elections—and I have conducted quite a number—has always been that at a second poll a few weeks after the first poll people tend to say, "We have already voted," and there is a smaller percentage poll on the second occasion than on the first. The statistics show quite clearly—and, although I know that a good deal of juggling can be done with statistics and that a good deal has been done with these particular statistics, yet those which my noble friend Baroness Phillips quoted quite objectively at the opening of this debate show what the effect is: that when you have two close elections the vote goes down on the second one.
Now there are even some Conservatives who are beginning to feel that to have two elections close together is not necessarily too good. Mr. Heath—and he is still a Conservative; he is still the Conservative Party leader, despite what the Gallup Poll said in the Daily Telegraph this morning; I have not heard of him

239
"doing a Jo Grimond"—said on October 24:
"There may be something to be said for the view that the Borough and Greater London Council elections should be in different years".
We have had the same suggestion from other Tory quarters, too. Indeed, we had a hint of it from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, this afternoon. If it is ideal and high-minded to take that view now, why was it not inserted in the 1963 Act, over which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and his colleagues had complete power? They had the chance to insert it in that Act, and they were cognisant of the Chuter Ede precedent of 1949. During the 1963 debate my noble friend Lord Champion actually proposed that the G.L.C. should be given a four-year tenure of office, but the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who was in charge of the Bill for the other side, refused. He said that the Government stood by the normal three-year period, and added:
"…we feel that…the two sets of elections—the Greater London Council elections and the borough elections—should be held in the same year…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 249, col. 1229; 14/5/63.]
If I might use a hackneyed expression, he seemed to go "the whole Hogg".
My Lords, if there is now some genuine Conservative doubt about holding future elections in the same year, why should we have two of them this year, in the same year? Why not get rid of the evil straight away, as Her Majesty's Government are proposing to do by this Bill? There is nothing like acting promptly. As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said when he was pioneering the 1963 Bill through this House:
"…it is in the best interests of everyone that the changes should be brought into effect as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 929; 9/5/63.]
So far, my Lords, I have been dealing with the deferment of the borough elections, but the Bill deals with another, more serious matter; namely, that the elections should be held on the same day, in the same polling station, with two sets of papers being handed to each elector. I think that would be calculated even more to confuse the electors.
Because I am speaking non-politically I will not go on to say that that is precisely
240
what Members opposite intend. Down at Lambeth, in the Greater London Council elections, there were 14 candidates on the ballot paper. Imagine an ordinary elector being handed one G.L.C. slip with 14 names on it and then another, for the borough, with another 14 names on it. How is he going to bring his intelligence to bear on voting in circumstances like that? We feel strongly that a case is being made out for printing Party identifications on ballot papers, so that when people are confronted with a long list of candidates they will know which are Conservatives, which Labour, which Liberal, which Independent, and so on. I am reinforced in this view because in my area at the last elections we had a candidate called Davis. He was our retiring Labour councilor who had had a big majority, and was almost certainly going to be re-elected. What did the Tories do? They searched until they found a candidate named Davis. That fortifies me in suggesting that where there is a multiplicity of candidates (but not in the ordinary, small elections) the Party identity should be incorporated with the names on the ballot paper.
My Lords, I want to say this about the scheme for combined elections on the one day. The Working Party of the Association of Town Clerks, as my noble friend Baroness Phillips has said, found this to be almost unworkable and unsatisfactory, both from the point of view of the candidates and of the electors. I am not going to recite their Report to your Lordships, but it is really a most convincing document. I am sorry that, not only in another place, but also outside, some influential Conservatives have used most offensive language about the town clerks. I therefore want to say, as did my noble friend, that they undertook this investigation into the practicability of combined voting completely of their own volition in their capacity as returning officers for the election. They were not pressed by any politicians to do so. If Conservative leaders are going to continue denouncing those officials, I shall not hesitate to stand up here and praise them. In fact, in 1963 the town clerks also put forward information—not voluntarily, not of their own volition, but at the request of the Tory Government. Both Lord Hastings and Lord Jessel praised them.

241
Why are we having criticism of the town clerks this time? Is it merely because their views happen to coincide with those of Her Majesty's Government? I think that these town clerks are very worthy public officials. They always have been, right back to the days when the Acts of the Apostles was written; and I have just been referring to that Book in case any reinforcement were needed that these are very worthy people. Noble Lords will recall, I am sure, that in Chapter XIX of the Acts of the Apostles there are found these words:
"The whole city was filled with confusion: …Some cried one thing and some another: "
Then in verse 35 we find how wisdom was brought to bear. It says:
"…the town clerk…appeased the people,…"
That Book of the New Testament puts on record some of the things that the town clerk said. It might almost have been addressed to noble Lords here to-day. He said:
"Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly…For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's work…. And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly."
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that in New Testament days a man, although called the town clerk, held a quite different office from what a town clerk holds today?
LORD LEATHERLAND: Yes, my Lords, and Bishops in those days held a different office from that which they hold to-day. They used to be people who held inquisitions, who cut off people's heads, or put them on the rack.
I have only one thing more to say. There have been suggestions to-day, very unfair suggestions—although I think that anything is fair in love and war (not that I know much about love)—that postponing both elections will deprive a great many electors of the chance of killing comprehensive education. I do not want to see comprehensive education killed. I think it is one of the things that will enable us to catch up with our industrial rivals, to stop the brain-drain occurring at 11-plus so far as thousands of potentially able children are concerned. But that is not
242
the main point. The main point is that comprehensive education is now national policy. It has been fortified by the two mandates of the General Elections, and the Minister has made it clear that he intends to see that comprehensive education is put into operation by every education authority in the country.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord at this point? He said that comprehensive education is national policy. Might I suggest that what he means is that comprehensive education is Government policy?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, this is a Government who have the national interest at heart, a Government of the nation laying down policy for the nation. To suggest that you can kill comprehensive education, the national policy, just by changing councillors is merely begging the question. I suggest that that is another example of the confusion that the Conservative Party are trying to sow in respect of this measure.
I have dealt with only a few aspects of this measure's proposals. I have tried to deal with them rationally, without any of the hysterical blethering that we had from Mr. Hogg on television a few weeks ago. This Bill tries to reverse a bad decision made by the 1963 Act. It is trying to put wrong right; and, surely, that is what Parliament is for. I think there is a great deal of merit in having elections in London in two out of three years. It tends to keep public interest alive; and surely that is to be desired in one of the greatest metropolitan cities in the world. I am not going to suggest that all the indignation we have had in connection with the Bill is synthetic. Some of it is genuine; and, so far as the genuine indignation is concerned, I suggest that the time to have displayed it was in 1963, when the original wrong move was made.
Finally, my Lords, if I were a Tory, and if I thought that Labour was going down and down in the public estimation, I should be inclined to say: "Let us postpone these borough elections until next year. The Tories then will be even more more popular than they are now and will be able to turn out the Socialists neck and crop"—although that has to be read in conjunction with the Gallup Poll in the Daily Telegraph. In the meantime, your Lordships may have gathered that I support the Bill.
4.29 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has drawn upon many different sources for his inspiration this afternoon. It may well be that the town clerk whose advice and actions are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles was a different sort of official from the official with whom we are acquainted today. Whether he was the same sort of official or whether he was different, I am sure that all of us who have had dealings with town clerks accept very readily their advice and the action which they recommend. In this particular matter I think that all of us, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor said, accept the conclusions reached by the Working Party set up by the Association of Town Clerks. I have not had the advantage of reading the Report of that Working Party, but I understand that it was mainly concerned with the possibility or impossibility, of holding two elections on the same day. I do not think it went beyond that.
My Lords, I do not think any of us is advocating this afternoon the holding of two elections on the same day. That is an idea which had its birth in the minds of the Royal Commission on London Government; and the Act of 1963 was, of course, very largely based upon their advice. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has spoken at some length about the Act of 1963. It is quite true that in that Act some changes were made in electoral periods, but what was happening then was that the whole of the local government of Greater London was being completely transformed. So far from regretting anything done in 1963, I think that my Party are entitled to full credit for the passing of that Act. It is the only contribution to the reform of local government made in the last twenty years, and for that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor was responsible. No other Minister was found who was prepared to do the thing which has been most urgently needed in local government; that is, to come to some conclusion on what the structure of local government ought to be.
It seems to me that the Government are attaching much too much importance to the question of not holding two elections in the same year. It is a very different thing from holding two elections on the same day. Outside the area of Greater
244
London it has, of course, always been the case that in the third year, when the elections for county councils take place, there are two elections within a few weeks of each other. I think that all of us who have had some experience of that system see nothing wrong in that. It works quite satisfactorily; indeed, those responsible for Party organisation (I say nothing to their discredit because, after all, Parties are an essential part of our democracy) sometimes welcome the system. They make their arrangements for one election and do not have to make them a second time in a later year. I think there is a good deal to be said for having the two elections taking place in the same year.
But, my Lords, there is something of much greater importance than that in this Bill. I think that the Bill trespasses against a principle which lies at the foundation of our democratic system of government. I am sure it is right that where a councillor, or any elected representative, is elected for some prescribed term of office, that term should not be extended—apart, of course, from some exceptional circumstances, such as war, or the reconstruction that took place in London government. It may be desired. for some reason, that the term of office of sitting councillors, and that of councillors who will be elected at some future election should not be the same as in this Bill where it is desired to separate the Greater London Council elections from the borough council elections by twelve months. But apart from something of that sort I believe it is a most important principle that the period for which a candidate has been elected should not be extended.
Quite different considerations, however, apply in the case of a candidate not yet elected. There would have been nothing difficult or wrong in this Bill's providing, as it ought to have provided, that those councillors elected in the London boroughs at the last elections should serve for a period for which they were elected, and not for a longer period, and that councillors elected at the next elections should serve for a period of four years, or whatever longer period was thought desirable. There would have been no difficulty whatever about doing that. But it has not been done. Instead, a different course has been chosen, and it is one which, in my view, offends against

245
as essential principle of our local government law.
My Lords, it may well be that the political implications of this proposal have not been fully appreciated by the Party opposite. But whatever we say here, I am sure they will find it to be the case that the public will regard this as a device for avoiding elections which the Party opposite believed they were not going to win. I think that the Party opposite would be well advised to take this aspect of the matter into account; to drop this proposal and substitute for it a proposal more in accord with the principles on which our local government law is based.
4.36 p.m.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I will try to follow the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and not raise an undue number of Party political points. I hope I may meet with a similar amount of success. In common with those of my noble friends who have spoken from his side of the House I utterly deplore this Bill. Its object is to prolong by Act of Parliament a body which has been elected for a specific period of three years, a point already made by my noble friend Lord Ilford. In so doing it deprives the electors of London of the right to choose what sort of government they want for the period ahead. I fully agree that if we had had warning of this in the 1966 Election Manifesto of the Labour Party, the case for objection to this Bill would have been considerably weakened, but we had no such warning at all. Indeed, we have just been told by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that the warning came after the 1966 Election results had been declared.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I do not like to interrupt the noble Lord, but what I said was that the Special Committee of the Association made its decision on January 28, 1966. On February 9 of that same year the full Association made its decision. Towards the end of April, 1966, the Home Secretary announced that the matter was being considered sympathetically.
LORD LINDGREN: The General Election was in March.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I hope that I am not being very stupid, but I do not see that there is any matter of substantial difference between us. So far as I can see, no such warning was given to the electors, and now the electorate is being faced with a fait accompli for which it gave no mandate and against which it has no chance to protest. Frankly, my Lords, I find this to be a gross breach of faith on the part of the Government.
What are the reasons given by the Government? They gave them most clearly here and in another place in an earlier debate. They spoke first of all of convenience and confusion. They said there would be confusion in the minds of the electorate. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in a most explicit speech, covered this point very fairly. She explained that there were two elections in the country and, whatever happened, it was better not to have two in London. On the other hand, I must say that she did not pay the electorate of London a very high compliment by suggesting that the electors are unable to discern between two elections separated by a month. There was more talk in another place of a low poll caused by apathy. If any of your Lordships had had the amount of correspondence and representations which I have received, from late constituents and people living in London, you would think, as I do, that it is a very arguable proposition that there is at the moment apathy in London over this Bill.
Finally the Government fall back on the argument of administrative convenience. We have heard a lot said in this debate about county clerks and sitting councillors, but I have not yet heard one argument raised on behalf of the unfortunate electorate whom this is going to affect. Surely it is a new conception of Government and democracy to put the convenience of officials before the rights of the electorate, and this is precisely what is being done in this Bill.
In another place, when he spoke on this Bill, the Home Secretary referred to it as a relatively non-controversial matter and called it "A sensible administrative rearrangement. "But this entirely ignores the fact that 1967 is going to be a critical year for the administration of London. As regards education it is going to be a

