Sitting of 4 April 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

    INCOME TAX
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Shipping and Air Transport Profits) (Brazil) Order 1968 be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

    INCOME TAX
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Virgin Islands) Order 1968 be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

    INCOME TAX
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Falkland Islands) Order 1968 be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

    INCOME TAX
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (British Solomon Islands Protectorate) Order 1968 be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

    INCOME TAX
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (British Honduras) Order 1968 be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

    INCOME TAX
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Montserrat) Order 1968 be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 23rd April.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

    South-East Regional Economic Planning Council
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he expects to announce his decisions on the report and study for the South-East Economic Planning Council.
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what decisions he has now made on the proposals of the South-East Regional Council in the light

    581
    of the Government's economic measures outlined in the budget.
    The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 20th March.—Vol. 761, c 111–113.]
    Mr. Costain: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, in the seaside areas, where there is a fall off in employment, we need a policy? What do the Government propose to do about industrial development certificates? Cannot he make a statement so that we may get the economy going again?
    Mr. Shore: We have yet to give our response to the Report of the South-East Regional Economic Planning Council but hope to be able to do so before very long.
    Mr. Ridsdale: May I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has said? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the South-East Study is vitiating ha rd against some seaside areas?
    Mr. Shore: The Study drew attention to some of the problems of these areas. The Ministers concerned will be considering it further when we come to reply to the Economic Planning Council's strategy.

    National Plan
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he now intends publishing the Government's proposed national plan; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Howellasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, what effect the recent Budget proposals will have on the National Plan.
    Mr. Hordernasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he will publish a new national plan.
    Mr. Shore: We aim to publish a substantial planning document in the autumn describing the economic and industrial prospects over the next four to five years. This could serve as a basis for further planning work next year. It will take account of all the relevant factors including those referred to by the hon.
    582
    Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell).
    Mr. Costain: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the stationery bill has gone up by £6·5 million this year? Is not publication of these plans, which never seem to work, a further waste of money? Would it not be better to abolish the whole idea?
    Mr. Shore: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's view is shared by those engaged in planning and certainly not by the N.E.D.C., or by the large number of firms anxious that the Government should carry on their planning work.
    Mr. Howell: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that this time the new national plan is put together more intelligently than the last one? Will not he concede that the last National Plan had certain weaknesses, particularly its failure to take account of that most obvious contingency, the balance of payments crisis?
    Mr. Shore: This document will make the best possible use of the available information, but I need hardly remind the House that one of the problems with the 1965 Plan was the great shortage of statistical material available to the planners and forecasters.
    Sir R. Cary: What happened to the first National Plan? Has it been pulped?
    Mr. Shore: The forecasts and assumptions on which it was based were invalidated by events in 1966.
    Mr. George Jeger: While appreciating that there is no shortage of planning, particularly with regard to Humberside and South Yorkshire, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that what we require there is a little less planning and a little more action?
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend will know that we have already given our response to the very excellent report on preliminary strategy produced by the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will publish the preliminary paper on the economy since devaluation prepared in

    583
    connection with the new planning exercise for the second national plan.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Edmund Dell): No, Sir.
    Mr. Marten: If the Ministry will not publish this report, could the hon. Gentleman tell us the estimated growth of the gross national product over the six years 1964–70? Is it the 15½ per cent. we have been led to believe, or the full 25 per cent. proposed in the National Plan?
    Mr. Dell: As the hon. Gentleman has just heard, my right hon. Friend expects to publish a substantial planning document in the autumn. I hope that it will go some way to meeting the hon. Gentleman's requirements. Meanwhile, a very informative Financial Statement has been published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Higgins: Will the paper give any indication of how the forecasts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year totally differ from the forecasts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year? Will it analyse how Government economic policy has completely broken down?
    Mr. Dell: I cannot accept that. This Government have gone a great deal further in publishing economic forecasts than was ever done in the past.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: When the Minister devises the second national plan, would he make it clear, which was not made clear in the first National Plan, whether it is a forecast or a target, because it cannot be both?
    Mr. Dell: Obviously the plan will have elements of a forecast and a target in it. After all, the Government, in publishing this planning document, are responding to a great deal of pressure placed on them by industry as well as to their own need for a basis for their own public expenditure proposals.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how many people are engaged upon studies for a new national plan.
    Mr. Dell: No Government servant is engaged solely on work of this kind, which enters into the work of all those
    584
    concerned with economic policy and forecasting.
    Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman consider referring this activity to the National Board for Prices and Incomes to see whether it thinks we are getting value for money with all this national planning?
    Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman is clearly completely out of touch with the needs expressed by industry of this country for Government planning, and also equally out of touch with the Government's own requirement to make a basis for public expenditure which his party continually insists we should keep under control.

    South-West Economic Planning Council
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will appoint a member on the South-West Economic Planning Council to represent the agricultural industry and the family farmer.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Alan Williams): My right hon. Friend announced on 1st April the names of the members of the South-West Council who he has appointed for a further period.
    Mr. Mills: But the failure to appoint someone who knows about the problems of agriculture in the South-West is an insult to the farming community in the South-West. Would the hon. Gentleman think again and appoint someone who really understands the problems of agriculture in the South-West?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Member will appreciate that there are on the Council two members of local authorities, one trade unionist and one independent member, all of whom have close links with the agricultural industry.

    South-West
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he has taken to deal with the economic problems of the South-West as expressed in the Tress Report.
    Mr. Deanasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what immediate plans he has to deal with the

    585
    economic problems of the South-West as expressed in the Tress Report.
    Mr. Nottasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what immediate plans he has to deal with the grey areas of the South-West as expressed in the Tress Report.
    Mr. Shore: The Government's response to the economic problems of the South-West are fully set out in their reply to the report of the South-West Economic Planning Council. The Government will be able to give further consideration to the needs of the region in the context of the findings of the Hunt Committee, whose report is expected in the autumn.
    Mr. Mills: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we in the South-West are just not prepared to accept the situation which he has brought about? We want action. Will he look it this matter again and ensure that we have something positive in the near future?
    Mr. Shore: I think that we have given a positive response to the Tress Report. In particular, we have accepted the crucial importance of the spine road, which is the central part of the Tress Report's strategy.
    Mr. Dean: What comment has the right hon. Gentleman to make on the undoubted fact that the 50 per cent. increase in Selective Employment Tax will enormously increase the economic problems of the South-West?
    Mr. Shore: That is a different Question, but the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we were considering the remission of Selective Employment Tax to hotels in the rural parts of development areas could have some promise for parts of the South-West.
    Mr. Nott: Would the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to a report which might be prepared on the Hunt Report, which is due in the autumn, which is reporting on the Report of the Tress Committee, which has now reported, because we should like to know that eventually these Reports, which we have been reading and studying for many years, will lead to some action by some body?
    Mr. Shore: The document to which the hon. Gentleman refers is, I think, the evidence which has been submitted by the South-West Regional Council to the Hunt Committee. This evidence was prepared probably only in the last few weeks, and it will be considered by the Hunt Committee which, I gather, is to visit the area soon.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: I assure my right hon. Friend that there is bound to be disappointment in the South-West at the Government's response to the Economic Planning Council's Report. I welcome his assurance that he will give further consideration to those parts of the Report related to the Hunt Committee's finding. Would he go a little further and assure the House that he will give further consideration to other parts of the Report which appear to have been rejected out of hand?
    Mr. Shore: Regional planning, and particularly long-term regional planning, of the kind which the regional councils are doing does not lead to total acceptance or refusal at a particular point of time. There is a continuing exchange of views between the councils and the Government.
    Mr. Deanasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what studies he has made into the significance of road communications for the economy of the South-West.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Regional economic planning implications are taken into account in the consideration of road programmes for the South-West, as for other regions. The Government's decision to give high priority to the provision of the spine road reflects recognition of the key rôle of this route for the future development of the region.
    Mr. Dean: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Government's refusal to give a definite date for the No. 1 priority in the Tress Report has caused widespread disappointment in the South-West?
    Mr. Williams: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that this matter must be seen in the context of the full 1970 programme which has yet to be announced. Surely he equally welcomes the fact that this has now been put into the preparation pool.
    Dr. Dunwoody: I welcome the assurance that the spine road concept is accepted, but does not my hon. Friend think it a little disappointing that the part of the spine road proposed in the development area was not accepted in the Government's reply? Would not he agree that road communications become more and more important the further away parts of the country are from the centres of population?
    Mr. Williams: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. But the Council, in its Press statement, recognised that the programme announced by the Government was all that could be expected within the time span up to the mid-1970s. In addition to the spine road, we have agreed on five bypasses in the Cornwall area.
    Mr. Nottasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he expects to receive the Report of the Exeter University research study, commissioned by his Department, of tourism in the South-West.
    Mr. Alan Williams: By early summer, 1969.
    Mr. Nott: While the South-West is glad to know that this Report will be available in the summer of 1969, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that we already have at least 10 reports on the tourist industry in the South-West? Would it not be rather more simple and quicker to abolish S.E.T. for the tourist industry straight away, and save all these reports'?
    Mr. Williams: The value of the reports is shown in the fact that we have had modifications of S.E.T., and investment grants have been introduced for hotels.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Trade said the other day that there would be no provision made in the Estimates for the year 1968–69 for any additional help to the hotel industry except the modification of S.E.T., about which we await to hear?
    Mr. Williams: I can only repeat that the information, as I understand it, is that there are to be investment grants for hotels differentiating between development areas and non-development areas.