247
decisive year. It is against this that we on this side of the House and in my Party object to this Bill. Noble Lords who read the Hansard of another place will have seen deployed at great length the arguments on behalf of various boroughs and constituencies. I shall not go into them in detail and bore your Lordships, but the following points were raised as coming up during the course of 1967: the reorganisation of secondary education; changes in various boroughs and in local administration; changes in the management of certain housing estates which are vital to constituents living in those areas; changes in the level of rating, and changes in the application of housing subsidies in certain constituencies and boroughs.
All these arguments have been put at length, and I would simply ask here and now: are the rights of parents, of owner-occupiers and of ratepayers to have a say in the administration of their own boroughs simply to be swept away on the ground of administrative convenience? Because that is the argument which has come up in this House today. It simply "will not wash" to say that decisions by the electorate on these points have only been deferred, because we all know that the decisions taken during the course of this year on these controversial matters will have reached the point of no return by the time the electorate are empowered to vote next year.
I am extremely critical of the Government. I think that they are much in the same position as Henry VIII when he said that although he could not prevent the Pope from sending a Cardinal's hat to one of his Bishops, he could make certain that the Bishop would not have a head to put it on. Democracy has been described as "to have the right to say 'No' to the boss", and my charge against the Government here is that they are denying the electors that essential right in 1967. In another place, the Government were accused of gerrymandering. I looked up this word in the Concise Oxford Dictionary and this is what I read:
"gerrymander…manipulate (constituency etc.) so as to secure disproportionate influence at election for some party or class;".
The Government denied hotly that they were gerrymandering. It struck me as the
248
height of cynicism to claim that the definition did not apply in this case because no election was being held. The issue of the reorganisation of secondary education is the most important of the issues coming up, and it is one on which I have had a mass of communications from friends of mine living in London.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could help me? He says that he has had a mass of letters. Could he give me the date, approximately, of the first letter he received on the subject?
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I think it was just before Christmas. There is very strong feeling about this. Let noble Lords make no mistake about it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the point I was trying to make was that the issue we are now discussing was well-known some six months prior to the first letter the noble Lord received. If the general public were so "steamed up", I think the noble Lord would have received letters a good deal earlier.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I do not think so, because people are not quick to take up these issues. It takes a certain amount of time to gather strength in a borough. The letter came from a friend of one of the grammar schools. These issues take time to sink in. I think that is perfectly reasonable; we are not all politicians rushing to the newspapers to see the latest pronouncement of what is going to happen in future. There is strong feeling among parents interested in grammar schools. This is the last opportunity they will have to make a decision on this issue.
In reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said, may I point out that the Secretary of State has no power to compel local education authorities to adopt policies which they feel to be educationally unsound? This should be decided by the electorate.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords. I do not like to interrupt the noble Lord unnecessarily, but when my Party was in power in the Essex County Council and I was the Council's chairman, we put before the Minister proposals for certain comprehensive schools. The Tory Minister turned them down.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I do not question that specific case. We are not in the least bit for or against comprehensive schools. They are excellent institutions. What we are worried about in our Party is the destruction of the grammar schools. I remember my old father used to say that it took the Almighty hundreds of years to grow a tree, but it took some ass with an axe only half-an-hour to cut it down.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, we are not discussing education at the moment, but local government. So far as local government is concerned, it works within a framework created for it by Parliament. Is the noble Lord really exciting local authorities to defy the Government? No local authority can work outside the provisions made for it by Parliament and by the Minister in charge of whatever Department may be concerned.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, according to the news I have read in several newspapers, certain local authorities have decided to stick to their own sort of education. And good luck to them!
LORD LINDGREN: They will lose their grant.
LORD ST. HELENS: I am simply arguing that the electorate are being deprived of the opportunity to express an opinion, and I think that is an appalling thing.
I would make one comment an grammar schools. About ten years ago, in company with other noble Lords and Members of another place, I went on a Parliamentary delegation to America and visited many schools and universities all over the country. We had discussions with many professors and schoolmasters about the future of education. All and every one said how greatly they envied the British system of grammar schools. They reckoned that it took the first year in an American college to reach the standard reached in the sixth form of an English grammar school. In this Bill, without any forewarning, the electorate are having taken away from them the chance of protesting against these administrative changes.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite off the mark. We are discussing the elections of borough councils. Within London, not a single borough
250
is an education authority. There is the Inner London Authority and there is the Outer London Authority, but, so far as London is concerned, the municipal boroughs are not the education authorities.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, surely it is the case that outside the area of the old administrative County of London all the authorities are educational authorities.
LORD LINDGREN: Only the counties.
LORD ST. HELENS: May I get a word in in try own speech? I am greatly obliged to my noble friend, and, indeed, what he says is so. If the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who I am beginning to suspect has not done much homework on this subject, had bothered to read the Hansard of another place, he would have found this point which has been made by my noble friend made most forcibly at every stage in the discussions on the Bill.
In conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, I will not detain your Lordships for much longer, but I want to conclude by saying this. I admit that, after all that has been said in another place and in this Chamber, this Bill concerns, in effect, a local issue. It is a local issue concerning only one of the great cities of our country. But it is an issue that contains a major principle of democracy, and one that has been fought for over the centuries in Parliament; that is, the principle of the right of the electorate to decide at specific intervals—and I reiterate the words "specific intervals"—the sort of government that they want for the future. I maintain that if this Bill is passed there will be many people in all parts of the country who will say: "Where is this sort of thing going to end?"
4.52 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor in opening this debate and those that have followed from this side of the House have stated the case, as I see it, so admirably that I shall be brief. I start by making an admission which I am afraid will make me slightly ludicrous. I am a lawyer by profession, and I have always thought that there were few more ridiculous things than a lawyer asserting

251
that he was shocked. But, frankly, I am shocked by this Bill, and I am sorry that two Ministers for whom I feel so much respect as I do for the two Ministers in charge of this Bill should be in charge of so disreputable a measure.
Let me say at once that of course there are cases where Parliament may have to interfere with the rights of electors to elect some legislative or local democratic body. But it has generally been thought necessary, when there are interferences of that sort with existing democratic rights, both to prove their necessity and to seek to achieve consent and unanimity. In this case there is admittedly no necessity of any kind. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has limited his opposition to this particular proposal of extending by a year the tenure of office of the existing councillors in the boroughs. For that provision in this Bill no necessity has been proved; nor, so far as I know, has it even been claimed. It is demonstrably unnecessary. There is no agreement by the other Parties.
When I was first elected a Member of Parliament for Norwich, I had no expectation or belief that I should be elected (this was in 1935) for 10 years. But the reason for the taking away of the rights of the Parliamentary franchise then was that we were fighting a great war. There was a National Government of all Parties, and there was agreement by all Parties to postpone the Election. When there ceased to be that agreement between the Parties, the Election took place. Is there not some substance in the case that there is something shocking in simply taking away the rights of electors, when admittedly there is no necessity, and admittedly there is no consensus agreeing to that change?
A very vigorous speech was made by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and I hope I am not saying anything improper if I say how much I enjoyed it. The formula that ran through it was to make a series of the most appalling accusations against Ministers in a former Conservative Administration and against the Conservative Party, every sentence being introduced by the beautiful formula, "I shall not say". I had previously enjoyed a speech on much
252
the same lines from an experienced speaker at Marble Arch. But that was on a very cold day. To be able to enjoy such a speech in all the comfort of your Lordships' House was indeed a delight, and I hope that we shall often hear from the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, in a similar way.
The argument that I am advancing about there being something shocking about what is proposed was even asserted by the noble Lord himself at an early stage in his speech, as he will discover when he reads Hansard to-morrow, when he said that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, or the Government of which he was a Member, had done precisely the same unscrupulous bit of cheating in 1963. I thought that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor and others had shown that this was a quite different case. Apparently, however, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, thinks that it was cheating. But if it was, is that a complete justification for their cheating? Later in his speech the noble Lord apparently abandoned that and did not think it was cheating, but seemed to think that the two things were quite parallel and both were all right. But to attack one as cheating, and then to say, "I support this because it is doing the same thing", seems to me to be advancing an argument which I should have thought would be rather shocking to the Bench of Bishops.
LORD LEATHERLAND: It would be a most reprehensible line of argument, which would be shocking to the noble Lord. But what I said was that the 1963 Act had perpetrated a wrong, and that my noble friend's Bill was going to put that right.
LORD CONESFORD: I thought the noble Lord said that it was perpetrating a wrong in extending the life of certain local bodies and, in so far as he thought that wrong, this Bill is not putting it right: it is perpetrating what the noble Lord has described as a wrong. I hope the noble Lord will not find that too difficult to follow.
Then there was this question of comprehensive education which seemed to cause so much confusion in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. Of course, the Minister of Education may have a wish; he may have a policy;

253
but the mere fact that he has a wish or a policy does not by itself alter the law. And it remains a fact that in some of these boroughs the constitution of the local authority may have an important effect on the future of the grammar schools in their area. At least that is the universal belief both of the authorities and of their electors; and I think of the electors on both sides in politics. Therefore, I entirely support the point that has been made by my noble friend Lord St. Helens, that this makes what is now proposed particularly outrageous.
My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House. However much I have differed from noble Lords opposite—and I do not think I have concealed that I have some quite considerable differences from noble Lords opposite—and however profoundly I have been shocked by much of their legislation, I have not generally questioned their intentions. Considering my respect for many of them, I think they must in their own minds have found some justification for what is proposed. If they have found such a justification. I hone they will tell us what it is. I have been quite unable to discover any justification. I hope they will agree that it must be at least prima facie wrong to deprive electors of rights of election which they at present possess by law, and to which they attach enormous importance. Most of the provisions of this Bill could be carried out perfectly simply without committing what I think is that outrage. No necessity for the outrage has been shown, and no attempt has been made to secure the assent of other parties to it. Nor would it have been any good, of course, to seek such assent, because it could not be granted. Whether we are right or wrong in the views we hold on many of the questions which may fall to be decided and argued in local government elections, we assert strongly that it is the right of the electors to decide upon them, and they are being deprived of that right without agreement.
5.3 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I rise for only two minutes to say that I also am profoundly shocked by this Bill. I have been tempted to rise to my feet by a statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, with regard to withdrawing rights from local authorities, which was referred to in the speech of my
254
noble friend Lord St. Helens. I am subject to correction by the Front Bench, but I think I am right in saying that the Government have no powers to force local authorities to disband their grammar schools and introduce comprehensive education, unless they conic to Parliament to do so. They can use persuasion, and they are trying to do so. But until Parliament passes an Act the Government have no right to say they will do it. And for them to say that they will withdraw grant is, in my submission, entirely wrong, because local authorities are carrying out statutory duties under the great Butler Act of 1944; and until that Act is altered grant cannot be withdrawn. They could make different conditions, and not give grants for new building projects and so on; but, in my view, as I have said, to announce that they will withdraw grants for education is quite wrong. Perhaps noble Lords on the Front Bench will correct me if I am in error.
5.5 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I am in the unhappy position of agreeing with much that has been said on both sides of this House, and I was particularly put in that position when I listened to the preliminary exchange of pleasantries between the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland. I absolutely agree with Lord Leatherland that the London Government Act 1963 was unnecessary, reactionary, expensive, complicated, and introduced for the wrong reason, which was to break Labour control of London Government.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, would the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? I think perhaps I have some authority to speak in this matter, as it was on my recommendation that the Royal Commission was set up. That statement of the noble Baroness, I must say, so far as I am concerned, is absolutely untrue. It was necessary to have an inquiry because by almost universal consent London local government was not in a satisfactory state; and a Royal Commission, containing members of all Parties, unanimously recommended fundamental change.
BARONESS STOCKS: That may be so, my Lords, but the precise form which the change took was a product of a Government Bill, and I still think it was

255
motivated to some extent by the fact that many people wished to break the Labour Government. That is by the way, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Leatherland on that. I also agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when he suggested there was more in this Bill than meets the eye, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland put his finger on it when he suggested that possibly some of the opposition to it was motivated by the fear that local authorities would be forced to stay put while "comprehensivisation" in education was carried forward, I think very ruthlessly. It is, of course, national policy—we know that. But it is a policy which can be implemented ruthlessly, or reasonably, elastically, and at different rates of progress. That means that many local authorities would wish to be able to express an opinion on that subject in the course of the next year, which the next elections would give them an opportunity of doing. Therefore, I feel that this Bill, as I still think was the case with the London Government Act, has an ulterior motive. I do not like it and I shall not vote for it; and I can only express my thankfulness that I have no constituents who will turn me out at the next Election for voting against the Labour Party.
5.8 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I first of all express appreciation to my noble friend Lady Phillips for the manner in which she presented this simple—although I gather from the tone of certain speeches, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—highly controversial Bill. Some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, led me to believe that my task would be simple; that perhaps I could save some of the ammunition I might need to defend the Government's position for use on the Committee stage—because obviously, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, says, we shall see an Amendment. But, my Lords, as to some of the later words he used, if it had not been for the tone of his speech I should have regarded them as a scurrilous attack upon the Borough of Camden and, in particular, on my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. They would have been
256
scurrilous if it had not been for the tone in which he said them. I should perhaps have left the matter until the Committee stage.
I want to say this before I develop the case on which my right honourable friend made his decision. I say this—and I will sit down if the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, wishes to concur or to disagree with me. Whatever we may think of the opinions of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—to some maybe on the Back Benches he is too radical, perhaps too lenient, perhaps too far ahead for most of us—I do not believe there is anyone who would get up and say that the right honourable gentleman is dishonest. But that is what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said this afternoon. He said that my right honourable friend had cheated, hut he said it without a vestige of evidence to substantiate what is, in political terms, one of the most serious charges than can be made. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will change those words. He may say that my right honourable friend was ill-advised, but I hope the noble Lord will not leave it as it is.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord has invited me to intervene. What I said, and what I repeat, is that the Home Secretary yielded to Party pressure to present to Parliament a Bill which involves electoral cheating.
LORD SHEPHERD: All right, my Lords; there is some qualification there, and therefore I must deal with it.
I am sure the speech made by my noble friend, Lord Leatherland, was enjoyed by all of us. He was certainly my first choice to come in after the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He did exactly what I wanted him to do. He certainly proved the saying that those who live in glasshouses should not throw stones, and he was able to throw a few back, because there is a good deal in what my noble friend said. I have heard from noble Lords opposite that the voices of the local people in local authorities should always be heard. Indeed, this is what we were saying in 1963. If I remember rightly, we then had 13 days on the Committee stage on the London Government Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will remember that, I am sure

257
—and on many occasions we drew the attention of the Government to the fact that the county councils concerned were all united in opposition to the proposals of the Government of the day. Not only was the London County Council opposed to them, but the Surrey County Council, the Essex County Council and the Kent County Council, all of which had been elected on a popular franchise. They were not all Labour—in fact, only one was Labour and, if my memory is right, the other three were Conservative.
It is perfectly true that there was need for reform in London and that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, had set up a Royal Commission, but those who had experience of local government in London and the Greater London area were opposed to the Bill, and we begged noble Lords opposite, on two or three occasions, that if they wanted to proceed with the Bill and put it on the Statute Book they should at least make the enacting day (the date on which the Bill would come into operation) a date after what everyone expected to be that of the General Election, so that not only the electors of London but also the political Parties involved could be in some position possibly to amend that Bill if they so wished. But the noble Lords who this afternoon have spoken so fervently on behalf of the electors of London and their rights in regard to the sort of local authority or political Party under which they should live, all went into the Division Lobby against us on that matter. I will not pursue that any further this evening.
I want to say one thing to the noble Lord and to the House as to why the Government accepted the recommendations of the London Boroughs Association, as the representatives of the London boroughs, for the postponement of the London borough elections from 1967 to 1968. I leave out the report of the town clerks because really that is not involved in the issue that is before us to-day. All we are concerned with are the recommendations that were arrived at and were conveyed to my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, by the London Boroughs Association, representing the London boroughs, that these elections should be postponed.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, if I may interrupt for one moment I should like to say, in connection with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said in regard to the electorate's being given no chance to voice their desires before the Greater London Bill was passed, that I happen to live in one of the boroughs which might now have been one of the Greater London boroughs, and it was owing to the desires of the inhabitants of that borough that it did not take place. Therefore I do not think his allegations are entirely true.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in fact the noble Lord has proved my case. The only reason why the Borough of Epsom and Ewell was excluded from the Greater London area was because the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, could gather up sufficient support on his own Cross Benches and on the Opposition Benches against the Government for the removal of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell from the Greater London Area. Epsom and Ewell were fortunate that they were able to get enough support from the Conservative Benches to ensure their removal.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, my noble friend, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, and others only did so on the advice of the inhabitants of Epsom and Ewell.
LORD SHEPHERD: The point I am making is that the electors of Epsom and well were fortunate that they had the support of the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton. There may well have been a number of other districts which are now in the Greater London Area which would have preferred not to be in it.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I would not admit that I am as powerful as all that.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord well remembers that night, and so does the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. But let us leave that for a moment.
The recommendations were made by the London Boroughs Association. I think all of us are concerned about the low level of voting at local elections, not only in London but throughout the country. Therefore, whatever we do should be with the aim in mind of achieving a higher level of voting. Unlike