    North-East Coast
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the economic progress of the North-East Coast since 12th March.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): Regional development is a continuing, long-term process, and it is difficult to gauge progress on the basis of a four-weeks period taken in isolation. What can be said is that on Tyneside and in the region as a whole unemployment is falling while the number of jobs vacancies continues to rise.
    Dame Irene Ward: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the way in which the investments grants are dealt with in our region is to the detriment of large-scale industry being attracted there and to the industries already there? Will he fight the Chancellor of the Exchequer until he comes out on top?
    Mr. Lee: It would be interesting to know the basis of the hon. Lady's analysis. My knowledge of what is going on in the region is entirely to the contrary. These grants, plus the regional employment premium, plus £5 million in Selective Employment Tax, are a great advantage to the region.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that before he took up his present appointment, and in days of Conservative Government, we were told that we did not know how to plan? Now the Labour Government are reverting to our development district principle, which was always right.
    Mr. Lee: The Conservatives showed us how not to plan. The analysis which I have made, showing increases in job vacancies and falling unemployment, rather shows that we are a bit better at it than they were.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will arrange for Ministers of departments who are responsible for implementing the recommendations of the Council to receive a deputation from Members of Parliament whose constituencies fall within the boundaries of the Economic Planning Council,

    589
    with a view to improving the economic progress of the region.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: There have been a number of recent opportunities for M.P.s from the region to make their views known, for example, the debate on the Northern Economic Planning Region on 8th March, in which the hon. Lady took part. Although there does not seem to be a case for the meeting proposed, I am always prepared to discuss with hon. Members any further points they have to make on the recommendations.
    Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem able to ensure that public investment in the North-East is comparable to that in Scotland and Wales, is he aware that I should like to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer face to face so that I can tell him what I think about this?
    Mr. Lee: As I pointed out in the debate to which I have referred, public investment is rising pretty rapidly in the North. While, as yet, it is not the size of that in Scotland, I believe that we are now on a rising curve which is showing results.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour hon. Members have had no difficulty in seeing Ministers and have always been satisfied? Is he further aware that the trouble with the hon. Lady is that she has been frustrated ever since she entered this House?
    Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend may be a better authority on that than I. I prefer not to venture into it.

    Prices and Incomes Policy
    Mr. David Howellasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether, in view of the increase in average weekly wage rates in the 18 months July, 1966 to January, 1968 of 8·1 per cent. as against 7·4 per cent. for the 18 months before that he now proposes to proceed with a policy to direct restraint on wage rates as the main weapon against inflation.
    Mr. Shore: The Government's economic strategy was set out in the Budget statement. The Government have now published a White Paper in which the purposes of the policy for productivity, prices and incomes are explained.
    Mr. Howell: Is the Minister aware that these figures show, at best, that the Government's present statutory policy will be useless and, at worst, will bring legislation into disrepute? Is it worth all the cost and bother and agony to his hon. Friends to make this kind of policy the centre of his economic planning?
    Mr. Shore: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". The answer to the first part is that he is misinterpreting the figures here. It is true that incomes rose very sharply during the first 18-month period and rose almost as much again during the second 18-month period. However, during the second 18 months, a good deal of the increase was a carry-over from the pipeline increases that were there in July, 1966.
    Mr. Rose: Will my right hon. Friend consider the probability that, in spite of the economic justification for wage restraint, the dissension and strife which will be caused in industry may well outweigh any advantage derived from it?
    Mr. Shore: This is a very serious matter which we have considered most carefully. Against that, we have had to consider the very great dangers to the British economy which would follow from a failure of incomes policy during the coming 18 months.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Secretary of State has referred to the White Paper. Is he aware that, when both his predecessors produced White Papers on these matters, they made statements to the House and faced full questioning on them? Why did he run away from the House yesterday?
    Mr. Shore: First of all, I made a long speech during the Budget debate, which very closely foreshadowed the White Paper. Secondly, I was aware of the fact that I should be answering Questions on incomes policy today.
    Sir G. Nabarro: But is the Minister not aware of the fact that in his own White Paper he puts a maximum increase on incomes of 3½ per cent. during the coming year and in ensuing years, whereas manifestly the cost of living increases in this year will be two or three times that amount? Would he not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for

    591
    Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) now that there will be grave industrial unrest as a result of his policy?
    Mr. Shore: It is perfectly clear and has been to everyone that, during the first year following devaluation, 1968, prices would rise more than incomes. That is part of the penalty to be paid for devaluation. But it must be balanced against the very great advantages to the future of the British economy that devaluation will bring.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's determination to restrict wages makes the workers more than ever determined to go forward for increases of wages? Would he not look again at the problem of productivity as a possible means of achieving the desired objective, rather than restricting wages?
    Mr. Shore: The second part of my hon. Friend's question is the important one, when he turns to productivity. While it is true that the 3½ per cent. ceiling is meant to be a ceiling, there is a hole for genuine productivity bargains, and that policy will be applied.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that the long speech to which he has referred was made when no questions could be asked or answered? Was his failure to make a statement yesterday on the White Paper due to his belief that it was too trivial or too unpopular?
    Mr. Shore: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the report of my speech in HANSARD, he will see that I gave way at least 10 times.
    Mr. Dickens: Will not my right hon. Friend agree, firstly, that we need no advice from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite about freezing wages, because they would freeze wages by creating large-scale unemployment? Secondly, can he now say whether the Government will continue their consultations with the T.U.C. along the lines of the rather more rapid economic growth foreshadowed in the T.U.C.'s recent economic review?
    Mr. Shore: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are prepared to consider with the T.U.C. and with industry all
    592
    measures which will lead to a more rapid rate of growth. That is what the planning consultations that we are having and have had with them are about. As to the first part of his remarks, my hon. Friend is quite right. The alternative being urged upon us from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is the simple one of large-scale unemployment and deflation.

    Sunderland and Wearside
    Mr. Wileyasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the action he has taken pursuant to the visit of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to Sunderland.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: Action has been taken on all the points raised. The most important point was that of the Pennywell site, and as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade announced on 22nd February, the Board of Trade has entered into negotiation to acquire the site.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what recommendations the Northern Economic Planning Council has made to improve the prospects of employment in the Sunderland and Wearside area.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: The Northern Economic Planning Council has made no specific recommendation about Sunderland and Wearside. The Council is, however, concerned at the high level of unemployment in this area and supports the Government's efforts to bring new industries to Wearside and to encourage the formation of a shipbuilding group on the Wear.
    Mr. Willey: While appreciating what my right hon. Friend has done, may I ask whether he realises that these Answers are not really satisfactory and that what we want is to have prompt and concerted action about the problems of Sunderland? Above everything else, we want a more ambitious provision of employment.
    Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir. That is why I mentioned the Pennywell Estate, which will add considerably to the amount of industrial land available. In addition, I know that my right hon. Friend will rejoice, as I did when I heard on Monday,

    593
    about the £10 million of orders which have now been placed on the Wear with shipbuilders there.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: Has the right hon. Gentleman been advised by the Economic Planning Council of the detrimental effect on employment on Wearside of the Government's decision not to take up the South African arms order?
    Mr. Lee: No, Sir. I have not been informed of that.

    Economic Planning Councils (Recommendations)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to facilitate appeals by economic development councils in event of disagreement between them and himself on the recommendations of such councils.
    Mr. Alan Williams: No, Sir.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that these development councils are Ministerial creatures of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he appoints them? As the majority of them now are making recommendations which are totally contrary to Ministerial policy, who is to arbitrate in the matter, or is the Minister finally arrogating to himself the position or an economic gauleiter without any regard to the recommendations of his Midlands Council?
    Mr. Williams: I assume that the hon. Gentleman means economic planning councils, not development councils. He should bear in mind that there is no such body as the one to which he refers in his Question. These are advisory bodies, and the Government, in the last resort, have to make decisions in the light of the interests of the whole country, not just the self-interest of individual localities, which is what the hon. Gentleman is pursuing.
    Sir G. Nabarro: In view of that very unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Wages
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs by what percentage wages have risen since the sign
    594
    ing of the Declaration of Intent on prices and incomes; and by how much it was estimated they would rise, during the same period, before the declaration was signed.
    Mr. Shore—
    Hon. Members: Hurry up.
    Mr. Shore: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, to the House, and to the hon. Member, for the delay.
    From December, 1964, until February, 1968, the Ministry of Labour weekly wage rate index rose by 17·3 per cent., and the hourly wage rate index—which reflects changes in the standard working week—rose by 21·4 per cent.
    No estimate of wage movements covering this period was made at the time of the Declaration of Intent.
    Mr. Ridley: I thought that the Government believed in planning. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he brought in the Declaration of Intent without having made any plans for the growth of incomes during the next three years?
    Mr. Shore: I did not bring in the Declaration of Intent, but I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was the first step in the evolution of a prices and incomes policy, and that it was what its title suggests, a declaration of intent.
    Mr. Dickens: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in money wages in Britain since 1964 has been one of the lowest in any West European country? Would he also confirm that the rate of increase in unearned incomes in this country since 1961 has been among the highest?
    Mr. Shore: I am not sure about the answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question about unearned incomes, but if he puts down a Question I shall try to deal with it. As regards increases in earnings, I think that the increase in Britain during this period is not out of line with increases in incomes in comparable European countries. Where we have fallen behind is in the increase in output which should go with it.
    Mr. Higgins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he takes that long to find Answers to Questions we shall need

    595
    injury time added on? Can he say why the original object of the Government's policy, which was to keep incomes in line with increases in real output, has been changed to merely keeping increases in incomes at a somewhat slower rate than the increase in the cost of living, which is what the White Paper now does?
    Mr. Shore: I do not accept that there has been the change suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

    Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy
    Mr. Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy for prices, incomes and productivity.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: On a point of order. In view of the great importance of this Question, and so that we may have more than the minute or two that we will otherwise have, I wonder whether the Minister will agree to answer this Question at the end of Question Time?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister.
    Mr. Shore: I think that we have substantial time in which to deal with this Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Windy."] It is for Mr. Speaker to decide how long he wishes this Question to go on, but we have at least 10 minutes in which to deal with it, and I start by saying that the White Paper on Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy in 1968 and 1969 was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) knows, published yesterday.
    Mr. Biffen: On a point of order. As I am particularly anxious to reach Question No. 24, and do not want 10 minutes spent on this Question, may I ask whether it is true that I can terminate answers to this Question by merely saying that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply?
    Mr. Speaker: That is so.
    Mr. Barnett: Does not my right hon. Friend think that he may avoid considerable industrial disruption if he concen
    596
    trates on the basic voluntary part of the statement in paragraph 11? In this way he will use his compulsory powers only in the last resort, indeed if at all.
    Mr. Shore: I am clear, as are the Government, that there has to be a tremendous reliance on voluntary cooperation if this policy is to work. We look on these powers which we foreshadow in the White Paper as being the buttress to what is still essentially a voluntary policy.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he proposes to keep the net result of wage negotiations at four separate levels, as indicated in the White Paper, within one ceiling?
    Mr. Shore: This is basically a problem for those who are concerned with direct negotiations, but I have no doubt that this will prove practicable.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an ill-thought-out piece of work, with very confused ideas indeed? As this is bound to lead to industrial antagonism among trade unions and workers, I appeal to my right hon. Friend—and I mean genuinely appeal—to take this back and drop the whole concept of a policy of compulsory wage legislation.
    Mr. Shore: I always listen with great care to my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I cannot give him the assurance for which he asks. There are problems in a policy of this kind, but I think that he is exaggerating the difficulties we will encounter.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his White Paper he is trying to restrict all incomes to a certain level, including individual incomes, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under the close company regulations issued under the 1965 Finance Act, is at this time instructing the Inland Revenue that close company directors must take more income during this year and next, whether they like it or not?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has pointed to a well-known contradiction in policy. It has existed ever since 1945. The reason why my right hon. Friend wants close companies to distribute more of their profits is so that he can tax

    597
    them all the more, whereas they would avoid taxation if they simply ploughed back profits.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: As the White Paper allows for increases above the 3½ per cent. norm if there is an increase in production and output, may we take it that if professional agitators cause more strikes, and foster more strikes, they will be entitled to claim increases for this work?
    Mr. Shore: That is rather difficult to foresee, but no doubt if a serious claim were made on behalf of agitators for pay increases above 3½ per cent. I would have to refer it to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government's disasters of the past three years have been caused, not by soaring wages, but by stagnating production, and also by soaring Government expenditure, is not the effect of the White Paper going to be that when the whole policy explodes it will destroy confidence at home and abroad, quite unnecessarily?
    Mr. Shore: The lesson is clear that the main emphasis of policy must be to get productivity up in this country. The difficulty here, and the reason why the short-term need is so great, is that we cannot get a sustainable substantial increase in productivity year by year over the next 18 months. We can get some increase, but we cannot get an increase of the order that will make it unnecessary to have an incomes and prices policy.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is it not the ca e that the 3½ per cent. ceiling is by no means rigid, and that the Budget proposals provided for the contingency of an increase of more than that figure?
    Mr. Shore: As my hon. Friend points out, there is an upper case forecast for the increase in production this year. But the policy, as he says, is not a rigid one. In so far as increases in income can be genuinely attributed to increases in productivity, then, of course, they can go through the ceiling. I think that this is a very important and constructive element in the new policy.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is the appealing complexity of this mass of statutory and non-statutory legislation which will in fact militate directly against that which he has just said is his primary aim—to increase productivity and get expansion going? Does he not realise that he would do much better by listening to many of his hon. Friends, and hon. Members on this side, and scrapping this statutory policy?
    Mr. Shore: I have not heard much wisdom from the other side of the House, though I have heard some interesting suggestions from behind me. Incomes policy and prices policy are complex matters and they remain complex whether one is relying wholly on a voluntary system or on a voluntary system buttressed by statutory powers.
    Mr. Victor Yates: Are the proposals outlined in this White Paper regarded by the Government as a permanent feature of our national life? If not, why is my right hon. Friend seeking powers to renew them at the end of 18 months.
    Mr. Shore: The White Paper makes it clear that we are seeking powers for the next 18 months, which is the crucial period, during which we expect to get this massive switch of resources into the balance of payments. We also say in the White Paper that we are leaving open, and leaving ourselves with, the possibility of renewing all or some of the powers at the end of that 18 months. This, of course, indicates the obvious fact that one cannot be absolutely certain of the time scale at the end of which we shall have achieved this victory in the balance of payments which we are seeking.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that his predecessor told the House that the previous legislation was for one year and that that was the critical period? Those promises have been broken; why should we believe him?
    Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, in the intervening period, we have had to face this great problem of devaluation of the £—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] This is not the occasion to go into all the causes of that, but, if we did, a lot would be said about the handling of the British economy by right hon.

    599
    Gentlemen opposite. I do not know of any independent or serious observer of the British scene who denies that, in this year, after devaluation, we need a prices and incomes policy—and I think that, in their hearts, hon. Gentlemen opposite know it too.
    Mr. Sheldon—
    Mr. Biffen: On a point of order. In order to terminate these unfair Parliamentary blood sports against the Secretary of State, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment, in view of that unsatisfactory Answer.

    North-West Economic Planning Council
    Mr. Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of the North-West Economic Planning Council.
    Mr. Alan Williams: During the past three years the North-West Economic Planning Council has made considerable progress towards evolving a planning strategy for the economic and physical development of the region. It will shortly be publishing its next report entitled "North-West Strategy II". In addition, the Government have sought and received the Council's advise on a wide range of questions relevant to regional planning.
    Mr. Barnett: But is not the position of the Council impossible while there are three or four Ministries and dozens of councils with executive powers? Therefore, pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government, should we not have a Minister for the region with specific executive powers under one particular Ministry, rather than a series of Ministries, as we have at present?
    Mr. Williams: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the planning councils are backed by a planning board, which has just this function: it is a single body bringing together the various Departments concerned with the problems of the regions.

    South-East England
    Mr. Bostonasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement about the composition
    600
    and programme of the body set up by his Department on 20th March, 1968, to coordinate the planning strategy for South-East England.
    Mr. Shore: The composition of the commissioning body for the proposed technical study is set out in my announcement of 20th March.—[Vol. 761, c. 111–113.] Its task will be to reach agreement on the broad scope of the work and the machinery for carrying it out. My hon. Friend will be holding the first meeting shortly.
    Mr. Boston: When is it likely that the proposals arising from this investigation will start to be acted upon? Would my right hon. Friend agree that this body must be involved in some way in the general inquiry into the site of the third London Airport? In that case, how will it be so involved?
    Mr. Shore: There will, of course, be continuing and close liaison between the inquiry into the third London Airport and the body which will be carrying out this further development of the regional strategy for the South-East.

  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to give the date proposed for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir. Confidential consultations between Commonwealth Governments are still in progress.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: But how have the conversations with Australia and New Zealand about our withdrawal from east of Suez been going? Is it not now urgent that there should be a Commonwealth Conference, since both Commonwealth and foreign countries are being lumped together to be treated by the same Government Department?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman obviously does not understand the facts in this matter. Since we—I mean the Commonwealth Prime Ministers—appointed a Commonwealth Secretary-General, the soundings about the timing, place and agenda of

  601
  a conference are in his hands and not in the hands of the Prime Minister of Britain or of any other Prime Minister. Those soundings are now going on. As to the other question, talks have been held with Australia and New Zealand over a period in December and during this year—most recently, in connection with the S.E.A.T.O. conference—and they have gone very amicably.
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I recently suggested a Ministerial conference of Commonwealth countries about the problems of citizenship and migration. If he thinks that a full Commonwealth Conference is now likely, can he, either personally or through the Commonwealth Secretariat, institute detailed expert consultations about this subject, rather in the same way as was done in 1947, which led to the British Nationality Act, 1948, and the Commonwealth citizenship legislation which followed?
  The Prime Minister: That is a helpful suggestion, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so. So far as the Asian and other Commonwealth migration and nationality problems are concerned, as I have said on previous occasions, it is inconceivable that Commonwealth Prime Ministers would meet without this being on the agenda. But I agree that preliminary soundings and consultations to get it all set up for an efficient conference are absolutely right.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Hooleyasked the Prime Minister if he will seek a meeting with the President of Portugal to discuss the situation in Rhodesia in so far as it relates to the obligations of the United Kingdom and Portugal under the United Nations Charter.
  The Prime Minister: I do not feel this to be necessary, Sir.
  Mr. Hooley: Is it not an absurd situation that our so-called ally in N.A.T.O. and our so-called economic partner in E.F.T.A. should be pursuing a policy deliberately calculated to undermine the Government's policy over Rhodesia? What pressures is my right hon. Friend prepared to bring to bear on Portugal to bring it into line?
  The Prime Minister: I referred to this in the debate on Rhodesia recently, and I do not think that a bilateral meeting would be helpful at this time. As I said in that speech—my hon. Friend will be aware of this, of course—these are matters currently under discussion at the Security Council of the United Nations. I am sure that, in the course of those discussions, Portugal will realise how desirable it is for her not to get out of line with her principal allies or with the vast majority of countries represented at the United Nations.
  Mr. Hastings: When will the right hon. Gentleman respond to the offer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) to do everything he can to get negotiations going again?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, of course, did everything he could on his recent visit to Rhodesia, and I gave the Government's appreciation, after very careful study, of what he brought home. Also, of course, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, since the visit of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), whatever hopes might have been raised, the whole thing was entirely changed by the flouting of the rule of law by the very people with whom he had been dealing.
  Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend asked when the Government proposed to do something about it.
  The Prime Minister: That seems more a statement than a question. The answer was given by us last week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and I said that we are not prepared to deal on a basis of trust—which is implied, whatever the letter of the agreement—with people who reject and flout the rule of law. When those with whom we can deal have broken with racialism, we shall have a chance of getting a satisfactory settlement.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CENTRAL ADVISORY COUNCIL)
  Mr. Lubbockasked the Prime Minister on how many occasions the Central Advisory Council for Science and

  603
  Technology has met since the announcement of its establishment on 17th November 1966; what matters the Committee has considered; and when a report on the work of the Committee will be published.
  The Prime Minister: Since I announced the membership and terms of reference of the Central Advisory Council for Science and Technology on 17th January, 1967, the Council has met 13 times. A great deal of the advice given by the Council to the Government is confidential; but reports on its work, where appropriate, will be published from time to time.
  Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, when the Advisory Council which reports to the Secretary of State for Education and Science publishes reports which are extremely informative and which are available to the House and the public generally, this Council, which advises the Minister of Technology, does not divulge one iota of its activities to the public?
  The Prime Minister: This Council is the highest committee of all in this sphere, covering both science and technology. It must, to do its job properly, have highly secret information. However, it intends to publish what can be published and I understand it has already approved a draft outline of its work for 1967–68. I hope, therefore, that a report will be available for publication before long; but it will not cover all of its work, for the reasons I have stated.