259
some noble Lords, I do not support compulsory voting, such as there is in Australia. But we must recognise that it is upon the political Parties that the responsibility falls to see not only that the electors know the issues but that the Party machines work smoothly. Not so long ago, because my wife is the chairman of my local Party, I had to go out canvassing, put election addresses into envelopes, and the like. Only someone who has been concerned in fighting elections can know the tremendous amount of work involved.
Let us consider these London Boroughs. The average size is some 200,000 electors, although there are some which have over 250,000. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, with his experience, must know that even for the Conservative Party machine, or for the Labour Party machine which, it is true, depends mainly on voluntary work, it is a formidable task merely to inform the public of the names of the candidates.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, we did it with success in Ilford for a good many years.
LORD SHEPHERD: That may well be; but the task is formidable. When one contemplates the fight for the Greater London Council in April, and then, one month later, the Party machines going into action again, one realises how Party machines and Party loyalty are strained well beyond their capacity; and I believe that in the end the Party machines and local elections will suffer.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I should have said one could argue the other way: that it would be an immense advantage during the second election to have a fully marked up register.
LORD SHEPHERD: This may be true, but one of the great problems of Party machines is this. The noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, with his experience, may agree that it is one problem to get your register marked and to know where everyone is, but the real problem lies in getting the voters out and in knowing who are the sick and elderly. The register is quickly out of date. In the case of the
260
Greater London elections and borough elections there are different candidates and different issues; the issues for the Greater London election will be entirely different from those of the borough elections. This is why noble Lords opposite created these two specific machines with different functions. I do not believe the Party machines could do their job properly, notifying the public and, above all else, getting the voters out, on the basis of having two major elections within a month.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, that the elections in 1967 are going to be very important, and it is for that reason that we should ensure that as far as possible those elections are cerried out in the best possible way. It is for no Party political advantage—I will deal with that in a moment—that we have brought this legislation forward for the elections to be in a separate year. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that these proposals were bitterly opposed by the Conservatives.
In another place the right honourable gentleman for Enfield, West, Mr. Iain Macleod, said that the declaration by Mr. Norman Prichard, when he wrote in The Times (he was the Chairman of the London Boroughs Association) that the Special Committee had been unanimous, was not correct. Mr. Prichard had said it was unanimous. In fact one may say Mr. Prichard had been called a liar publicly. That, like the earlier statement, is a very serious allegation. I think it is right now to put this on record. I hope some of the Press, who printed this correspondence and who were not prepared to print the later letter will take note. I now quote from a letter of Alderman Taylor. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will know him. He is the Leader of the Conservative Party on the London Boroughs Association and he is deputy chairman of that Association. He writes:
"As you know, I was not myself a member of the Special Committee at that time"—
that is the time the decision, reported to be unanimous, was made, agreeing to postponement—
"…but I have made enquiries and am satisfied that the recommendation was in fact unanimous, and I have the authority of all Conservative members present at that meeting to say this."

261
I felt it right to put that on record as a vindication of the stand that Mr. Prichard has taken throughout this matter.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I have never said any word against Mr. Prichard. Could the noble Lord just tell us what the recommendation is to which that letter refers?
LORD SHEPHERD: The recommendation was made by the Special Committee. On the 27th January, 1966, the Honorary Secretary to the London Boroughs Association received a letter from Greenwich London Borough Council asking that the Association's Special Committee should consider a suggestion that the London borough council elections should be postponed from 1967 until 1968, leaving only the G.L.C. elections to be held in 1967. On the 28th January—that is the meeting to which we have referred—the Special Committee unanimously agreed with the views expressed by the Greenwich Council but instructed that the views of the constituent councils be sought, which was done; because not all the London borough councils are members of the Special Committee.
My Lords, I have, perhaps with inadequate words, tried to make the case as to why we thought it right in the interests of the electors of London Government to change the date. I would say only this to the noble Lord in terms of political gerrymandering, political advantage. The decision was made by the Government on the recommendation of the London boroughs early last year. We had just had a major victory. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, himself suffered by that Election, although, if I may say so, we gained by his loss and, if I may say so, he certainly lends an air of competence to the Front Bench opposite. But we had that major victory. The opinion polls showed us with a lead that was astronomical. Anyone who was knowledgeable in political life did not take much account of it; but it certainly seemed clear to anyone who was in politics that in the foreseeable future, in any election that was fought. whether borough
262
or parish, if it was fought on political grounds Labour would certainly win.
I will say this to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I have had a long interest in Party machines. My father was national agent of a political Party from 1924 to 1945, and I remember some of the things he taught me. If I was a Party manager last April and May, making a decision for Party advantage, I should have chosen 1967 when the wind was fair. In 1968 it would be a little bit more doubtful; it would be a little beyond the range of radar so far as one could foresee. But the London boroughs, both Labour and Conservative, took the view that it was in the interests of the electors that the election should be postponed. If there could have been any advantage to the Labour Party in London, I have not the slightest doubt that it would have been to let the present Act continue and to have the elections in 1967.
On the debates on the London Government Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said that they rested upon informed opinion, and he used this argument on many occasions to vindicate the view of the Government of the day. The informed opinion that is available to Her Majesty's Government in this matter is no Royal Commission Report; because there is no Royal Commission in existence. Informed opinion consists of the councillors of the London boroughs, both Labour and Conservative. True, not all of one Party agreed one way or the other. There were some Labour councils who took a contrary view to the majority of Labour councils, and there were some Conservative councils who took a different view from the majority of Conservative councils. There was a division of opinion in Parties in this matter. I have not the slightest doubt that what the Government propose to-day is right.
Finally, I would say that there was no political pressure brought on my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, really believes that my right honourable friend would fall for it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAND COMMISSION BILL
5.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Land Commission Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Part III [Betterment Levy]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved to leave out Clauses 27 to 85. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move to leave out Clauses 27 to 85—that is, Part III of the Bill. This is one of two procedural Amendments which it is my duty to move, the other being Amendment No. 9, to leave out Schedules 4 to 13, which are the Schedules that are concerned with the betterment levy. Your Lordships have made three Amendments in Part III of the Bill, that is to say Clauses 27 to 85, which relate to the betterment levy. All of them have been welcomed by the Press as improvements, and I myself believe that they are wholly in line with public opinion. One is for the complete exemption of charities from betterment levy, as charities hitherto have been exempted from other forms of taxation. The second is for the exemption of owner-occupiers from betterment levy, in the same way as this Government have exempted owner-occupiers from liability to capital gains tax. The third is for the exemption of small transactions, on the ground that it is useless for the Land Commission to spend time collecting small sums which will probably be more than offset by the cost of administration and collection.
If, however, the Bill were sent back to the Commons with these Amendments, it would undoubtedly infringe the ancient privilege of the Commons, going back for centuries before the Parliament Act of 1911, to determine the shape of clauses that deal with Supply. I have no desire whatever to challenge that privilege—naturally so, in that I was for many years a member of another place, and I know how jealously that privilege is guarded. Fortunately, there is a traditional and well-established way of avoiding that in the case of a Bill such as this, where some Parts of it not dealing with finance are as open to amendment by your Lordships as any other Bill, and only one Part, in this case Part III, is financial.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read the passage in Erskine May, at page 841, which clearly explains this matter. It is headed:
"Rejection by Lords of separate financial provisions in non-financial Bills."
The passage reads:
"The right of the Lords to reject a Bill for granting aids and supplies to the Crown has been held to include a right to omit provisions creating charges upon the people when such provisions form a separate subject in a Bill which the Lords are otherwise entitled to amend. The claim of privilege cannot, therefore, be raised by the Commons regarding Amendments to such Bills whereby a whole clause or series of clauses has been omitted by the Lords which, though relating to a charge and not admitting of amendment, yet concern a subject separable from the general objects of the Bill."
I am advised that Part III of this Bill is a separate subject, in the sense described in Erskine May, and so, in inviting your Lordships to agree to these Amendments which would leave out Part III and the relevant Schedules, I am following a well-precedented course.
That this is a procedure accepted by the Commons as not infringing their privileges I can show by quoting the work of Sir Gilbert Campion (as he then was), at that time Clerk of the House of Commons, entitled, Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons. In that authoritative book, after setting out what the Lords cannot do, he goes on, at page 285, as follows:
"The Lords may omit from a Bill which they are otherwise entitled to amend provisions creating a charge upon the people, provided that such provisions are separable from the rest of the Bill and that they are omitted as a whole."

265
I hope that these two quotations will convince your Lordships that if we follow the course that I am suggesting there can be no infringement of Commons privilege according to the traditions and the precedents.
The effect of passing these procedural Amendments will be to afford the Commons the opportunity to restore Part III and the Schedules in any form they think fit, either in their exact original form as they came to us from the Commons—though I hope it will not be in that exact form—or, as I rather hope, in an amended form, taking note of the Amendments which your Lordships have made, and also of other practical suggestions for improving the working of the Bill which noble Lords have made, but which the Government felt it necessary to resist, if only because they, the Government, would not be an accessory to amending Part III in your Lordships' House. At the end of the Report stage there was an interchange between the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in which the difficulty Which was created by this matter of Commons privilege clearly became apparent. I hope I have made it clear that I am moving these Amendments for technical reasons, following a tradition accepted by both Houses as avoiding any infringement of Commons privilege. These Amendments are not a sort of final fling against the betterment levy; they are purely procedural Amendments which the practice of this House and of another place requires. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clauses 27 to 85.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
5.39 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I think that the constitutional position has been clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. Although it may seem a little puzzling to the general public, the intention in moving to delete the whole of PartIII is to avoid offending against the Commons' ancient privilege. As the noble Lord has pointed out, the Commons' claim to privilege in these matters of Supply goes back much further than the Parliament Act 1911. As long ago
266
as 1678 the Commons passed a Resolution containing the following clause:
"That it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons, to direct, limit and appoint…the Ends, Purposes, Considerations, Conditions, Limitations, and Qualifications of…Grants (of supply); which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords."
To take one other example, the Paper Duties Repeal Bill of 1860 led to the affirmation by the Commons of their privileges in these matters of Supply. At that time Mr. Gladstone sought to repeal the Excise duty on paper in order to make newspapers and books more readily available to the mass of the people, and your Lordships' House at that time were suspicious of the effects of the Bill in facilitating the circulation of radical literature. The other place insisted upon their privileges—and I must say that my sympathy is with them in regard to that action at that time. It would appear to be clear from the precedents that if we are to suggest to the Commons detailed Amendments relating to Part III, the only way is to adopt the procedure provided by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. For these technical reasons, I support it.
The only comment I should like to make is this. If there is to be modernisation of our Parliamentary procedure, and if it is to be as business-like as possible in future, some consideration should be given, I hope by both Houses, to a better procedure than this rather roundabout way of suggesting Amendments on particular points to the Commons without infringing their privilege. I deliberately use the word "suggesting". I am not arguing in favour of overruling the Commons, but if a Bill comes before this House of such a nature that it is felt desirable that some Amendment or improvement should be made to it—and perhaps even the Government may believe that there is a case for certain detailed Amendments—it should not be beyond the wit of man to devise some simpler procedure than this. However, in the meantime we are quite clearly bound by precedent, and therefore I support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with leave, I have two points to make on what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said to the House. I refer, first, to

267
the point about the substance of the Amendments passed in this House to Part III; and, secondly, to the point about the Amendment now before the House; namely, to leave out Part III. The noble Lord said that the three Amendments which have been passed to the provisions of Part III have been welcomed by the Press and are wholly in line with public opinion. I would not for one moment agree with the second proposition. I do not believe they are wholly in line with public opinion; or, at any rate, with more than half of it, or a minority of it. I agree that they have been very largely welcomed by the Press, but the British Press is very largely Tory in complexion.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD KENNET: All three Amendments, although they appear at first sight—and one must remember that journalists have to write in a hurry—to be protections for the small man, are, in point of fact drafted in such a way as to leave the door wide open to the big man to get through and escape the levy. Unfortunately, this is a fact.
Having said that, let me now turn to the Amendment to leave out Part III, which has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, as he puts it, on procedural grounds. I have only one point to make about this. Without either commending or, as it were, "uncommending" the procedure he has adopted, I have no objection to the Amendment proposed.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I simply add this comment in support of the Amendment? The Amendment is really part two of a procedure in which the Government were responsible for part one. If the Government tack on to a Bill which is otherwise not a Supply Bill a number of clauses which are Supply clauses, then, if this House is to perform a useful function as regards the Supply clauses, this is the only method we can adopt that avoids trespassing on the privileges of the Commons. The method we are here following is one that was pointed out, with perfect accuracy, at an earlier stage by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I therefore welcome this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Interpretation]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment would have the effect of changing the Bill in parallel with a draft Transfer of Functions Order which has been laid before both Houses, the Order being one which is familiar to all sides of the House; namely, to transfer functions of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. This Amendment simply makes that parallel change in the Land Commission Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment move—
Page 90, line 37, leave out ("Land and Natural Resources") and insert ("Housing and Local Government").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 40, leave out ("only") and insert ("but not Scotland").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not know whether it is in order to seek leave to move the next three Amendments together?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, they can be discussed together, but must be put separately.
LORD KENNET: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 4 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 41, leave out ("Land and Natural Resources") and insert ("Housing and Local Government").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 43, after ("only") insert ("or in relation to Wales (including Monmouth-shire) only").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 6, leave out ("Land and Natural Resources") and insert ("Housing and Local Government").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Supplementary provisions as to general vesting declarations]:
5.48 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES) moved, in paragraph 20, after "paragraph" to insert "6(a), 7,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to this Amendment and the next, because together they accomplish the purpose intended. The effect of the Amendments is to take into account paragraphs 6(a) and 7 of Schedule 3 which provide that where a person has given a notice of objection to severance the Commission may withdraw, or be taken to have withdrawn, the deemed notice to treat in respect of that person's land. In such circumstances a general vesting declaration covering plots belonging to different persons will then have effect in relation to a smaller area of land than when it was originally made. Paragraph 12 of the Schedule, although it deals with the reverse case, namely, when a general vesting declaration will apply to a greater area than it originally comprised, does not cater for the withdrawal of a deemed notice to treat as mentioned.
These Amendments rectify this and have the effect of ensuring that when a general vesting declaration is recorded in the Sasine Register it will clearly specify only the land which is to be vested in the Commission by virtue of the general vesting declaration. This is obviously desirable, from the point of view of preserving the value of the Register of Sasines, and the Amendments are of a similar nature to those which I moved at the last stage in order to preserve the integrity of the general Register of Sasines. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 20, after ("paragraph") insert ("6(a), 7,").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 22, leave out ("larger") and insert ("different").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move formally.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Schedules 4 to 13.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.53 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I have spoken almost too much in your Lordships' House this afternoon, and I do not intend to detain the House for long. But I should like to beg a few minutes of your Lordships' time, if only because I should not like the Bill to pass without taking the opportunity of expressing appreciation to those of my noble friends who have taken an active interest in the Bill and who, in my submission, have helped materially to improve the Bill. I should like also, if I might do this with respect and without causing embarrassment to him, to express appreciation for the handling of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and for the tremendously hard work which he has quite clearly put into it. He is working here for another Minister. It is not specifically his Bill, and it is by common consent an unusually complicated Bill. He has even managed always to keep his head in front of his noble friend Lord Mitchison, who sometimes had not got the departmental briefs quite right. But the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, never failed.
At least one thesis of the Government in presenting this Bill is that the development value of land should accrue to the community because it is created by the community. I believe, for my part, that the thesis that all development value in land is created by the community is a fallacy, which is no longer believed except by those who are positively drugged with Socialism. Development value created by planning permission is, I fully agree, a justifiable object for taxation like a lot of other objects, but there is no justification whatever for the contention that the Exchequer has a greater moral right to collect the development value from land than to levy other forms of taxation.

271
Secondly, this Bill was presented by the Government, and previously offered as an attraction to the electorate by the Labour Party, as a Bill which would have the effect of reducing the cost of land. We have had prolonged, though nearly always good-tempered, debates on the Bill, but I, for my part, am still unable to believe that it will reduce the cost of land: I think it is far more likely to raise the cost of land. But the proof of this pudding is in the eating. I do not think it is going to be a very good pudding, but in due course the public will have to eat it, and then it will be proved whether the Government were right about this, or whether we were right.
I have said that in a number of respects I felt confident that your Lordships' House had effected improvements. I have been looking through the speech I made on Second Reading two months ago, and on that occasion I raised a number of difficulties and fears. The Government have allayed, and sensibly allayed, some of those fears. The Government have given a perfectly satisfactory assurance to your Lordships' House that the Land Commission will observe what one might call the Crichel Down rules, and that if they do not do so the Government will be prepared to issue a direction to them.
The Government have removed a number of our anxieties about the use of the concessionary crown hold powers, which clearly are greatly narrower in use than they would appear to be in the Bill. When we raised the point that it might be impossible for the citizen to learn for six years whether his land was going to be liable to betterment levy and, if so, liable to what amount, we were assured that the Land Commission will reach decisions as quickly as possible, and that if they do not their activities will be within the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner or Ombudsman. I still have an anxiety lest the Ombudsman might be even more busy than the Land Commission. At any rate, this is an apparent safeguard, and we will see how it works.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I expressed great anxiety about the earliness of the date which had been suggested by the Government for the first
272
appointed day. I think it is, at any rate in part, as a result of that short debate that the Government postponed it—not as long as I would have suggested; not, I think, as long as the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, would have suggested, but at any rate by five weeks, which will be of some value.
On Clause 8, which was a clause which gave my noble friends great anxiety and, I think, caused considerable apprehension outside the Palace of Westminster, the Government were wise enough to introduce an Amendment which would protect the occupier of a house from having it taken away from him and being deprived of his home under the shortened compulsory purchase procedure. That was a valuable step forward, and when I tabled an Amendment on Report that the shortened procedure should not be available for acquisitions generally throughout the country but only for particular classes of acquisition, the Government were good enough to put down Amendments of their own which, no doubt in better words than mine, met our point.
The Opposition have, in fact, pressed and carried six Amendments to the Bill. Perhaps I may say here that our tactics have been not to take every finicky little point which we might have raised throughout the Bill, but to seek to concentrate attention in your Lordships' House on big issues. It seemed to us that that was a part which the House of Lords could usefully play in the examination of a Bill like this.
One of the Amendments which we pressed and carried was to remove the provision which relieved the Land Commission of the obligation to state any purpose when it was seeking to acquire land compulsorily after the second appointed day. We carried the Amendment in Committee, and on Report stage the Government put down an Amendment of their own with which we were entirely satisfied. We pressed and carried five other Amendments which now go directly or, shall I say, indirectly, to another place. There was the Amendment to Part II, to the effect that if the Government wished the Land Commission to have more extensive powers after the second appointed day, they should be required to come to Parliament and seek those powers in the Order appointing the

273
second appointed day. That was the second of our Amendments. The third was to the effect that, when the Government wished to bring in the special, shortened procedure for compulsory purchase in respect of any specific class of acquisitions, they should have to bring forward an Order which would require an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. In our submission, the Negative Resolution procedure is not sufficient in so serious a case as that.
As I said a few minutes ago, we carried three Amendments to Part III of the Bill, the financial part, and it is because of these Amendments that, for reasons which the House now understands, I have had to move to omit Part III from the Bill—and I am grateful to the Government for accepting this as the proper procedure in the circumstances. One Amendment concerned the total exemption of charities, one the exemption of owner-occupiers from development levy, and the other was an attempt to secure the exemption of small transactions from betterment levy in the same way that small estates are exempted from death duties. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said that these are so ill-drafted that though they might be all right so far as the small man is concerned, the big man could exploit them. I do not know who the big man is in the case of a charity. I always thought charities were forms of trust which benefited people who were deserving of charity in the eyes of the law. But I will not pursue that matter. It will no doubt be explained in another place, if the Amendment is not accepted as it stands, who the big men are who might take undue advantage of a provision about charities.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt in order to clarify that point. Although I was no doubt careless in my phrase, I did not seek to imply that big men could exploit the Amendment made by the Opposition in respect of charities but, more particularly, the Amendment concerning owner-occupiers.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I certainly do not claim any special virtue for my own drafting, and I think that the noble Lord understands perfectly well the purpose which we were seeking to achieve through these three Amendments. What
274
I should like to say to your Lordships is that I hope, and I trust that the whole House hopes, that in another place a proper and fair consideration will be given to the purpose which this House was seeking to achieve through these Amendments.
There are, in conclusion, three matters which I raised during the Second Reading debate on which the Government have been able to give us no help at all. That is not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, because the trouble is inherent in the Bill itself. First, at a time when we know that there is a shortage of professionally qualified people, and valuers in particular—a shortage caused largely by the Government's new forms of tax—this Bill threatens seriously to aggravate that shortage. Secondly, I called attention on Second Reading to uncertainty. There will be just as much uncertainty in the Bill as it leaves your Lordships' House as there was when it came here. We have been able to do nothing about that, and the reason is that the fact of uncertainty—an inescapable fact—is one of the reasons why any form of betterment levy breaks down in practice. I have never been one of those who have set their face against a betterment levy in theory. I think there is a tremendous amount to he said for this form of taxation in theory; but it remains a fact that no Government has yet managed to devise a scheme which will work with reasonable satisfaction to all concerned; and I suspect that this Bill will continue that old and bad tradition. Uncertainty in the incidence of a betterment charge is an inescapable attribute of the charge itself.
Thirdly, and finally, I regret to say that the Bill is no less complicated and obscure as it leaves your Lordships' House than it was when it came to us. I do not think, however hard we might have worked on either side of the House, we could have done much about that. Once the decision had been taken to introduce a Bill of this kind, its complexity was unavoidable. I will content myself with saying that up till now I had really believed that this was a Government which had set as one of its high objectives the simplification of the law of the land. I must say that in the presentation of this Bill to Parliament it seems to have fallen a great way short of attaining that objective.
6.7 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I think there is little more to be said about this Bill. All the appropriate epithets have been used up; but I should like to make it clear that none of the epithets is intended to be directed against the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who has presented this Bill with great courtesy—and I should like to thank him for doing so. In my view, there is a very real need for improving our town planning procedure, and there is a need for speeding up the process of acquiring land for development without sacrificing the rights of the citizen. But I do not think that this will be achieved by creating just one more body with powers of compulsory purchase. I do not think it will be helped by creating this Land Commission. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, who prophesied the possibility of the Land Commission proving to be a paper tiger. I am not sure whether it will turn out to be a paper tiger or a bureaucratic giant—the future alone can tell—but certainly I remain unconvinced by any of the arguments for the creation of the Land Commission.
With regard to the levy, I am disappointed that the collection of betterment is being dealt with in this way. It is going to be appallingly complicated, and I think that before long that very fact will be used as an argument for abandoning altogether the whole idea of collecting betterment values. I believe that there are other and better ways of collecting values created by the community. I have not altered my view on the general principle, that land is a special case, and that where land is concerned values created by the community should, at any rate in part, be collected for the benefit of the community. I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that I am not drugged with Socialism but regret the method that has been adopted by the Government.
Finally, I do not think sufficient regard has been paid to the problem of those who will have to operate the provisions of this Bill and advise others about it. It seems to me that their very real difficulties have been largely ignored; and on all these grounds I think this Bill stands condemned. My Lords, I must conclude with an apology. I am very sorry, but I have to leave at half
276
past six to catch a plane. No discourtesy on my part is intended, but if I am not here at the conclusion of this debate I hope that the reason will be understood.
6.9 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I should like to say just one word, from the Back Benches. And I think it is appropriate that somebody should do so. I do not like this Bill at all. It is extremely complicated, and I do not think it will have the effect the Government hope that it will have. We tested pretty thoroughly whether it would really help to reduce the cost of land, and we found that all the betterment which is going to be collected from the private individuals—an estimated £75 million a year—will have to be paid over by the Land Commission direct to the Treasury, and that the only money the Commission will be able to keep is the betterment they make on their own revolving credit of £45 million, which can be increased (by an Affirmative Resolution, I think, of the House of Commons) to £75 million.
I should like to conclude by thanking my noble leader on this Bill, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for the great work that he has done. There has been only a small team on our side and he has worked extremely hard to help us on this very complicated measure. I would also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his courtesy; the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who so ably assisted through many hours; and, with respect, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who was most helpful to us on the complicated legal aspects of the Bill. Though I cannot support the Bill wholeheartedly, I hope that it will have the desired effect; I doubt whether it will, but I shall watch with interest what effect it does have.
6.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, before the last opportunity disappears to discuss this Bill I should like again to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to one of the most widely misunderstood clauses in the Bill; namely, Clause 67. Perhaps I should add that I have given notice to the noble Lord of my intention to raise this point. If I may summarise briefly Clause 67, the House will be aware that it deals with the case of a development that is begun before the first appointed day but, for

277
one reason or another, is not completed until after that day. The object of this clause is riot, as I believe many people think, to exempt from levy all development begun, but not completed, before the first appointed day: its purpose is to act as a rider to Clause 27, so that when a development escapes levy under Clause 27 it may still be caught in the Land Commission net on part at least of the development under Clause 67.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, took some trouble to give the Government interpretation of this clause during the Committee stage. I am sure that many people concerned with development are grateful for this and will have taken note of what he said. I think there is a general understanding now that where an owner has full planning consent or permission for the whole of a project of material development, and makes a start on it before April 6, he will be free of levy on the whole of the project, because neither Clause 27 nor Clause 67 can catch him. This is the case where full planning permission authorises the carrying out of the entire project without any further reference to a local planning authority.
But the case that is causing so much trouble—and one in which legal doubts have been expressed to me as to the previous interpretation of the clause by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—is where outline consent has been granted on the whole of a development and where this outline permission has been built up into full planning permission in respect of part only of that development. The illustration given by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, at the time of his interpretation during the Committee stage demonstrates that so long as some part of the outline permission has been built up into full planning permission by the obtaining of the detailed approval required and a start is made before the first appointed day, the remaining part of the development (which, of course, only enjoyed outline consent) would escape levy in the future. The question I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet is: Can an outline permission be built up in this way? According to Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1963,
"…the approval of the authority shall be required with respect to the matters preserved
278
in the permission before any development is commenced."
There does not appear to be any authority under the Bill for separating parts of the planning permission, and it would seem very difficult to separate parts of a planning permission for the purpose of building up these parts into full permission by piecemeal authorisation.
My Lords, the second specific question that I should like to ask the noble Lord on Clause 67 is: Could he indicate what is the position where outline permission is obtained over 50 acres for 500 houses but a separate detailed planning permission (as distinct from approval of detailed plans) is obtained over 10 acres for 100 houses and the builder makes a start on one of those 100 houses before the first appointed day? It would seem from the wording of Clause 67(2) that only the 10 acres in the authorising permission—namely, the detailed consent on part—is free from levy, whereas if detailed plans had been approved, the authorising permission would then have been outline permission and the whole 50 acres would have been free from levy.
The third specific question I should like to ask the noble Lord on Clause 67 is: What would be the position where a developer has outline consent, limited by time? Would he be liable to levy should this time period run out even if he has complied with making a start before the first appointed day? These questions have been put to me for the noble Lords to answer at this late stage and I know that it would be appreciated if he would comment on them.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clarify one other point. This relates to Schedule 4, page 113, line 38, where the date "December 21, 1965" is mentioned. This date does not tie in, I submit, either with Clause 83 or with Schedule 4, page 115, line 4. I raised this matter on Committee and the noble Lord promised to examine whether the date should be altered. I should be grateful to learn what reasoned conclusion he has now reached on this matter.
6.17 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, before we part with this Bill, may I make a most earnest plea to Her Majesty's Government to think again about the date of the first appointed day? This is a very