  PRIVATE COMPANIES (FINANCIAL AID)
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will give a direction that all Government Departments should only advance financial help to private companies, in return for an equity for the public in any potential profits.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answer given on 21st November, 1967, by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to a similar Question by my hon. Friend.—[Vol. 754, c. 1110.]
  Mr. Whitaker: If the public risk heavy capital losses on projects such as the
  604
  Cunarder and Concorde, is it not fair that they should be given an equal stake in any possible profits from and directorships in the companies concerned?
  The Prime Minister: These matters must always be considered on their merits in relation to any particular case. It might have been considered appropriate in the case of the help given to the Cunarder, but I assure my hon. Friend that after the great care taken by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was dealing with these matters, there is no risk whatever of capital losses being made by the Government on the Cunarder project.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since the State already takes about 75 per cent. of the profits of the average company in this country, how far does the right hon. Gentleman think that this limit can be further pushed without it totally destroying the allocative system on which private enterprise economy depends?
  The Prime Minister: Questions of a budgetary nature were debated at length in the four or five days which were spent debating the Budget last month. My hon. Friend's Question deals with the point of where risk money is put up by the Government to help highly desirable enterprises by private firms. My hon. Friend is, I think, making the point that in appropriate cases the Government should not only share in the risk but should also share in the profits. We will do that where it is appropriate so to do, but we cannot have a hard and fast line in all cases.
  Sir R. Cary: Where a particular industry or business achieves an increasing level of productivity, would it not be most unfair to impose any such direction on that industry or business as mentioned in the Question?
  The Prime Minister: The Question deals with cases where, for one reason or another, financial help has been given by the Government very often in the highest national interest; for example, to allow some important national venture to go forward. If productivity results from that, then there could be discussions on how the gains from that project should be shared, but, as I said, I believe that each case must be considered on its merits.
  Mr. John Lee: If we are to continue with this policy of ladling out large quantities of taxpayers' money to private industry, will my right hon. Friend at least ensure that we take a controlling interest in the projects which we support?
  The Prime Minister: That is exactly the position that is being dealt with in the discussion on the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, in addition to the discussions on the Industrial Expansion Bill which got its Third Reading lastnight—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—which was read a Third time either last night or early this morning.
  An hon. Member: Where were you?
  The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition and I were on other important work, as was the Leader of the Liberal Party. Now that that vote has been secured—[Interruption.]—by whatever majority, hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have done their political demonstration, will realise the value that this will have. They opposed the I.R.C. Measure, bit they will be the first to pay tribute to what the I.R.C. has achieved.

  VIETNAM
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Prime Minister what are the results of his latest efforts to achieve a settlement of the war it Vietnam.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware of the latest developments in this situation, the statement issued on behalf of Her Majesty's Government yesterday and my own statement last night.
  Mr. Whitaker: While every hon. Member will welcome yesterday's news, may I ask my right hon. Friend to indicate whether in the past the Russians have told him of any pre-conditions on the terms of which they would be willing to reconvene the Geneva Conference?
  The Prime Minister: The position is that the two co-Chairmen and their Governments stand ready to help in any way they can, whether it be in reconvening the Geneva Conference or any variant of it, or in any other way in which we can help the parties to reach a settlement once the parties have agreed that negotiations should begin. That is, I think, the
  606
  position of both of us. We have felt that it might be right to take the initiative at various times, but our Russian co-Chairman has not agreed. Nevertheless, I am sure that we both stand ready to give all the help that we can.
  Mr. Heath: As the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) said, the whole House welcomes the fact that there should have been this reaction from Hanoi to President Johnson's initiative. While recognising that this is a first step, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say if he will discuss with the other co-Chairman the possibility of broadening out the basis of discussion so that we may get discussions going rather further than just on the bombing?
  The Prime Minister: I have been in close touch with the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union—indeed, I have been in almost continuous touch—since my visit to Moscow in January. The different posititons of the two Governments are understood. But both of us have a responsibility, from our different standpoints, in trying to bring our respective friends and allies together to get a settlement. At this moment of time and, of course, with the improved hopes—it is obvious that no one must build too much at this stage—resulting from the response to the dramatic and historic declaration made by the President of the United States on Sunday, we must see first what emerges there; but, as I said, we stand ready to further the solution to the still very difficult problem of agreeing on the content of an agreement.
  Mr. Philip Noel-BakerWould my right hon. Friend agree that it would be most desirable, if possible, to have the Geneva Conference reconvened in order that China may be there, since no settlement in South-East Asia can be lasting unless China agrees with it?
  The Prime Minister: There is not exactly universal agreement that China would necessarily make the most constructive of contributions to a settlement. I agree that it is one possibility that there should be a reconvening of the original Geneva Agreement. Others have been suggested. There is the importance of the position of the International Control Commission countries, and there may be other ways of dealing with this. But obviously we must keep our minds very wide open

  607
  in this matter and keep in close touch, as we are doing, with our fellow co-Chairman, as well as with the United States.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman in close touch, and, if so, is he keeping in close touch, with the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am in continuing touch with them and with other Commonwealth countries, because many of them have a vital interest in, are vitally concerned with and have strong opinions on this matter. We are in close touch with all of them, but at this moment I thing that it would be better for us to see the response to the initiative of the President of the United States and the response to the proposals made by Hanoi yesterday.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Winnick. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  Mr. Winnick: I am always pleased to get support. So that the talks between Hanoi and the United States can be as fruitful and constructive as possible, would my right hon. Friend be willing at least to urge on the United States that the bombing of North Vietnam should be stopped completely? Would he further agree that perhaps the biggest stumbling block to the securing of a lasting peace in Vietnam could be the very unrepresentative Government in South Vietnam?
  The Prime Minister: I know the keen desire of my hon. Friend to see a settlement here. I am sure that the right way to achieve it—if my hon. Friend would be content to do this—is that it should now be left to the parties concerned, and to the co-Chairmen if they can provide any valuable help at the request of the two parties. I do not think that it is possible for us to agree on any particular plan and try to impose it on the parties, so that my hon. Friend's proposals are interesting but are not immediately relevant.

  EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COLLABORATION
  Mr. Moormanasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress in co-ordinating the work of
  608
  those Departments he charged with the task of preparing the British case for European scientific and technological collaboration.
  The Prime Minister: It is not the practice to make public details of the Government's internal machinery for the co-ordination of policy, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the arrangements in this field, as in others, are working satisfactorily.
  Mr. Moorman: While I appreciate the difficulties involved in making available the evidence of the Inter-departmental Committee, may I remind my right hon. Friend that if we are to retain the credibility and interest of the British case on European science and technology, we should make a statement soon on what we have been doing?
  The Prime Minister: We have done so from time to time and, of course, there was the speech of the Minister of Technology when he visited Strasbourg a few weeks ago. We are now considering what the next proposition should be, particularly in relation to the European Institute of Technology or the European Technological Centre, and I think that my hon. Friend would probably want us to have further discussions with our friends in Europe before we say too much in public.
  Mr. Crouch: Would not the Prime Minister agree that our opportunities for scientific and technological co-operation with the Economic Community would be increased if we took some interim step towards some association with the Economic Community and gave an earnest of our intention to join the Community in such a way?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member means by that Article 238, I have frequently given reasons why I do not think that would be the right answer. In the Benelux proposals which involve contact between us and the Six in advance of negotiation, there is ample opportunity for technological co-operation between us and the Six as a whole.
  Dr. David Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are slightly concerned at the lack of enthusiasm the Government are showing for the proposal for a European laboratory to

  609
  specialise in molecular biology, and will he look at this closely?
  The Prime Minister: There is not so much lack of enthusiasm, but we are talking particularly in this Question about technological co-operation. There are many important proposals for cooperation in pure science. Some are highly expensive, including the 300 GeV accelerator and other things. It is a question of deciding how our resources are best spent. What we have been trying to stimulate is some interest in a combined European approach to technology rather than necessarily expensive pure research laboratories.
  Mr. Lubbock: Is it not rather a long time since the Prime Minister first made his proposal for a European technological community and surely we have a right to expect that some statement of progress should have been made by now? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if a great deal of money is spent on projects like the 300 GeV accelerator that will reduce the amount available for co-operation on technology?
  The Prime Minister: That is what I was trying to imply in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) a moment ago. As far as proposals for co-operation on technology are concerned, I first put this forward in November, 1966, and there have been many public statements about it since, but that was on the supposition that we could have full technological co-operation. That could exist and can only exist with in an integrated market. what I put forward last year before the veto was applied in December was rather more limited proposals and we have more recently spelled out what we intend by them. But the responsibility for lack of progress clearly lies on those who applied the veto.