279
complicated Bill, one of 102 clauses and 17 Schedules; but it is a revolutionary Bill in the sense that it creates a whole range of rights and duties which are completely strange and new to our law—indeed, a new code. Furthermore, the far-reaching effects of this Bill are not by any means understood or foreseen by the public at large to-day. This Bill will affect every transaction in conveyancing of every piece of land and every house, however modest or small, throughout the whole of the country; and the rights and duties of the parties after the first appointed day will be affected also by steps which are taken, or are not taken as the case may be, by the date of the Royal Assent and the first appointed day. One would have thought, in face of this, that the very least that Her Majesty's subjects could expect would be to have proper legal advice about their situation. That, in the present circumstances, if the first appointed day is maintained as Her Majesty's Government have suggested that it should be maintained, is quite out of the question. It is utterly impossible that in the few weeks that can exist between the date of the Royal Assent and the first appointed day the legal profession can absorb this Bill and be in a position properly to advise their clients.
That raises, I believe, what might almost be said to be a constitutional issue. I cannot remember ever before hearing of a Bill which goes as far as this, and which goes as deeply as this, where there has not been a proper interval allowed for the ordinary citizen to go to his lawyer to have proper advice. This is not the fault of the lawyers. The Law Society, I know, has been corresponding with the Department about this matter and they are deeply exercised. The solicitors' branch of the profession will certainly not he in a position to advise properly in the time available. That is not the fault of the solicitors' branch of the profession. I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack would claim that the Bar are in a better position, or would be in a better position. Here is a great new system of law going to be imposed on the nation at about five or six weeks' notice without the least possibility of people's getting proper advice. That is wrong; and, however difficult it may be for the Government to make a change, I beg them in the name of common justice to do it.
6.20 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I see my noble friend Lord Mitchison about to rise from his seat. My noble friend has spoken so much on this Bill that perhaps he will allow me to say a word now. We are temporarily parting with this Bill, and I think that those of us who have taken a close interest in it will be very glad to have a little relief from it. We shall see it again, and this Third Reading is an occasion for summarising some of the discussions which have taken place during the passage of the Bill and for paying a number of compliments.
I should like first, and in no formal sense, to pay a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for the way in which he has handled the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. He did so in a completely responsible manner, being objective so far as it is possible to be objective in a matter on which one holds strong views. I think that all his arguments were completely fair, and though one might not always agree with them, they were certainly put fairly and moderately. I should like to say the same of my noble friend Lord Kennet. He has had a very difficult task. If I may say so, this is not really his subject; he came quite fresh to it. He was under the disadvantage of speaking to someone else's brief in a Department that is not his own, and I think he did extraordinarily well. My noble friend Lord Mitchison does not need any compliments from me, but he has been of tremendous assistance to the Government.
My Lords, the discussions we have had have not affected in any way the main structure of the Bill. This, I think, has remained completely unshaken. The two principles enunciated by my noble and learned friend when moving the Second Reading, the question of the development levy and the acquisition of land, have not been affected by the arguments. The machinery by which these two principles are to be implemented has, in my view, been completely justified. I doubt whether the Amendments passed are of such a fundamental nature as to go to the root of the Bill, and though I do not know what the Government will do with them, an opportunity has certainly been providentially provided by the removal of Part III of the Bill for the

281
Government to reconsider the matter. Again to-day the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, expressed his view about the complexity of the Bill, the difficulty in understanding it and so on. I must say that he was certainly not inhibited by this difficulty. The noble Lord seemed to have attained complete mastery of the Bill and appeared to find no difficulty at all in dealing with every clause which he felt disposed to criticise.
The Government will have an opportunity to look again at this Bill. They will be forced to do so, because they have to look at Part III, and I hope they will take advantage of the opportunity provided to look at the whole of the Bill much more closely. They have given me the impression that they have had to introduce this Bill and endeavour to pass it in a state of panic, or frenzy, in which it was found necessary to meet every day for a series of days and for your Lordships' House to sit fairly late. I have been wondering what is the urgency. What does it really matter whether the Bill is passed in January, February or April? It is not of such world-shattering importance that the Government may be justified in not giving the Bill the fullest possible consideration, and I regret to say that there are signs that the Government have not done this.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, about the first appointed day. I raised the matter at the beginning of the Committee stage and I am very disappointed indeed. I think it is contemptuous merely to defer the matter until April 6. We are in the second half of January, and even now we do not know when the Bill will become law or how much time will be available between the passage of the Bill and April 6. I agree absolutely that there will not be enough time to deal with a Bill of such length and complexity. I do not dispute that it is a complex Bill, and my earlier reference was to the language of the Bill. It is complex in its conception, as it is bound to be, because there are so many special cases to be considered. The matters upon which lawyers will be consulted will not be the normal cases of persons buying and selling houses. There will be consultations about very complex questions which will trouble lawyers, solicitors, barristers, valuers, the Land Commission and everybody else. We are
282
not even giving the Land Commission a chance properly to digest this Bill. The Commission have to understand it if they are to administer the measure.
There are a few matters which I hope the Government will consider further when they take advantage of the opportunity which has been presented to them to look at the Bill again. There is the question of stating the purpose for which land is to be compulsorily acquired. I am not sure whether that applies to a person occupying a house or what is involved in the Amendment introduced by the Government. Things move so rapidly that one gets notice of an Amendment on the same day that it is being moved. One hardly has time, especially with the lateness of the post, even to see Amendments before one comes to the Chamber, so that I am not sure how far the Government have dealt with the question of disclosing the purpose for which land is to be compulsorily acquired.
If they have met the case of a person who is occupying a house and is in danger of losing his home, what about a person who may be in danger of losing his livelihood? What about a person whose shop, or warehouse, or factory, or other means of livelihood is being threatened? Why should he not know the purpose for which his land is being acquired? Do the Government attach so much less importance to the livelihood of a person than to the house he occupies? I think that the case for one is exactly as powerful as the case for the other. There is also the question of this speedy procedure. I do not know how far the Government have met the criticisms that have been made, but they are real. This speedy procedure, by which, if an objection is raised and the matter is urgent, the Minister can come to a decision after hearing the full facts of the case from the objector, seems to me completely wrong and misses the whole point of a public inquiry. The Minister cannot get the full facts from a person who may not even know the purpose for which the land is to be acquired. He cannot get the full facts unless he knows the full case and the full justification for the acquisition of the land; and a person who is objecting is tremendously handicapped by not being able to hear the case for acquisition, to cross-examine the witnesses and

283
to bring witnesses of his own at a public inquiry.
I can well understand that there may be cases where it is necessary to use speed, but I wonder whether noble Lords are aware of the time that is taken to-day in dealing with these public inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will know. But it has got worse. I am not blaming the Labour Government for this, but the fact is that from the time when an objection is lodged with the Ministry one is lucky if there is an inquiry eight months after, and very fortunate if one gets a decision four months after that. I am still in practice, and I am speaking from personal experience. I have at least half-a-dozen appeals that were lodged about a year ago, and I still have not got a decision, although I have had the inquiries.
If there is an urgency, is there not some means of getting speedy inquiries without depriving the unfortunate owner of the land of an opportunity of putting his objection? It is not his fault if there is urgency. I hope that the Government will pay more attention to the question of speeding inquiries and decisions, particularly in cases where there is urgency. Is it not possible to give some kind of priority, if the Minister is satisfied that there is an urgency?
There are other matters on which I feel that the Government might have taken a less rigid attitude. There is the question of de minimis. Are the Land Commission to be worried about every trifling alteration that takes place which requires planning permission? If a person has a space where he is keeping his car and wants to put it under cover, he has to get planning permission before he can erect this cover. I am taking an extreme case. He has to give notice to the Land Commission that he is about to put up a garage. Then the Land Commission solemnly come along and assess it for the increase in value of the property as a result of putting up this little garage, less, of course, the cost of the garage, and allowing him 10 per cent. In the end; the assessment might come to £25. But he may think it too much and he may argue about it. Is it really worth while the Land Commission handling matters of this kind?
284
Fortunately, there is Clause 63 of the Bill. I hope that it will stand, and that the Government will introduce a code of exemptions which include de minimis provisions. I hope that it is their intention to do so. I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is in a position to commit the Government on this, but I sincerely hope that it will be one of the first things the Government will do. We have been told by the Government spokesman in another place that there will be about one million cases a year with which the Land Commission will have to deal. If we can reduce this by a couple of hundred thousands a year—and I think we could if we had a serious provision for leaving out these small cases—it would be a great help in relieving the pressure to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke or Cumnor, has referred.
I should like the Government to look again at the question of the statutory market authority (in which I have no interest whatever, I should like to make clear), not because it is of such tremendous importance to the market authority, but because I believe that a great injustice is being done to them. This discrimination, which is based upon two grounds, is wholly unfounded. I hope that the opportunity that has been presented to the Government of having to look at Part III again will enable them again to look at all these rigid acts which they have obstinately, in my view, refused to deal with. The Government will not lose face if they take advantage of the time which they have providentially been given, if they do not rush, and make quite sure that this measure will start off with the maximum of good will, not only from its supporters, but from its opponents as well.
If we get rid of these small anomalies, which may not affect a great many people, I believe that this Bill will stand a far better chance of acceptance, and that the fears of the noble Lord who thought that this Bill might come to an untimely end in what he hoped would be the near future, but which I hope will be a very far distant time, will not be justified. I am sure that if the public feels that this Bill has been fairly considered, that there are no injustices to anybody, and that it will be fairly administered, at long last this Bill will have a chance of being successful where others have failed.
6.38 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, it is getting, for this House, quite late, and I do not propose to go into any detail or make any personal observations except one or two of a complimentary character. Then I should like to say a word or two about the Bill. Taking personal observations first, and not forgetting the Bill, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Silkin has had sufficient praise for what, after all, was the theoretical and practical foundation of this Bill—his own Act. It is true that it was repealed, but I believe that it stood for an important principle, to which I shall turn shortly.
I would accept in one sense the description of this Bill as revolutionary, but I am not quite sure whether, in this House, that is a commendation or the reverse. I am sure that it is a courageous Bill. I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said about betterment. I am sorry that I missed, not much but a little, of the beginning of what he was saying owing to another engagement. But if he does not mind my saying so, I have watched him for some time in one way or another, and I have always accepted that he realised the inherent injustice of compensation without betterment, and objected to betterment only on the ground that he did not see how to effect it. This Bill is a courageous attempt to deal in a slightly different way with the problem of betterment. If it is a revolutionary attempt, it is a rather remarkable one, because it began notionally with an expert Committee, sitting, I think, in the middle of a war, presided over by a Chancery Judge and containing a number of experts on the land and questions connected with it. I refer, of course, to the Uthwatt Committee. We owe that Committee a great debt for the clearness with which they presented to us the inherent problem that lies behind these questions of compensation and betterment with which this Bill seeks to deal.
It was said that this matter was not urgent. But I think there is some sense of urgency. From one point of view, the trouble about the land in this country in recent years has been that those who needed it for public purposes had to pay for it prices which were continually rising, and which often had become so high in relation to other costs that the use of the land was restricted. Rents might
286
be too high; it might be difficult, because of the cost of the site, to build a hospital that was badly needed; and matters of that sort which I need not elaborate. But this difficulty has been going on for many years; it has never improved. And latterly, in the last few years, up to about (I do not want to be political over this) 1959 or 1960, and perhaps later, it had become really serious and had reached a degree of urgency which was important.
The second point was the question of the profits that people were making out of land. I am not rising now to make any general remarks about profits—it would not be appropriate at this moment—but I think it must go against the grain with many people to find some of the cases that have occurred where lucky, or shrewd, people have taken quite inordinate profits out of land, which is a peculiar subject matter, and without which, after all, there would be no world to live in. The land has always been a matter of difficulty. It has been the foundation by way of tenure of all kinds of things. I remember that it was the Gracchi who were rather anxious to get it back for the use of the common Romans. If we go a little further, we find in this country, at any rate, a feudal tenure which was responsible for a great deal of good or evil here. We find in Scotland something rather different.
I think it is only rather lately that the notion of the ownership of land has been re-examined in the light of the interests of the community as a whole. I believe that many of your Lordships, apart from Party contentions at the moment, will feel that it is not right that inordinate profits should be made, as they have been made lately, out of land when the contingency of those profits depended on what the community itself was doing in one way or another. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor (if he does not mind my saying so, he hardly needed to tell me, at any rate), sees the point. He may not draw the line at the same place as I do, but that is another matter.
In those circumstances, this is a courageous Bill. Of course, it is complex. It is bound to be complex, because of the complexities of our own land system, and also for another reason which it is as well we should face up to quite frankly.

287
For some reason or another the question of land is apt to arouse strong emotions in people, and they sometimes do things about land which I do not think they would do about other forms of property. Yet, again, the sense of ownership of land can be very strong indeed, and while people may recognise, in theory, that there ought to be a community interest and community value in this, they feel reluctant to apply it in any case with which they themselves are concerned. I need hardly say that I am not directing any of these remarks to any Member of your Lordships' House, and it may be that the number of people affected by this attitude that I have described is rather smaller than I think. But I believe it is fairly well known that a measure of this kind does lead people to seek ways of evasion which they would be rather reluctant to seek in other connections.
For those two reasons, I suggest that land presents not only the urgent problem which I mentioned, but also a difficulty in dealing with it. We add to that difficulty by the complexity of our land system. Lord Birkenhead, many years ago, was, I think, in another capacity a galloper; and he certainly galloped a bit at the land problem in his time. I am not going into the results of it. But it may well be that the moment has arrived, in the light of this Bill, to see whether something which needed to be done in the public interest could not have been done more simply, and without the possibility of misrepresentation about it, if the system of land tenure had been simpler One obvious instance I can take at once. It is quite clear that the registration of land may be of great use in this and in other connections. That is one thing that occurs to me.
I turn from that to one other comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. We all know that there is a shortage of valuers; and this has been so for many years. But it is not quite fair to attribute the shortage to this Bill or anything like it. After all, this measure in itself, so far as the levy is concerned, is simply carrying out something which was introduced by a Tory Budget on short-term capital gains not long ago. There is nothing novel in that. No doubt more valuers may be required to work this Bill, than to work the scheme for
288
taxing short-term capital gains, because it goes rather further; but the essential point, the need for the services of valuers, was raised at that stage, and is still before us. It seems to me that the way in which the base value has been treated in this levy section of the Bill is a real contribution to minimising the extent to which we need depend on the services of valuers.
I am not going into it now, but I can assure your Lordships that it was well in the minds of those of us who had to consider this Bill earlier that there was this shortage; that valuers are required for many purposes, including those under a Tory Budget or under a Labour Budget, and that we must not waste their particular skill. It takes time to develop. But, my Lords, it would be a sad state of affairs if something which was needed in the interests of the community itself, and in the interests of ordinary men and women in this country who have to find houses to live in and places to work in, was seriously delayed or not put forward because of the shortage of valuers. The time factor must be taken into consideration, I suggest, in preparing and passing a measure, but it is not a factor which by itself ought to govern that measure's acceptance or rejection.
May I say this with very great respect to your Lordships? We are not finished with this Bill. It is going back to another place. Alterations may be made—I do not know. There is a good deal that can be done to it regarding exemptions, the matter of timing, and so on. But in the long run we are going to have this Bill. In view of the general position about land and the matters I have indicated—the shortage of it for public purposes, the difficulty, such is our legislation, of dealing with it, and the abuses (I call them abuses because there have been large and inordinate profits made from it)—I feel sure we shall all recognise that it is our bounden duty as citizens, once this Bill is through, to do our best to make it work. It is such an obvious necessity to have something of the kind. I agree it is a complex Bill; I agree it is a difficult problem, though how far the difficulty rests in this matter alone is another question. But I earnestly trust that we are not going to allow feelings about the land to interfere with the contribution which I believe this Bill can make towards the betterment of

289
the community and towards the daily need of the citizens who depend on this rather complicated measure for a great deal that they reasonably and rightly require from us.
6.53 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, at the beginning of this final debate on this Bill I had thought that, with any luck, I might be able to get away with not having to make a last speech from this side, but after the last three speeches to which we have listened I feel I cannot duck my responsibility and must make a few observations. The first is this. I express the hope, as I am sure my noble friends behind me would also, that the Government will think long and hard about the very powerful plea advanced by both the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the first appointed day should be still further postponed. Nobody who heard those two noble Lords would imagine for a moment that they were speaking from anything except their great and long professional experience of matters related to those with which the Bill deals, and there was no political content whatever in what either of them said.
I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, very much indeed for the tribute he paid to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor for the way he has led the Opposition on this Bill and for the immense amount of preparation and work which that required. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that those on this side, particularly those who have endeavoured to help my noble friend from time to time, certainly feel exactly the same way as Lord Silkin does. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, like everyone else who has spoken on this final Motion, expressed thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the way he has conducted the Government case; and I respectfully should like to do so, too. I do not think the noble Lord ever really revealed the extent to which he had been subjected to strain by this Bill, but obviously he must have been to some extent, because I really do not understand, from my limited experience, how any Minister in charge of the whole or at any rate a large part of a long and complicated Bill can fail to be subjected to strain.
290
I do not think I had better embark on any lengthy reply to the philosophical disquisition of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, but I should like to thank him very much indeed for the great help which he gave, certainly to me, by his intervention in almost every debate, at every stage in this Bill. I personally always enjoy enormously listening to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, on any subject, but in the case of this Bill, so far as he has been giving us the benefit of his views, he must have had a great deal to do with it in its preparation and writing. I found these interventions particularly helpful for two reasons. The first was that I found the Bill so difficult to understand that it was a great advantage to me to have the benefit of two expositions from different sources of the Government's case, especially when one had to think of something to say in reply to the Government's case. The other reason was this. It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, gave one a much clearer insight into the philosophy behind the Bill than perhaps Ministers felt it prudent to do from the Front Bench.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said (if I remember rightly) that the main structure of this Bill has been left unshaken by the Amendments made to it. I would respectifully agree about that, and would add that it was always our intention, at any rate, that that should be so. We made no attempt to shake the structure. We have tried to concentrate on the crucial points, and particularly to protect, so far as we have been able to, what we considered to be the undeniable rights of ordinary individual people. The Opposition always like to think they have made a Bill a better one, and I do not think there is any doubt that this is a better Bill than when it came to us. It is not a good Bill; it is still bad—and, in my judgment no amount of amendment would make it anything else. But it is a better Bill, and the proof of that is that we succeeded in making the Government meet us on several issues that seemed crucial to us.
Why our doubts remain, why our scepticism remains—at any rate, why mine does—is that I am just as unconvinced as ever I was that it is really necessary to have this enormous new piece of bureaucratic machinery in order

291
to achieve the two objectives of the Government's land policy set out in paragraph 7 of the White Paper. I listened with complete agreement to what my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor said about theoretical collection of betterment; and I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that the time has come when it should no longer be possible to make vast profits out of land transactions. But that is not the same thing as saying that I believe it is necessary to have a great, complicated piece of machinery to effect the change.
Well, my Lords, will the Bill do it? Will the Land Commission achieve the two purposes set out in the White Paper? It is anybody's guess, and I will not attempt to make one. But what is absolutely certain is this: the ordinary men and women in this country to-day have not the faintest inkling of the size of the rod that has in this Bill been fashioned for their backs, and when they do realise it, when the Commission start to operate, I am afraid their wrath will be great and their grievance profound. We have in fact—when I say "we" I mean the Opposition on this side—performed the duty of lessening the area of grievance by the three Amendments to Part III which we have inserted in the Bill, because we have increased thereby the number of exemptions from the levy. This seems to me to be something in the long-term interest of the Government, because surely they do not want the area of grievance to be larger than it would otherwise be. My last word is simply this. I am afraid the Government will live to regret this Bill. If they do, they will not be able to blame us: we have given them plenty of warning.
7.0 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, arising from the drugged stupor of Socialism to confront the shining morning faces of free enterprise, I should like to start by associating myself with all the kind things which have been said about the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and to compliment him, if it is not impertinent of me to do so, on his courtesy and his clarity, and indeed the expedition with which he and his colleagues have dealt with this long and difficult Bill. "Though I say it as shouldn't", I have also admired his political dexterity in doing so, but that is another subject.
292
The noble Lord said that he had never been against a betterment levy in theory, but that it always breaks down in practice and that he expects it will do so again. I do not want to turn our last discussion on this Bill into a political matter, but I am still in the dark as to what the Conservative Party would have done to confront the problem of vastly inflated development values in and around cities and, equally, the problem of assembling land for development. I do not know what would have happened if a Conservative Government had been in power at this moment and for the next five or ten years. I strongly suspect that nothing would have happened. But let us not pursue that now.
Noble Lords have referred to the Bill as "complicated" and "obscure". I remember vividly, and with pleasure, because it gave me a certain sense of shock, meeting one of the noble Lord's supporters in a corridor of this House—I will not give his name, but he is one of the most redoubtable supporters of the noble Lord—who confided in me that he thought the Bill was brilliantly drafted. I think this is true. Parliamentary draftsmen come in for a lot of kicks, but the more I have come to know this Bill the greater has become my admiration for the way in which it is drafted. I do not deny that it is extremely long and complicated, or that in places it is extremely refined; it is bound to be, because our land law is in places already extremely long, in places extremely complicated and, in some places, extremely refined. I think it is a good Bill, not only in its outline but also in its drafting.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked me again about Clause 67, and I shall be happy to go further into it with him, because I know that the Law Society is in doubt about some of the points he raised. I know also that beyond that there is a body of opinion among developers who are still honestly not quite sure what effect this Bill will have on them. I think it is the duty of the Government to deal with this point, and I am particularly happy to do it since the noble Earl is no longer telling me that I am making misleading statements about it as he used to do at one time. The doubt expressed by the noble Earl relates to the case where an outline planning permission has been given—a permission which is subject to conditions and

293
which does not in itself authorise the start of development.
Does this permission exist in its own right, or has it in some way to be built up by a planning permission which authorises development to be begun? The answer is that it has not. Such a planning permission is in existence, and no further planning permission is needed. Application for detailed consent does not involve an application for planning permission. I know the Law Society has in mind that even if some authorities require application for consents to be made on the usual planning permission application form, the fact is that the type of application form used does not of itself determine that this is an application for planning permission. So long as the applicant knows what he wants he is safe, and should not be disadvantaged by any procedural requirements of the authority.
The noble Earl asked me four questions. To his second and more detailed question, which I will not repeat because he will have it in mind, the short answer is that only the 10 acres are free from levy, because the 10-acre planning permission is the one under which the works started before the appointed day were authorised. The third question was about the time limitation. Generally, time limited permissions are not outline permissions. They generally require a start to be made within a limited time, and no difficulty should therefore arise because the clause applies where a start is made. The fourth question was in regard to the discrepancy between one date in the Bill and other dates. I said at an earlier stage that I thought this might be a misprint, and if so I would have it rectified. It is not a misprint. It is a mistake, and it is desirable that it should be rectified, and there will be another opportunity of rectifying it before the Bill passes into law.
I know that the House heard the dubieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, with the greatest attention and respect, as will also my right honourable friend when I carry them to him. At an earlier stage of the Bill we discussed the question of the first appointed day, and it is not quite fair to say that since then it has been adhered to by the Government. In fact it has been delayed by five or six weeks. I make the same point to my noble friend
294
Lord Silkin, whose observations on this Bill, of course, I and my right honourable friend the Minister, and indeed the whole House, treat with the greatest possible respect, since he is virtually the inventor of the land and planning law which this Bill seeks to carry forward into another stage. My noble friend asked: what is the urgency? I was surprised by his question. I do not know how many noble Lords saw the headline in the Evening Standard to-day, which I do not endorse as a fact, "100,000 Homeless by 1981". I would, however, endorse it as an indication of urgency. We have talked before about a "Bristol" every year, and it seems to me the urgency is very great indeed, and is staring us in the face.
As against the fears expressed by my noble friend Lord Silkin about the early start, I should like to do what I can to reassure him that some of the provisions of the Bill will not be as disadvantageous to the ordinary citizen as he fears. He raised the question whether, after all the Amendments and counter-Amendments that have been made to the Bill, the Commission will be bound to state its reasons on a compulsory purchase order after the second appointed day, and whether it will be bound to state them to the occupier of a house or to everybody. The Commission will be bound to give its reasons to everybody before and after the appointed day, in the absence of the speedy procedure and in the presence of the speedy procedure.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the speedy procedure itself. He questioned how much good it would be for a property owner to state his case when he does not even know the reason for which his property is being compulsorily acquired. I hope I have removed that worry from his mind. The noble Lord also raised the question of the right of the property owner to a public inquiry under the speedy procedure. I made the point two days ago, on Report stage, that the right to a public inquiry does not now exist in many cases of compulsory purchase. The Bill does not propose, even under the speedy procedure, to take away a right which now exists. What there is a right to is a hearing, and this will equally be available to the occupier of a house under the speedy procedure in the Bill.

295
The last set of worries which my noble friend Lord Silkin touched upon related to the likely number of transactions in a year. He mentioned the figure of one million transactions to be considered for levy every year; and here I think I can do something to remove his anxieties. The figure of one million is the number of transactions notified every year for stamp duty. The Land Commission will be using the stamp duty notification procedure as its first sieve, and the large majority of these cases will be sifted by the Land Commission as being obviously not liable for levy. We think at the moment that it is only about 150,000 which are likely to be liable to levy every year, but it is easier to use the existing stamp duty notification procedure as an initial sieve than to impose additional requirements; it will save everybody trouble, both the Land Commission and the citizen, and will make things quicker. The figure of one million transactions for levy every year should not be allowed to run further. Our best guess is something more in the nature of 150,000.
On the de minimis question, the provisions regarding the 10 per cent. of current use value will have a fairly large de mininis effect by themselves. In speaking about this, the noble Lord left out of account the very wide definition in the Bill of exemptions from material development: there will be excluded from levy extensions of a house up to 1,000 square feet, which is the size of an average three-bed roomed house. Such exemptions go far beyond anything the noble Lord was thinking of in his speech.
Let me end up with a round of thanks. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have been kind enough to compliment me on my handling of the Bill. I do not deserve their compliments. I admit to a sense of strain, which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was sensitive enough to notice. It was not due to any doubts about what we are presenting in this Bill, a Bill which is fundamentally sound as to social purpose and is as well drafted to achieve that purpose as is humanly possible. I would again thank my noble adversary, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for the way he has handled his side of this long affair, and all those of my noble friends who have so skillfully
296
and repeatedly backed up the case of the Government.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

DEER (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We now turn from one form of land use to a slightly different form of land use, which, if not quite so important, many of us may find easier to understand. I his is a simple Bill and it is designed to be entirely non-controversial. It is also designed to cover the three points which the Red Deer Commission, in paragraph 23 of their Annual Report for 1965, said they would like to be amended in the original Deer (Scotland) Act 1959.
Clause 1 of my Bill gives the Red Deer Commission the right of entry for census purposes. The Commission consider, and I think most noble Lords will agree with them, that censuses are very important, both for the control and for the conservation of red deer in Scotland. It is obvious why they are so important for control, and it is also fairly obvious why they are so important for conservation. At any rate, I have been fascinated by the findings of the Nature Conservancy on the Island of Rhum, and I think much of the interest of their findings is due to the fact that they take extremely accurate censuses every year.
It would therefore be a pity if, owing to the hostility of one particular landowner, the census in a certain area of the mainland of Scotland was incomplete. Accordingly, Clause I of my Bill gives the Red Deer Commission the right to enter upon land for the purpose of taking censuses. Having first, of course, tried to get the agreement of the owner concerned, and if he or she will not agree, the Commission then have to give him a fortnight's notice and state the period during which they will be entering on the land for the purpose of the census; and this period cannot exceed one month. It is obviously to the advantage of all concerned to try to get agreement, if at all