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:
610
MONDAY 8TH APRIL—Supply (18th Allotted Day):
Debate on a Motion to take note of the 11th Report from the Estimates Committee, Session 1966–67 and of the 5th Special Report, Session 1967–68 on Prisons, Borstals and Detention Centres.
Lords Amendment to the Education (No. 2) Bill.
Motions on the Matrimonial Causes Order and Rules.
TUESDAY, 9TH APRIL—Remaining stages of the Countryside Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 10TH APRIL—Remaining stages of the Justices of the Peace Bill, of the Sewerage (Scotland) Bill and of the Legitimation (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Foreign Compensation Commission (Egyptian Claims) (Amendment) Rules Approval Instrument, 1968.
THURSDAY, 11TH APRIL—It is expected that the House will meet at 11 a.m., that Questions will be taken until 12 noon, and that the House will Adjourn at 5 o'clock, until Tuesday, 23rd April.
Mr. Heath: Can the Leader of the House give us an undertaking that the House will be able to debate the White Paper on Prices and Incomes as soon as possible after the Easter Recess and before we debate the Bill? Secondly, there has been no response to my request last week that there should be a statement about Forces' pay. Could he ensure that that is made before we rise for Easter? Thirdly, will the Leader of the House be making an announcement before Easter about the composition of his Mark II Cabinet?
Mr. Crossman: With regard to the third question. I think it would not be for me to make a statement. In regard to the second question, I am hoping for a statement next week. In regard to the first question, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think we should reflect on this very important White Paper. I shall certainly give time for a full day's debate soon after the Recess.
Mr. Rose: In view of the fact that the war in Nigeria is able to continue only because of the continued supply of British arms, and because of the mounting feeling on this subject, will my right

611
hon. Friend provide time for a statement by the Commonwealth Secretary on it?
Mr. Crossman: I do not have to provide time for a statement by the Commonwealth Secretary, but I shall certainly convey to him my hon. Friend's desire for a statement and he will make it if necessary. In the meanwhile, I remind my hon. Friend that he will have opportunities for debating this subject rather narrowly some time next week.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the Leader of the House give time before the Recess for a debate on the Government changes and say whether he himself will be in the Mark II version?
Mr. Crossman: I would not like to commit myself, but in what we are going to discuss next week there will, of course, be opportunities under the new Standing Order for the hon. Member to seek to debate something as an emergency on a critical or crisis resolution.
Mr. Winnick: Could the Leader of the House tell us whether there will be a debate on the new Race Relations Bill more or less when we come back after the Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I think I can say definitely now that the Bill will be published on Tuesday next week and we shall have a debate on Second Reading in the first week on the return.
Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Finance Bill will be brought in and read the First time before the Easter Recess, and, if so, on what day? Having regard to the fact that only 20 members of the Opposition may sit on the Standing Committee, whereas a very large number of Members will wish to express their views, may we be assured that two days will be allowed for Second Reading of the Finance Bill instead of the customary one day?
Mr. Crossman: I am hoping to have the publication of the Bill on Wednesday next week in good time since we shall be debating it on Second Reading immediately on our return. As for the second question, which is not strictly a question on business for next week, I should have thought that the hon. Member would be raising the issue of the
612
amount of time spent on Report stage rather than on Second Reading; but this is something which we can discuss.
Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether a statement will be made next week on the House of Lords negotiations? If not, can he say when the White Paper on this matter will be published?
Mr. Crossman: I think that all I had better do this afternoon is to refer my hon. Friend to the extremely full and detailed statement made by the Prime Minister in answer to the Question on Tuesday.
Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Race Relations Bill is published next Tuesday it will give only that day and the next day before we adjourn for Easter for hon. Members to read and discuss it with each other? Will he therefore be so good as not to have it discussed on Second Reading too soon after we return from the Recess?
Mr. Crossman: In all seriousness, I should have thought that the ability to read does not cease immediately with the Recess.
Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is now some little time since the Select Committee reported on Privilege and we have to get down to that sooner or later? Will he bear in mind that this might very well be debated soon after we come back?
Mr. Crossman: I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a very important question. I have not had great pressure to debate the Report, although it is an extremely important report. At least one aspect of the Report is becoming very urgent as a result of the experiment in radio reporting of proceedings, because the whole question of defamation must come up and that aspect we shall have to discuss fairly soon.
Mr. Thorpe: Since the House is often criticised for spending vast sums of money with inadequate debate by hon. Members on both sides of the House, would the Leader of the House give serious reconsideration to the point that we should have at least two days for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill?
Mr. Crossman: I shall certainly give consideration to that, but I think that we had better wait and see the Finance Bill before we judge how long we need to debate it. I should have thought that the one day for Second Reading was adequate, but then we must have adequate discussion in Committee upstairs, then we have Recommittal—and I have given a clear understanding to the House that the Bill will be recommitted with full debate—and then we have Report. I should have thought that the occasion to consider the amount of time is not on Second Reading but on the other stages of the Bill, but I am willing to consider again what I thought before this afternoon was a wise decision.
Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House at least keep an open mind on the matter, because I do not think that it is only a question of how much time we use after the Committee stage. Many hon. Members will wish to make their views plain about the details of the Finance Bill to those Members on the Committee before it goes upstairs.
Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the very reasonable way the right hon. Gentlemen are putting this to me. I will reconsider this and discuss it through the usual channels.
Mr. Orme: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate next week on the T.U.C. economic statement, which talks about economic growth, and forget a)out the new White Paper on prices and incomes, which will retard growth?
Mr. Crossman: I am not forgetting about it. I am suggesting that we should have a long and careful consideration of it during the Recess so that we improve our understanding of it.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the reconsideration that the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be good enough to give to the proposal to provide two days for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, will he have particularly in mind that in a one-day debate it is inevitable that a large proportion of the time is taken up by the two Front Benches, and that that would mean the Bill's going upstairs to Committee without the great majority of hon. Members having an opportunity of putting their views until
614
the Report stage, when it may well be too late to influence opinion?
Mr. Crossman: I am very well aware that when we are taking this unprecedented action of putting it upstairs we should reconsider all stages of the Bill very carefully.
Mr. Moorman: As it is clear that we shall not discuss the Report of the Wilson Committee of inquiry on Bristol-Siddeley, will my right hon. Friend indicate what he intends to do about this immediately after the Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I think that I can say in the presence of the Chairman that we hope to receive the Report next week, I think on the 9th. I can give the House a clear assurance that we shall consider it in a full day's debate during the week we return.
Mr. Awdry: Is the Leader of the House aware that the effect of the guillotine Motion on the Transport Bill is that six important Clauses will never be discussed by the Standing Committee? Will he give consideration to another day on the Report stage to make up for that?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that on the business of next week I can discuss how the proceedings of the Committee are going.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend give the White Paper on prices and incomes even deeper and longer consideration and suggest that we postpone the debate on it until after the Summer Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I am always willing to consider that there must be a kind of medium between one's desires, and I should have thought that we should consider this important White Paper and have a full day's debate on it a reasonably short period after we return from the Recess.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does the Leader of the House recall that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology said that he expected to make a statement about the future of the nuclear reactor industry and the Atomic Energy Authority before Easter? Can we expect that statement next week?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware of this and I have discussed it with my right hon.