297
possible. It is worth noting that under Clause 15 of the Deer (Scotland) Act the Commission already have the right to enter land for the purposes of control schemes and to deal with marauders. It is thought, but it is not sure, that this might cover also the taking of censuses, and this clause is included purely to make sure that this is so.
Now I should like to move on to Clause 2 of the Bill. The first half just re-writes Section 33(2) of the Deer (Scotland) Act in such a way that officers or servants of the Red Deer Commission may kill marauding deer at night. Under the original Deer (Scotland) Act the only people allowed to kill marauding deer at night on enclosed land—and one is not allowed to kill deer at night on any other land—were the occupiers of the land concerned. This has led to difficulties where the occupier is either too old or infirm or in some other way incapacitated, or possibly not there at that particular moment to be able to kill marauding deer at night; and if we accept the fact—and this was discussed at great length in the 1959 Bill—that it is desirable for the occupier to have this right, I think probably this small extension of the right will not do any harm and might do a lot of good.
There are only seven stalkers of the Red Deer Commission, and I think it is unlikely that any of the Commissioners themselves would be asked by any occupier to kill marauding deer at night on any enclosed land. The advantage, in my opinion, of allowing the stalkers of the Red Deer Commission to do this would be that they would do it safely, whereas it is by no means sure that all occupiers would do it safely. The Commission's stalkers would minimise the cruelty concerned; they are much more likely to kill the deer outright than the average occupier, such as your Lordships, who, let us face it, is not anything like so accurate with a rifle, even with telescopic sights, as the stalkers of the Red Deer Commission. They have been trained; they get a lot of practice, and it would be much more certain that they would kill the deer actually doing the marauding, since they, would be in the enclosed ground at the time, whereas by the following day, when they would be allowed under the 1959 Act to kill them, the deer might well be out of the enclosed ground and have joined up with a lot of
298
other deer on the hill. Once that has happened, it is extremely difficult to decide which deer are actually doing the marauding, and which are entirely innocent and have spent the night on the hill where they should be.
Subsection (3)(a) of Clause 2 of the Bill simply re-enacts Section 33(3) of the Deer (Scotland) Act and introduces nothing new. Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to authorise people to take or kill for scientific purposes any deer out of season. The Red Deer Commission in their Report ask that they should be given this power so far as red deer are concerned, but I think it is only logical, now that we have the imposition of the Deer (Close Season) (Scotland) Order 1966 in operation (which gives close seasons to fallow deer, sitka deer and roe does), that it should also be possible for these forms of deer to be taken out of season for scientific purposes. That is why in the Bill the Secretary of State and not the Red Deer Commission is given this power.
One reason that springs to mind why the Secretary of State may make use of this power is if some research is required into the feeding habits of deer. This might easily suggest ways whereby marauding deer could be considerably reduced—by giving them licks or something like that out on the hill. Possibly the research might be to see whether deer carry certain diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, which seems much in the news at the moment. Incidentally, the Secretary of State already has this power, and his Department issues licences in regard to some other animals, such as seals, and certain birds. I hope that I have explained clearly the purposes of this short Bill, and that your Lordships will agree they are desirable purposes and will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
7.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, I should be grateful to your Lordships if you would be kind enough to afford me the indulgence that you give to those who have the honour to make their maiden speech in your Lordships' House. While in principle I wish to support the

299
noble Duke's Bill, and would commend it to your Lordships' consideration, there are two points on it that I should like to raise. I feel that if they were included in the Bill it would be much better, and certainly more complete.
The first point concerns a requirement that censuses, which have already been referred to by the noble Duke, should be carried out annually by 'the Red Deer Commission in any area that is subject to a controlled scheme. The reason for this is that in any controlled area the Commission have laid down as a guide that the total number of red deer to be culled per year should be one-sixth of the numbers of stags and hinds in that particular area or forest. They feel that if owners do this voluntarily the numbers of red deer in Scotland will probably be kept under reasonable control. It is impossible for any owner to do this at present, to satisfy both the requirement of the Red Deer Commission and also that for good deer management, which is equally important, because officially the number of deer that he may have in his deer forest is not known.
The Red Deer Commission have indicated to me that they are not prepared to accept an owner's census report of his particular deer forest. I am not quite sure why that is. It may be that they think that owners, as interested parties, might try to "cook the books". But, whatever the reason, it is logical that the Commission themselves must take an annual census to ascertain the correct numbers of deer to be culled in any one season in any one controlled area. The Commission may say; "We have not enough men for the job", but that does not seem to be a good argument. The Commission have been put into being; they are in existence, and they are doing a good job of work. It seems a pity to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar: they should get some more men. It will not cost all that much, I hope. If a job is to be done, it must be done properly. If an annual census is to be taken and more men are required for it, then I feel that the Commission ought to be allowed to employ more men.
The second point I should like to raise concerns the shooting of marauding deer, in accordance with Section 6 of the principal
300
Act. While the need for this is understandable, though none the less regrettable, it is important that some safeguard is created to ensure that these noble beasts do not suffer more than is absolutely necessary. At present, a great deal of suffering is caused. I have seen the results of such suffering. They are caused mainly by the use of the wrong weapon. I have here a letter from the British Deer Society, written on January 8, so it is quite up to date, from which it is perfectly clear what the British Deer Society feel about this particular point. I should like to refer to the letter. The Scottish Secretary writes:
"My Council feel strongly that the killing of deer in Scotland by any type of weapon is most unsatisfactory, and they feel that the relevant Scottish law should be amended to prohibit the use of certain weapons, with possible adjustments."
Basically, what it boils down to is that, for red deer, they do not recommend the use of a rifle of a calibre of less than 0.240 ins., with a smaller one for various other types of deer. But I am dealing solely with red deer this evening. They do not favour the use of any smooth-bore gun, shotgun, or anything like that; nor an air-gun, an air rifle or an air pistol. For ammunition they would like to see only bullets with a soft or a hollow nose being used. That is quite fair. If your Lordships could see the horrifying effects on beasts that have been shot at with shot-guns and small-calibre rifles and other similar weapons, equally ineffectual, you would understand my desire that some provision should be made in this Bill to incorporate the requirements and requests of the British Deer Society.
I understand the argument that many farmers in Scotland who suffer badly, as I readily admit, from marauding deer may not possess the necessary weapons should this requirement he included in the Bill, but I think that this argument cannot hold much water. Surely the answer is that they must go and get the right weapons. We cannot, and should not, allow farmers who have their crops to protect, or the Forestry Commission who have to protect their young trees and plantations, to be affected by the rather weak argument: "I have not the right weapon; therefore it does not matter. "This just is not good enough, and I am keen to see that a provision on the lines I have suggested is

301
incorporated in the Bill. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Government would be kind enough to give my suggestions their sympathetic consideration. I propose to table these Amendments for further discussion in Committee.
7.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, my first duty is the pleasant one of congratulating the noble Viscount on his maiden speech. We both have one thing in common, that is, that we are a type of hybrid in that we both possess Irish and United Kingdom Peerages. We also have in common a great love of red deer, and I agree with a great deal of what the noble Viscount has said. I hope that he will make many more speeches on subjects in which he is interested, which I am sure range far and wide, and that he will not confine his speeches only to the subject of deer.
I have no objection to this small Bill. The only regret I have is that it does not include a great many measures that I should like to see it contain, but I am sure your Lordships will be glad to hear that I do not propose to recount them all to-night. Certainly nobody can object to Clause 1. I have never heard of a landowner in the Highlands who has objected to the Red Deer Control coming on to his land to take a census, although there may have been one or two who have objected. It is, of course, essential that if a red deer census is to be taken the Commission should not be thwarted by any landowner. Clause 2(3)(b) authorises the Secretary of State in writing to take deer for scientific purposes, and one cannot object to that.
I do not object to the other provisions of Clause 2, which raises the rather controversial subject of night shooting which, of course, is cruel, and can also be dangerous to human beings. Section 33 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 was rather badly drafted in that respect. Although it allowed the occupier to shoot deer by night on enclosed land, it did not take into consideration the question that the occupier might be a cripple or an old lady who might be incapable of performance of these provisions. I agree that Clause 2 of the Bill puts this matter right, in that the occupier can delegate this duty, and there is no reason why he should not delegate this power to the
302
Deer Commission. The Deer Control are supposed to be experts with rifles. I suppose there are occasions where this has not been the case, but then one always has exceptions to every rule. I am sure that the Red Deer Commission do their best to ensure that the people whom they employ are expert marksmen.
There are one or two remarks I should like to make about night shooting from the cruelty angle. As to the use of firearms, the calibre of a firearm is controlled under the Deer (England) Act 1963. I hope that at some time the Government will bring in some similar Act, or will amend the present Acts, to ban the shooting of deer by firearms such as shotguns and small calibre rifles, because this is extremely cruel, especially when it takes place by night. The other thing I should like to see is a restriction that only one rifle should be allowed out in any one confined area, otherwise it can be dangerous to human beings; and a telescopic sight ought always to be used and a spotlight carried. If one has a spotlight one can hold deer in the beam. The other thing that also ought to be done on this matter of night shooting is that a person who embarks on it ought to have a trained sheep dog or hound to track down the deer if it is wounded. Under the existing Deer (Scotland) Act, so far as I remember its provisions, one is not allowed to follow deer with a hound or dog. I think this should be rectified as applying to wounded deer.
The other matter I should like to raise is the sale of venison out of season. There are various views on this matter, and I understand the point of view of the National Farmers' Union. When the occupier shoots out of season venison which is marauding on enclosed land, he presumably likes to get the money for the sale of the carcase, but if one sells deer out of season it does the venison export trade harm. Deer out of season are in very bad condition, and we now have a very good export trade to Germany. I am sure that the police would be far happier if dealers were licensed to sell venison, as is done on the Continent. I have often shot in Germany and in Scandinavia, and I know that venison cannot be sold out of season in those countries. Every carcase has to be tagged. In Germany the Forstmeister, who is in control of the various regions, issues so

303
many tags for the number of deer which it is desired should be shot. These carcases are then tagged, and the dealer who buys them cannot then take off the tag and send it to a friend of his and put it on another carcase, because the tags cannot be used again. They are rather like the tags used in the dairy trade; that once used they cannot be used again. I should like the Red Deer Commission to issue these tags to proprietors and occupiers who desire to shoot marauding deer. I shall no doubt go further into this matter at a later stage of proceedings on the Bill.
There is another question which I should like to raise, and that is the question of the definition of "enclosed land". It is really very loose. I have known instances—and I am quite sure that others of your Lordships who have experience of deer know of similar instances—where farmers go up into the hills, lime part of the heather and plough it up. They sow a very bad crop of rape and, perhaps, they put a few old fence-posts around and one strand of wire. Then, of course, if any deer comes near, they telephone the Red Deer Commission straight away and down they come, who then have an excuse to follow so-called marauding deer. We really ought, somehow, to try to tighten up the definition of "enclosed land".
I have also known instances where tenant-occupiers have deliberately made holes in the deer fence to allow in the deer in order to shoot them for commercial gain. I do not say a great number do that, but I have certainly known some do so. I realise that the Government are inclined to think of all tenants as angels, and of all landowners as devils. But the boot is sometimes on the other foot.
That is really all I want to say. I should like to end by saying that I believe that Her Majesty's Government, and previous Conservative Governments, and their advisers, have not fully realised the economic possibilities of the red deer in the Highlands. To-day, especially, I find that one can get very big stalking rents if one's estate is managed properly and the deer are properly controlled. One can also sell the carcases for extremely attractive prices. I was obtaining far more per pound for my venison than I was for my lambs this autumn. Therefore,
304
I would ask Her Majesty's Government to take seriously this question of the farming and ranching of deer, and the encouragement of deer in the right areas, because I am quite sure that in certain areas of the Highlands it has a very big future.
I should like to congratulate the noble Duke on the way in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I shall probably be putting down a few Amendments regarding the sale of venison out of season, but apart from that I am quite happy with the present Bill. However, as I say, it is a great pity that it does not contain many other improvements.
7.45 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I also should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Mount garret, and I agree with a great deal of what he said. It will be remembered that the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 owed its existence to co-operation between the Scottish National Farmers' Union, the Blackfaced Sheep Breeders' Society, the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the British Field Sports Society, and that that Act actually brought into existence the Red Deer Commission. It is surprising, therefore, that eight years later the Red Deer Commission, as the "child" of these four bodies, should have sought additional powers for itself without even consulting the bodies which set it up originally. The result is that the Bill now presented does not find favour in certain quarters, and covers only a small number of the amendments which have been found desirable as a result of eight years operation of the Deer (Scotland) Act. Thus, it is the greatest pity that no attempt has been made to get a comprehensive and agreed Amendment Bill before this particular Bill was submitted.
Possibly one of the most important things that has come to light as a result of the establishment of the Red Deer Commission is that the amount of marauding done by red deer is comparatively small compared to that expected following the outcry which took place prior to the 1959 Act. Indeed, there is as average of less than six cases of marauding reported to the Red Deer Commission each month. The pendulum is at last swinging, and at last people are

305
beginning to realise that red deer in this country are vermin only when they get into the wrong places, and that in the vast majority of their habitat they are a national asset.
It is difficult to get an accurate figure of the total venison sales in Scotland, but the figure has been conservatively estimated by the trade at no less than £420,000 per year—a very substantial sum. Much the largest proportion of this sum is earned from exports to the Continent, and therefore it is a very important item in the Highlands economy. Furthermore, from the national aspect, the stalking rents amount to substantial sums; and from the public aspect the local authorities are drawing not less than £40,000 per year from stalking rates.
The red deer are also responsible for keeping in employment many men in the remoter areas of Scotland. The stag has a tourist attraction. At least one hotel has lured Continental sportsmen to the Highlands and is charging them £50 per stag. This is not surprising when the German is prepared to pay in his own country £100 for a stag. There may well be further developments on this line, and it is important, therefore, that the red deer should be kept at their maximum numbers, compatible with the well-being of the animal, in the areas where they are an asset. But they must, of course, be properly controlled in the areas where they are doing damage.
In New Zealand they are treated entirely as vermin, and the New Zealand Government are subsidising their slaughter. Consequently, the New Zealander is happy to get whatever he can for his venison, and the New Zealand Government are prepared to send venison in Government-subsidised refrigerated ships to Europe. There is a grave risk of New Zealand venison undercutting our Highland exports to the Continent, with a consequent loss of this £420,000 of Highland income. At the present time, Scottish venison is preferred to the New Zealand venison on the grounds of quality, but it is most important that the present reputation of Scottish venison should not be damaged by the export of a comparatively small quantity of bad meat.
About ten days after a stag has been with hinds, his carcase has deteriorated very markedly, and such meat as is left
306
on him has become tough and strong-tasting. It is therefore important that out-of-season stag venison be removed from the market. This would also, of course, have the desired effect of removing the temptation for the unnecessary killing of a national asset.
My noble friend has also referred to allowing deer into fields to kill them. I know of one particular case where a fence was deliberately left open, and the deer were fed into a rape field, and no less than two lorry-loads of deer were sent away the following morning, mostly out-of-season stags. Last year a young boy of eleven was bragging that he had killed 26 stags during his Christmas holidays. This is quite unnecessary and must be stopped.
I must make it clear that I am not in any way suggesting that deer which are doing damage should not be killed, if there is no other reasonable method of protecting a crop; nor am I suggesting that a forester or farmer who suffers unavoidable damage should not be compensated. But we have here a problem which must be very closely studied, and a position which is far from satisfactory at the present time. The Red Deer Commission have suggested the licensing of venison dealers as a means of control. This might help to a small degree, but it would not, by itself, be sufficient. In any case, this is probably not the Bill into which to introduce such a scheme, which would mean an amendment to the Game dealers Licensing Act 1831.
There is also the point that if one kills an old milk-hind, one must, to avoid cruelty, kill her calf. But if that is done there is a 50–50 chance that the calf will be a stag calf; and if one kills a stag calf one is then killing a stag out of season. Here is a quite simple Amendment which must be agreed to by everyone and which should have ben incorporated in any Deer (Amendment) Act. It is therefore to be hoped that sufficient time will elapse between this Second Reading and the Committee stage to permit all the bodies concerned to get together and agree upon Amendments to my noble friend's Bill, so that the Deer Act will be suitably amended and may last for a further period of years without further amendment. But, my Lords, time is short if any Bill is to pass through all

307
its stages before the end of this Session, and it is therefore important that all the bodies concerned should get together as soon as possible and discuss this matter in detail to try to agree on Amendments to the Bill.
7.51 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, although I am several speakers behind him, I feel that I must offer my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. Having known his father as a well-known deer stalker, and as one very interested in deer forests and stalking, I was delighted to see his son here this afternoon to give us the benefit of his views. I should also like to congratulate the noble Duke on moving the Second Reading of this little Bill—although, of course, if it gets its Second Reading and the Amendments proposed by some of the experts who have already spoken are moved and carried, it may emerge almost as long as the Bill to which we have recently given a Third Reading, which had, I think, 189 pages.
I must declare my interest, as I am an ex-deer stalker. I shot my first stag nearly 50 years ago, and I have shot many since. I had better not admit how many because that might be rather conceited of me. I was very interested in the ownership of deer forests until 1954, and I welcome the Bill proposed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, who has a great experience of owning forests himself and of administering them—and, if I may say so, of administering them very well.
We have heard remarks on the prices of venison. In order to assure the noble Lord, Lord Burton, how lucky he is now, may I tell him that I remember selling stags in 1932 at 15s. a head, and also selling lambs—certainly what are called shott lambs; that is, those lambs which would have died in the winter if they had not been sold—at 2s. 6d. a head. Of course, we are in a period of inflation at the present time, but I think the deer forest owners—and I parted with mine in 1954—are much luckier than I was in those days. I must admit that during the war all my stags went down to the Connaught Rooms, and I believe that many masons fed upon them very satisfactorily in those days.
308
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government if they would be good enough to encourage the noble Duke to go on with his Bill because, bearing in mind the 1959 Act, on which I remember moving an Amendment and, with the help of Lord Lovat, defeating the then Government, I think certain Amendments might be passed to the advantage of the deer industry (if I might call it that) in Scotland, as well as Amendments to prevent venison being sold out of season and stags being shot by unauthorised poachers, which very often entails a great deal of cruelty. With those few words, I should like to say how much I congratulate the noble Duke, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
7.53 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I have practically no experience of shooting red deer in this country, but I have had experience of big game elsewhere. I should like to congratulate the noble Duke on this Bill, and I personally support it very much in the form in which it is. I feel, from what the noble Lords, Lord Burton and Lord Brocket, have said, that there may be a number of ways in which the existing legislation ought to be amended in a fairly extensive way, but this will mean delay. And here is a simple, straightforward measure which I believe we should accept as it stands; or nearly so.
I have two comments to make on the speeches of the two noble Viscounts. First, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, on his speech, and to refer to firearms. In my experience, particularly at night, the 12-bore loaded with the lethal ball can be an extremely effective and merciful weapon, if properly handled, so I would not go all the way with him in saying that shooting with a 12-bore should be forbidden, so long as it is used with a properly made spherical ball. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, mentioned the question of venison and stalking. Surely, the remedy there is that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Burton; namely, an amendment of the Game Licensing Act. If venison could be brought within the scope of that Act, that would go a long way towards impairing the ability of poachers to dispose of their illegal game.
7.55 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in extending congratulations to the noble Duke for the way in which he moved this Bill. I must admit that I was tremendously surprised at the amount of wit he was able to introduce into so unlikely a subject. I must also congratulate him on the general felicity with which he moved the Second Reading, and on the commendable brevity with which he managed to cover the whole range of the Bill.
I would also congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, on his maiden speech. I suppose that it is almost without exception that maiden speakers are told how well they have spoken, and are encouraged to speak often, although not necessarily encouraged to speak at length. I think that in this case it is more than a formality that we say that to the noble Viscount, and I personally hope that I shall have the benefit of many of his contributions on Scottish affairs, notwithstanding his Irish Peerage. Then (although I do not think he is with us at the moment) I feel that I ought also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burton, on what he said—not necessarily because I agree with it all, but because I admire the fact that he can compress into seven minutes about as much as anybody else could say in twelve, because of the speed at which he speaks, yet managing to keep every word quite distinct. I am quite certain that if we could all imitate his style we could say just as much as is said now in this House and still get home at least an hour or two hours earlier on any given day.
I think the noble Duke must feel satisfied with the Bill which he has presented, in one sense, at any rate: that no one has offered serious criticism of its content. And I do not think he is in the slightest danger of being presented at a subsequent stage with an Amendment to delete any of the provisions which he has inserted. That is certainly an experience which few Ministers are able to lay to their credit: Amendments are as often directed to taking something out of a Bill as to putting something else into it.
310
As the noble Duke said, the subjects which he has chosen as the content of the Bill figure in the Annual Report for 1965 of the Red Deer Commission. I am quite certain that they were not included because these were the only things which they thought might be suitable as amendments of the 1959 Act. I am sure they were chosen as matters which were now of urgency and which it was almost certain would not be controversial. These are necessary qualities for a Private Member's Bill, particularly if it is to get through another place. There would be no difficulty in adding some of the other items which have been raised to-day, some of which are obviously suitable for inclusion in a Deer Bill which is a Government Bill, and which might include controversial items if the Government were convinced that this was the right thing to do.
As to the other amendment, the amendment about venison out of season, I quite honestly think there is a great deal of merit in what has been said on that subject, but I am not at this stage persuaded that it is a suitable item for inclusion in a Bill of this kind. There may well be other opportunities, much more suitable ones, to legislate on that subject, but in saying so I do not in any way wish to diminish the importance of this aspect. I think we should be well-advised at the next stage, in considering possible Amendments to the Bill, to keep in the forefront all the time the consideration that the Bill must remain a non-controversial Bill, likely to command the support of all those people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said, were responsible for the foundation of the Red Deer Commission.
Finally, my Lords, I would say that I think my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would wish me to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work which has been done by the Commission during the seven years they have been in existence. I think it could truthfully be said that the setting up of the Commission was perhaps the first comprehensive attempt to deal with a problem which has been the subject of controversy for more than two centuries. It says a great deal for the Commission and their small staff that, as they were able to say in their last Annual Report, while they do not claim to have solved the deer problem, they have taken some

311
of the heat out of it, notwithstanding the many different interests involved. I am certain that all who are familiar with the work of the Commission will endorse this statement. Having said all that, I am able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, and others that Her Majesty's Government are very happy at the content of this Bill and will willingly give it their support.
8.5 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords for the general support they have given my Bill, even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out, they seemed strong in their desires to add to the Bill rather than to subtract from it. Another reason (which he did not mention) why I hope this is not done to any great extent is that at the moment the Bill fits nicely in four pages and costs 8d. If it had anything added it would presumably have to go into eight pages and would cost a shilling, and the Prices and Incomes Board might have to be asked about it. Nevertheless, I reckon that by our Amendments on the previous Bill this afternoon, we shall even then have saved about five shillings. But, seriously, my Lords, for the reasons stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I hope that any Amendments which are put into this Bill will be strictly non-controversial.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend, Lord Mountgarret, on his extremely interesting maiden speech. I might say that I once failed to congratulate a maiden speaker who spoke just before me. For once this House was running before its scheduled time, or at any rate earlier than I had been told would be the time when I should be speaking. I arrived just as a speaker was sitting down, and was told by the clerk on the door that I was the next speaker on the list. I rushed in, apologised for arriving late, made my speech, and was then told that it was lucky that I had arrived late or I would have congratulated the previous speaker, and he did not deserve it. I can assure my noble friend that my congratulations are most sincere, and I hope he will speak again on many subjects, particularly those connected with Scotland.
Perhaps I ought to apologise for not having declared an interest at the start of
312
my speech, because at one time we were very interest-conscious; but we seem to have dropped that a bit. None the less, I think it is a good idea to do so, and I should like to apologise for my omission. May I say that my noble friend Lord Burton has apologised to me personally for having had to rush off; there is only one train to Inverness and it leaves Euston at 8.20, and he felt he would not like to risk hearing the rest of us out.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret raised the question of an annual census in controlled areas. I cannot, of course, answer for the Red Deer Commission, but I am sure they will take note of what he has said. This seems to me to be essentially something which one cannot write into an Act of Parliament. There may be many technical reasons why they could not carry out a census every year, but I am sure they will take note of what my noble friend has said and, where it is possible, will take an annual census. My noble friend and several other speakers spoke about the limitation on weapons. When we reach the Committee stage of the Bill I shall probably have to resist any Amendment on those lines, although I entirely agree with all speakers that the use of unsuitable cartridges in shotguns causes great and unnecessary cruelty to the deer. Unfortunately, one cannot get the agreement of all the parties concerned about this matter, and I am convinced that were some provision on those lines inserted, it might result in wrecking the Bill in the Commons. All I can say is that there is a Bill called the Criminal Justice Bill coming up which, presumably, will reach us quite soon. That Bill is all about shotguns, rifles and such things, and as it is a Government Bill perhaps noble Lords who feel strongly on the subject might consider inserting Amendments in it. Then it would be up to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to resist them, and not me.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard also spoke about weapons and the danger of night shooting. I agree that there is a great danger in night shooting, and I think this is one good reason why the Red Deer Commission stalkers should have the power to undertake night shooting in enclosed areas. I was rather surprised when the noble Viscount said he thought there ought to be an Amendment to limit rifles to—so far as I could make out—one to

313
each forest. This seems to me an unwarranted interference with the rights of the forest owner, who presumably knows how many—
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: No, my Lords, I meant to one field, or to one enclosure. We do not want to have three or four people with rifles going into an area of ten acres. That would be highly dangerous at night.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend; I did not realise that he meant that this applied only at night. I quite agree with him. But there are, probably, at the most two or three people, because of the limitation on occupiers, and all the Commission stalkers. Even if this Bill is passed, there will be only one practical person who has the right to shoot at night in these enclosed spaces. My noble friend was also worried about the fact that, as he read the original Act, one could not follow up a wounded deer and kill it by any means other than with a rifle. I think that if he looks at Section 33(1) of the principal Act he will find that it covers this point. Once a deer has been wounded, or is diseased, it can be despatched in the most efficient way and in the best way to hand. I remember many discussions on this clause when the original legislation was going through its various stages, and one of the main reasons for inserting this provision was that a deer might have been hit by a motor car and be severely injured. The driver might not be carrying a shotgun or a rifle in his car, and the best way to deal with the animal would be to hit it over the head with a car jack. I think this section of the principal Act will cover all the points about which my noble friend was worried.
My noble friend Lord Burton said that the Red Deer Commission did not consult the bodies which were its parents before sponsoring this Bill or suggesting that a Bill should be introduced on these lines. I think my noble friend was being slightly unfair about this, because the Red Deer Commission has representatives of all these bodies on it, and I should have thought that on matters such as this the Commission could presume that the representatives were speaking for their sponsors. If this were not the case, it would seem to me to raise very great difficulties about ever trying to get any
314
agreed legislation in this country; so I think that point was a little unfair. My noble friend also brought forward the point that when you kill a milk hind it is considered best to kill the calf with it, as otherwise the calf may die of starvation, and if it is a stag calf you could be transgressing against the law. I was very taken by this point, and I will try to come to some agreement about an Amendment on these lines to be inserted in the Bill—even at the risk of increasing the size of the Bill from four pages to eight. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, very much for their support and the compliments paid over this Bill. I find it most encouraging that they, at any rate, and those noble Lords behind them, did not appear to want to add a great deal to the Bill.
The main point which was raised by several speakers was the question of the sale of venison out of season. This seems to me a difficult point. I fully appreciate what is worrying the noble Lords who raised it, but I honestly do not think that this is the Bill with which to deal with the problem. As my noble friend Lord Burton said, in order to license game dealers we should have to amend the 1831 Act. To get deer classed fully as game, would presumably mean some Amendment to the 1860 Act, and I should have thought that to ban the sale of out-of-season stag carcases would come more appropriately under Food and Drugs legislation, or even in the Protection of Consumers Bill—if we ever see that measure again. It seems to me that you might be selling venison under false pretences if you sold stag venison out of season; and when people came to eat it, I am convinced that they would think they had been sold venison under false pretences. I hope, therefore, that my noble friends will desist in their efforts to add something on these lines to the Bill during the Committee stage.
My Lords, I am going to try to allow an extra long time between now and the Committee stage, so that the various interested parties can get together to sec whether they can agree on any other Amendments which might be incorporated in a strictly non-controversial Bill. I am delighted to hear that the Chairman of the Red Deer Commission is going to convene a meeting for the

315
purposes of discussing this matter. That is an excellent idea, but I feel that I should utter a note of warning now. Knowing how busy another place is, I think that, to have any hope of getting this Bill through, we must allow them three or four months, so that there is some chance of slipping in the Bill somewhere under the Ten Minute Rule. It is essential, therefore, that this Bill should leave your Lordships' House by Easter, and in these circumstances I feel that it would be impracticable to delay the
316
Committee stage later than the beginning of March. So any discussions which are to take place must, in my opinion, take place within the next six weeks. I hope, my Lords, that I have covered all the points which have been raised and that you will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eight o'clock.