615
Friend. I am afraid that the statement will not now come before the Recess. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is an extremely important decision about a major industry, and I hope that he will also appreciate that there are reasons why it must be postponed till after the Recess.
Mr. Pavitt: In view of recent events, will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss the Early Day Motion in my name and that of several of my hon. Friends which expresses our appreciation to U Thant for his efforts in Vietnam? If he cannot do that, will he convey the message to the Secretary General of the United Nations through Lord Caradon?
That this House welcomes visits to this country by U Thant, Secretary General of the United Nations, and wishes to place on record its admiration and gratitude for his tireless and courageous efforts to end the tragic war in Vietnam.
Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir.
Mr. John Wells: Will the Leader of the House find time in the near future for the Second Reading of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Amendment Bill, which was not reached last night? This Measure is of considerable importance to agriculture and horticulture, and it is important that it should go forward before the season has passed.
Mr. Crossman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the urgency of the Measure, and we shall certainly have it as soon as possible.
Dr. John Danwoody: With regard to the situation in Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that if Britain is asked, through her co-Chairmanship of the Geneva Conference, to play a more active part in helping to reach a solution, the House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter?
Mr. Crossman: I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend's words. I can give an affirmative answer to the particular form of expression "if we are asked to help" and say that there will be an opportunity of discussing it in those circumstances. I cannot say that there will be an opportunity of discussing it before any decision is taken.
Sir R. Russell: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question I put to him last week, namely, when the Home
616
Secretary will introduce legislation to implement the Littlewood Report?
Mr. Crossman: I wish that I could give a precise answer. I know the importance the hon. Gentleman attaches to the question and I hope that I can give a better answer next week.
Mr. Russell Kerr: In view of the catastrophic fall in the morale of millions of workers and trades unionists following publication of the Government's White Paper on prices and incomes, will my right hon. Friend give us time to have a debate on the subject, if not next week, then in the near future?
Mr. Crossman: I think that I gave my answer to that question before it was put to me.
Dame Irene Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Early Day Motion in my name relating to the failure of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to move his Resolutions last Monday night? Could the Leader of the House kindly let me know whether the Finanical Secretary will make an apology for putting the House to the trouble he did?
[That, in the opinion of this House, on the examination of the Records, the failure of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to be on the Treasury Bench to move, as was his obligation, his resolutions on double taxation, which were nodded through unexpectedly by a Government Whip as a Treasury Minister, resulted in depriving the hon. Members for Nottingham, West, and Tynemouth from their legitimate parliamentary business and that an apology from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is due to the House and the hon. Members.]
Mr. CrossmanI hesitate to say this to the hon. Lady, but I gather from hearsay that it was her absence as well as that of my hon. Friend that exaggerated the catastrophe which occurred.
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the right hon. Gentleman has given me an entirely false answer and it is very well known what happened, what protection have I against the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Speaker: I have never known the hon. Lady find it difficult to protect herself.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: In view of the remarks by my right hon. Friend about the White Paper on incomes policy, may I ask him, as it is obvious that the Government would earnestly desire to have a true reflection of the opinion of the House, if he will have discussions through the usual channels to see that we have a completely free vote?
Mr. Crossman: I am now being asked questions about the Orders of the House and the business. As for voting, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.
Mr. MacArthur: Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that when the Government reply to the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill Ministers will pay some attention to questions asked during the debate? Can ht assure us that we shall not again experience the arrogant disregard for points raised by hon. Members that we experienced during the four days' debate on the Budget?
Mr. Crossman: I am really here only to answer questions about next week's business, but I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the strictures, which I am sure are unjustified, that the hon. Gentleman has just made.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury artificially terminated a private Members' debate on Friday? Will he request him not to do the same this week or in any other week?
Mr. Crossman: I should not think that I could extend next week's business backwards to last Friday's proceedings.
Mr. Jopling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on present indications the teleprinter news service is likely to disappear from the House within the next few months? In view of the very serious disadvantage that that will place hon. Members in, will he give time for a short debate on this emerging situation and the possibilities of replacing the tape with something else?
Mr. Crossman: I wish that our debates could always produce action and results. This is a matter which the Services Com
618
mittee, an all-party Committee, is very much alerted to. It is quite a serious situation for us, as for others outside, and we are very much concerned to get a substitute for Extel.
Mr. Lubbock: When the Select Committee was debating the nuclear reactor industry, it was impressed upon us that we had to arrive at a solution as quickly as possible so that the Government could make up their mind. Yet the Minister of Technology has taken nearly as long to give his reaction to the Report as the Report itself took to produce. Will the Leader of the House make representations to the Minister that a statement should be made before the Easter Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I would not attempt to deceive the hon. Gentleman. There is no prospect of a statement before the Easter Recess. On reflection, I now realise that it would have been better for us to have debated the Report of the Select Committee very soon after its publication in view of the delay involved in ensuring that we get the right answers by the two Ministers. But we have to learn these things by experience, and I have learnt on this occasion.
Mr. Onslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inept behaviour of the Patronage Secretary last Friday prevented the Minister of State, Board of Trade—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have an inquest at business question time. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about the business ahead.
Mr. Onslow: I shall do so, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise for my preamble. Will the Leader of the House make it possible for the Minister of State, Board of Trade, to make a statement on the question of noise certification, about which I believe he has something to tell the House?
Mr. Crossman: I cannot look back to last Friday, but I suspect that during the course of next week the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity, if he uses it, to raise his complaint on the Adjournment Motion for the Easter Recess.
Mr. Crouch: Are the Government still considering the question of the Channel tunnel? Can the Minister of Transport make a statement soon?
Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to put that point to my right hon. Friend, I will communicate to her his wish for a statement.
Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Can the right hon. Gentleman promise a Government statement about the four British ships which have been detained in the Suez Canal for about 10 months and on the condition of their crews?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that I can promise a statement, but I will ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary whether there is any new information which would justify one. Otherwise, there are opportunities for back benchers to raise the matter next week.

SCOTLAND (STORM DAMAGE)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a further statement about storm damage in Scotland.
We debated in this House on 7th February the disastrous effects of the storm which struck Scotland on the night of 14th-15th January. I then promised to keep the House informed of the steps taken to rehabilitate the areas affected by storm damage.
As soon as the effects of the storm had been assessed, it was apparent that complete rehabilitation would inevitably be a long progress. The Government's efforts have been directed first towards making temporary repairs, so that the worst hardships were quickly removed; and then to seeing that the work of permanent repair is finished as quickly as is humanly possible.
Unfortunately bad weather has hampered operations. There was a dry and calm spell immediately after the storm, but since then the West of Scotland has suffered three periods of strong gales accompanied by driving rain and snow. It has been necessary on these occasions to divert workmen from permanent repairs to replace temporary roof coverings which had been blown away or penetrated.
Despite these difficult conditions, a great deal has been achieved. All the damaged local authority houses, numbering nearly 200,000—over 70,000 of them
620
in Glasgow—were made wind and watertight at an early stage, and over 63,000 of them have now been permanently repaired. Repairs to houses owned by the Scottish Special Housing Association and the four new town corporations are proceeding satisfactorily.
Many owners whose houses are covered by comprehensive insurance are dealing with their own repairs. However, I informed the House on 25th January that I was arranging for local authorities to organise the repair of private houses where this was necessary to avoid delay. These arrangements rested on the provision of capital by the Government, the commissioning and payment of work by the local authorities, and the acceptance by owners of ultimate responsibility for the cost. The most intractable problem has been the repair of tenements in multiple ownership, many of which are inadequately insured.
Outside Glasgow, local councils have made themselves responsible for organising permanent repairs to the roofs of over 14,000 houses. Work on over 2,500 of these has been completed, and the councils assure me that all the roofs will be permanently repaired before the end of the summer.
In Glasgow, the storm damaged the roofs of some 10,000 privately-owned tenements: 5,000 of these were seriously damaged. This meant that some 80,000 households were, or could be, affected. Permanent repairs to these houses were proceeding fairly well until the weekend of 16th-17th March, when another bad storm struck the City, and the temporary patching suffered severely. A labour force of some 700 men, drawn from the Corporation's direct labour force, the Scottish Special Housing Association, and the private contractors' labour force, was set to work.
Under the direction of the General Manager of the Corporation's Building Department, this force has overcome the renewed emergency, and the Corporation and the Master Slaters have agreed to work together to ensure that all private houses in the city are fit to withstand next autumn's weather.
To achieve this, the methods of repair are being modified where necessary: strapping and roofing felt, durable enough to stand up to any weather for several

621
years, will be used. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who discussed these arrangements last Friday in the City, has been assured by all those concerned that the existing labour force is sufficient to ensure that, by September, repairs will be completed which will fully safeguard all the roofs. Labour and finance have been, and are, the two key factors in this whole operation.
From the outset, everything possible has been done by the local and central authorities to assemble and dispose to best advantage the necessary labour force. The Ministry of Labour have combed Scotland for men, and have brought some from England. For Glasgow's needs men have been drawn from the Corporation's staff, from local contractors and from the Scottish Special Housing Association. The men have all worked magnificently, often in very difficult conditions. The work has called for an outstanding degree of trained skill, because of the high pitched roofs of the tenements. Let no one underestimate the danger of this work in the sort of weather we have experienced. I am sorry to say that six lives have been lost.
As to finance, the arrangements which the local authorities have made, with the backing of Government advances, have been deigned to ensure that no repair need be delayed because of lack of means. The private owners and factors have been assured that when local authorities are arranging to recover the costs of repairs they will examine each case individually and ensure that recovery does not cause hardship. Any deficit which a local authority incurs because of this will attract the special 75 per cent. Government grant. These arrangements are being administered flexibly: in urgent cases local authorities are giving instructions for repairs to be undertaken before all the formalities have been completed.
Since the storm there has been close co-operation between the central departments and the local authorities. I would like to pay a special tribute to the Lord Provost of Glasgow, who has shown outstanding qualities of leadership during the City's period of trial.
If I deal more briefly with the damage to agriculture and horticulture it is not because the Government underestimate the severe losses these industries have suffered, but because fewer complications
622
have arisen in helping farmers and growers to overcome the difficulties. As an indication of the severity of the damage, I can tell the House that the estimated cost of the work covered in applications made to my Department under the various improvement schemes is now over £1 million.
However, I now expect that the restoration of damage to farm buildings will be completed within three months: in many instances farmers are taking the opportunity of making improvements under the schemes of assistance rather than restoring existing buildings. Repair work to horticultural properties is virtually complete. Where rebuilding of glass-houses is involved some delay has taken place because of the need to concentrate on seasonal work at this time of the year. I am glad to say that labour and materials are not presenting any serious problems either to farmers or to horticulturists.
As regards forestry, I have now considered the Forestry Commission's advice on the report of the Action Group. I am indebted to the Group for the speed with which they did their work. As I announced on 26th March, we have urged local authorities and wood using industries to give preference to home-grown timber whenever possible in the next two years. We are also appealing to private woodland owners to exercise restraint in felling meanwhile, and the Forestry Commission is giving a lead in this direction. In addition we propose to offer assistance in two ways.
First, an allowance for extra cost will be made to assist in the dispersal of sawmill timber to potential markets in other parts of the country. This will help to ensure that there is no glut in local markets which might result in valuable timber being allowed to rot. This assistance will be administered by the Forestry Commission, and will be payable to those bearing the transport charge. The Forestry Commission is working on the details and an announcement will be made early next week.
Secondly, we have given a good deal of thought to the provision of additional heavy machinery which will be needed to extract and handle the windblown timber. The timber trade will no doubt meet some of this requirement themselves. But in view of the temporary need for the

623
plant the Government recognise that the trade may not be able to find all the capital for short-term investment on the necessary scale. We are, therefore, arranging for the Forestry Commission to hire out machinery to owners and timber merchants at commercial rates. Full details will be announced by the Forestry Commission.
Mr. Noble: May I thank the Secretary of State for his very long statement. I am bound to admit, though, that I find it deeply distressing to the extent that the length of his statement is not matched by its contents or the indication of any Government action to deal with this very serious crisis. It seems to me that after two and a half months—and I accept what the Secretary of State has said about the weather, although that is not unusual at this time of the year—less than one-third of the council houses have yet been permanently repaired, and outside Glasgow the total is less than one-fifth. This seems to me to be a very slow rate of progress in the circumstances.
In regard to multiple housing, which everybody in our debate on the 7th February realised was a major problem, the Secretary of State has told us that it is intractable. Is there not something he can do, some urgent action he can take, in order to stop these houses deteriorating as they are very fast today? The Secretary of State has told us that the councils assure him that all the roofs will be in some state of repair by September, but does the Secretary of State mean only the council house roofs?—because these are the figures he is giving us and he is saying practically nothing about private housing.
May I turn to agriculture. What I have heard is that there is little or no chance of the agricultural buildings being repaired in three months, as the Secretary of State says he understands to be the case. That is totally different from what the farming community is telling me. It may be that labour and materials are available, but certainly the Government are doing nothing about the cost, and this was a very important part of our debate on 7th February.
In regard to forestry, I would thank the Secretary of State for the promise of help on transport and we shall await the statement that the Commission or the
624
Secretary of State—I am not certain which—is to make early next week. But is it possible for the Forestry Commission to supply the extra machinery? Surely, they have an enormous task on their own hands and will need all the machinery they have; and, again, this does not seem to me to meet the demand that was made in our debate. I apologise for the length of my question, but it was a very long statement. May I ask the Secretary of State whether he does not now consider the situation is so serious that it needs the full-time or practically full-time attention of one of his Ministers in the Scottish Office in order to co-ordinate the immediate steps that are needed to prevent the rapid deterioration which is occurring in houses in Glasgow and elsewhere, and is he sure there are no more men available from elsewhere to come and help Glasgow in what is today a really desperate situation?
Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures I have given he will discover that they cover outside of Glasgow not only the local authority housing; and I believe that outside of Glasgow the local authority housing figure is even better than that within Glasgow. I was dealing with both sides there. Of course, we all admit that the multiple ownership of Glasgow tenements is a difficult problem, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, where we have six or seven owners and probably, over and above that, a factor who has the control of the unsold properties, all trying to agree in relation to who is responsible; so that it is going to take quite a long time.
I am sorry to say we have found evidence that there is not always cooperation between the factor and the owners. This was one of the reasons why we set up the special arrangements in relation to finance, in order that people could get on with the work and sort out these things later. But I hope the hon. Gentleman does not underestimate the difficulties in relation to that.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were doing nothing about cost in relation to the farming community. The only reason that I am able to give the House the figure I have given—over £1 million—is because in respect of this,

625
under the farm improvements scheme, the Government are paying between 30 and 38⅓ per cent.
I am sorry I did not make it clear when I spoke of machinery being hired out, in relation to the Forestry Commission, that this is additional machinery which I am authorising the Forestry Commission to purchase so that they will have available extra machinery which we could not expect merchants to procure themselves for a temporary purpose.
Dr. Miller: We appreciate the efforts being made by my right hon. Friend it this matter, and we also appreciate the fact that although we know storms and rain are frequent in February and March in Scotland this does not make the problem any easier. There still remains the problem of how to tackle these difficulties. But is my hon. Friend aware that two problems still remain? The first is that there seems to be, at any rate, a lack of co-ordination, of some kind of co-ordinating committee or influence, to which further damage can be notified.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions on this statement must be reasonably brief.
Dr. Miller: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but as was indicated, it was a rather long statement. I will be as brief as I can. There seems to be the lack of a co-ordinating committee to which further damage can be reported, so that action can be taken even from a temporary point of view. The second thing that is lacking, from a longer-term point of view, is some kind of communication with the public, some means of indicating to them when their particular building will be permanently repaired.
Mr. Ross: These are very valid points and I would be the first to admit that I have not been satisfied with the coordination achieved in Glasgow. My hon. Friend the Minister of State was there last week and he is there today. He has been having discussions this morning and this afternoon, and I shall be seeing him tonight. I have already arranged for him to inform the corporation that I would like to see it on 19th April, and I will see that this point is really covered.
As regards long-term communication with the public, this, of course, is one of the difficulties. We cannot expect
626
people to be other than subjective about this when their own house is either directly or indirectly affected.
I must apologise to hon. Gentlemen for not covering this point, but what is holding us up at the moment is the massive task which is before Glasgow and the number of people with whom we have had to deal. We have combed Glasgow. I saw a statement, I believe by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), suggesting that there were thousands of people unemployed in the building trade who could assist.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: That is untrue. My suggestion was that they could be employed on building new houses.
Mr. Ross: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we looked into this in respect of the whole of Scotland; and the number of unemployed slaters and felters was 33, of whom only six were available for work or able to come to Glasgow to do such work. Their names were supplied to the firms. There has probably been an over-estimate of what Glasgow can do on its own, and that is one of the reasons why we have to make better use of the men and materials available for this semi-permanent repair and why we are combing the whole of the United Kingdom for men. The bottleneck is not money, but labour, but it should not be thought that the difficulty will be easily overcome. However, it follows that we want central control and a discipline of priorities about which work can wait and which cannot.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House, I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will ask reasonably brief questions and give reasonably brief answers.
Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement about forestry compares very unfavourably with the equivalent statement which was made in 1953 in a considerably shorter time? He referred to an allowance for extra cost; can he assure us that it will be no less than the figure of two-thirds which was given in 1953? Is he aware that a growing number of people regard the administration in Scotland as falling very

627
far short of that which followed the "Torrey Canyon" incident?
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is comparing things which are not alike. He will appreciate that 90 per cent. of the windfalls in 1953 were in private forests, whereas on this occasion it was less than 50 per cent., and that marketing is affected by different location. This is a rather complicated scheme, because it relates to the location of the damage and to whether taking the timber to the market is taking it away from its ultimate market. I would rather he awaited the exact details of the scheme.
Mr. Adam Hunter: Should not the policy of giving financial assistance to local authority properties which were not insured be extended to people with private properties who found themselves in exceptional circumstances and who inadvertently were insured for everything but storm damage?
Mr. Ross: I have now made it plain at least three times that if such people have the repairs approved by a local authority, the local authority will be able to assess any hardship and give more time to pay, or allow such people to pay very much less than the cost.
Miss Harvie Anderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are concerned about multiple ownership in tenement properties and that it is not all within the boundaries of the City of Glasgow? Can he assure the House that, subsequent to 25th January, adequate instructions were issued to local authorities pointing out their responsibility for not only repairing local authority housing, but organising the repair of private property? Was there an instruction other than that contained in Circular 3 of 26th January?
Mr. Ross: There was no instruction, because local authorities cannot be given what is not their statutory duty. All local authorities have accepted this responsibility.
Miss Harvie Anderson indicated dissent.
Mr. Ross: If the hon. Lady has any details, I should be glad to have them. My information is that the local authori
628
ties in the smaller areas with a lesser problem are getting on very well.
Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there has been the maximum expedition in advising and assisting glasshouse horticulturists? Can he tell the House what advance there has been with developments in wind resistant structures so that such a disaster may not recur?
Mr. Ross: In my original statement I drew attention to the kind of buildings which had best withstood the wind. I hope that we shall be able to learn from our experience and to give advice. I understand that there has been close contact between the Department and individual horticulturists whose glass houses have been damaged.
Sir F. Maclean: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean exactly by "wind and watertight"? Many of the tarpaulins which were originally put on are now flapping in the breeze and letting in the rain. Is there not a shortage of slates?
Mr. Ross: I have had no information about a shortage of slates. Eradication of penetration by rain is one of the problems, and many tarpaulins have had to be replaced.
Mr. Dalyell: Is there a shortage of tarpaulins? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the general belief expressed on both sides of the House, many people think that both his officials in the Scottish Office and local authorities have done very well in the circumstances and that much of the carping is out of place?
Mr. Ross: The local authorities have done a wonderful job. If the operation were entirely within their control, or could be entirely within their control, we might have a better centrally directed effort, but as many of the building firms in Glasgow are themselves property owners, and so, naturally, tend to deal with their own properties first, such direction has not been possible. The insurance companies have done a very good job and I understand that they have already provided £400,000 in respect of 8,000 claims for the repair of houses in Glasgow.
Mr. James Davidson: I have some questions about storm damage in the rural areas. First, on what percentage basis will grants be decided for farmers who take the opportunity to carry out improvements at the same time as repairing storm damage? Secondly, will the allowance for the extra cost in the dispersal of timber to avoid overloading local saw mills allow for the additional cost arising from the increase in petrol tax and the increase in licence duty?
Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will make due allowance for the total extra cost which would otherwise arise. If farm improvements fall within the scheme, they will attract the appropriate percentage and I have already told the House that we are interpreting that very flexibly.
Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Govan the temporary repairs were quite ineffective? Is he further aware that at the end of two months no permanent repairs had been started? Can ha assure us that something speedier will be on the way very soon?
Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend must appreciate not only the complexity of the operation, but its massive nature. The roofs of Glasgow took generations to build and it will take more than a few months to repair them permanently. We hope to get on very much more quickly with roof felting and then do full repairs with roof slating.
Mr. Wright: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the clarity of his statement, but I emphasise that he has omitted a number of fundamental issues. One, there is no sense in Glasgow of an imaginative lead from Westminster. Two, the people of Glasgow are not sure to whom to make their appeals. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the general manager of the housing department—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a speech now. Hon. Members must ask questions.
Mr. Wright: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. May I make three sharp sentences? First, there is inadequate knowledge of to whom appeals should be addressed. Two, there is inadequate attention to priorities. For instance, I have had a letter from a constituent saying that because she has no
630
children, her need is being neglected, although every room in her house is incapable of being lived in.
Mr. Speaker: Every long question cuts out another questioner.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to be able to deal with individual cases without notice. This is a matter for someone on the spot in Glasgow to sort out. The hon. Gentleman said that people did not know with whom to get in touch to get help. I do not look at television very often, but I heard the Lord Provost of Glasgow announce on television only last Friday night exactly where these appeals should be addressed.
Mr. MacArthur: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his statement today will be bitterly disappointing to those whose hopes he raised on 7th February by thoughts of realistic action? Is he aware that forestry interests in Scotland will be shocked by his vagueness about a transport subvention and other questions on which precise decisions were expected today? Further, does he intend to provide no further help for farmers and horticulturists who have to find for themselves up to 87½ per cent. of the losses they have suffered in what we were told was to be treated as a national disaster?
Mr. Ross: As regards forestry, inevitably I could not go into detail today. The details are complicated, but I stated that they would be issued early next week by the Forestry Commission, which will itself administer the scheme.
On the other matters which the hon. Gentleman raised, he should appreciate that the liabilities which the Government are taking on under the Farm Improvements Scheme are very considerable. There are probably many more people who would like to have 38 per cent. of their costs met in this way. Many of these troubles could have been covered by insurance, and by many other people they were.
Mr. Monro: Despite the efforts of the Secretary of State and the local authorities, the people of Scotland do not feel that enough is being done. Will not the Secretary of State take more seriously the suggestion that one of his Ministers should go to Glasgow and stay there,

631
taking control, until much more substantial progress is made?
Mr. Ross: No, Sir. I am satisfied with what was done. We did that during the emergency, and we had Ministers there—not necessarily the same Minister all the time—probably every day. We allocated particular staff to deal with the emergency, and they were there. We have allocated staff from the Scottish Office to be there, and they are there even now.
If further action is needed, arising out of the discussions which my hon. Friend the Minister of State is having today, it will be taken in order to strengthen the organisation which Glasgow requires. But I am perfectly certain that the local authorities—I have faith in the local authorities—have shown both outside Glasgow as well as inside how well they can cope with this problem.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As a committee of Ministers dealt with the fenland floods in 1957, and a Cabinet emergency committee was set up to deal with the "Torrey Canyon" emergency, why will not the Secretary of State send one Minister to deal with this problem until it is solved? One of the main troubles in Glasgow is a shortage of information and advice. Will not the Secretary of State take the initiative in setting up an office in each affected area to which people can go for legal and technical advice, as lack of it is often what is holding them back from signing the forms to get the work going?
Mr. Ross: We set up a special office in Glasgow. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not know about it. It is not Ministers we want in Glasgow today. We want slaters. Recalling the high, pitched roofs of the tenements in Glasgow, I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the shortage which is holding things up. We want slaters, more slaters, and we are combing Great Britain for them.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.23 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The object of this Bill is to raise the limit on B.E.A.'s borrowing powers, which now relate mainly to borrowing on capital account, and also to confer a new, but limited, power to borrow to finance a deficit on revenue account.
  In the debate last November on the draft British European Airways Corporation (Borrowing Powers) Order 1967, my hon. Friend the Minister of State explained that the Air Corporations Act, 1962, had set a limit of £110 million on B.E.A.'s borrowings, which could be increased to £125 million by an affirmative Resolution Order. In asking the House to approve that Order, my hon. Friend forecast that B.E.A.'s borrowings would approach the £125 million limit soon after the close of the last financial year. I now estimate that they will reach this limit by about the end of May, and we must, therefore, make additional provision if B.E.A. is to continue to invest in its expanding business.
  The House has debated B.E.A.'s affairs on many occasions and is, therefore, well aware of how this money has been invested over the years. B.E.A.'s operations extend from Norway to the Middle East, from Casablanca to Moscow. They account for two-thirds of the traffic carried on scheduled air services in the United Kingdom; for over 22 per cent. of all passengers carried by air within Europe, making B.E.A. the largest carrier of intra-European traffic; and for a total of nearly 7½ million passengers carried per year, making B.E.A. the sixth largest carrier of air passengers in the world. B.E.A. now has a fleet of about 100 aircraft, including the fleet of 23 Trident I aircraft which has come into operation as the major capacity provider.
  Aircraft constitute about 80 per cent. of any airline's capital investment, but one should not forget the varied and often costly facilities needed on the

  633
  ground—terminals, ground equipment, workshops and widespread sales organisation. It is for these purposes that B.E.A. has spent the capital which it has borrowed under past statutes. But its future borrowing needs will be considerably higher, for replacing older aircraft and providing for further expansion of traffic. Deliveries have just started of the 15 Trident 2s which will cater for its longer-haul services, and B.E.A. now has about £20 million of payments still to be made on these. Deliveries will start this summer of the 18 BAC 1–11s, which will replace Vanguards with jets, notably on the highly competitive German and Irish services; and about £24 million of payments are still to be made for these.
  As the House knows, B.E.A. has now asked to buy 26 Trident 3Bs at a cost of about £80 million. I have given my approval in principle, but detailed negotiations are not yet complete. The Trident 3B will be a most useful addition to B.E.A.'s fleet, as the longest jet aircraft in its fleet and one with an economic short-range performance. I know that B.E.A. was disappointed when I announced last December that the Government could not support the BAC 2–11 project. But, at a time when we are being urged to restrain the growth of public expenditure, the total cost of this project to the Exchequer would be far more than we could contemplate. True, the success of the RB.2–11 engine in the United States means that we could now deduct the launching costs of the engine from the total cost; but, even so, the BAC 2–11 would still be about four times more costly to launch than the Trident 3B. I note that last October's Report on B.E.A. by the Select Committee said that,
  "the Government has no obligation to B.E.A. to cause the aircraft of B.E.A.'s choice to be developed, if it can be shown that the development of another type will be cheaper, taking into account all the expenses involved".
  Finally, B.E.A. must have in mind the progress payments it will need to make on the airbus, which should come into service in the mid-1970s. We all hope that the European airbus will prove, on performance and cost, a successful contender for orders from B.E.A. and many other airlines.
  In short, civil aviation has been, and will continue to be, a rapidly expanding
  634
  business, and the capital cost of its main asset, aircraft, continues to rise year by year as technology develops. To keep in the running, B.E.A. must have the additional capital it needs.
  There has been some argument in the past, and some confusion, about the respective rôles of the Corporation and the Government in determining B.E.A.'s capital investment. The Select Committee, in its Report last year, discussed this at some length and greatly helped to clarify the matter. First, it noted that the borrowing limit, which is the subject of this Bill, is a limitation on the Minister's power to lend, not an authorisation to B.E.A. to spend. But since common sense dictates that I should look some five years ahead, I must, naturally, be guided by the forward plans of B.E.A. At this stage, detailed purchasing programmes may or may not exist; but by consultation with B.E.A. I can make a broad assessment of what funds will be required.
  Secondly, within these borrowing limits, the Corporation's major investment proposals require specific Government approval. It is sometimes said that government is slow in authorising the purchase of aircraft and pedantic in insisting on full information and justification. I think the Select Committee disposed of this general criticism. We are dealing with very large sums of public money which can involve the Government in an additional commitment to participate in launching costs. The House would not be satisfied with anything short of a most rigorous examination of the need for the investment and the likely return on it.
  We have now codified for B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. the kind of information that will be required both for the annual investment forecasts and for particular investment proposals. This will enable the two Corporations to follow the same pattern in their internal discussions of projects, and so save time and effort.
  The House will recall that, in August, 1966, the then Minister of Aviation, when he announced that B.E.A. would buy British aircraft for its re-equipment programme, said that the Government
  "… will take steps to ensure that B.E.A. is able to operate as a fully commercial undertaking with the fleet it acquires."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 261.]
  We are nearing the end of negotiations on how that pledge will be implemented;

  635
  and, if I can, I will tell the House the outcome during the passage of the present Bill. I should have preferred it if the present Bill could have dealt with those arrangements also; but B.E.A.'s borrowing powers were running out, and so we found it unavoidable to proceed in two stages.
  I turn now to the Bill itself. Its first object is to increase the limit for borrowings on capital account for five years ahead. To arrive at the right figure for the new limit, we have first to estimate what B.E.A. is likely to spend on capital account over this period, the extent to which this can reasonably be financed from internal resources and so the amount which falls to be met by borrowing.
  The best estimate that I can make is that B.E.A.'s capital spending will amount to some £199 million over the next five years. I have already mentioned most of the items which make up this amount. On one major assumption, which I will explain in a moment, B.E.A. expects to be able to provide £86 million of this from its own resources—from depreciation, sales of aircraft, and so on. Given that its revenue is almost wholly determined by regulated prices, this seems to me a not unreasonable proportion of its capital needs to be met from internal sources. So, we are left with a borrowing requirement of £113 million. Adding this to the £117 million which B.E.A. has borrowed up to the end of March this year, we have a total of £230 million towards the overall limit of £240 million specified in Clause 1(1) of this Bill.
  It is also the practice to set an intermediate borrowing limit, for a date about half-way through these five year periods, which can be exceeded only after a draft Order has been approved by this House. By about the end of 1970, B.E.A. is likely to incur capital outlays of about £126 million: and of this, it is likely to need to borrow £83 million. Again adding this £83 million to the £117 million it has already borrowed, we arrive at £200 million as against the £210 million intermediate limit which is specified in Clause 1(1). I will explain the remaining £10 million in a moment.
  But, first, I refer to the major assumption which I mentioned as underlying the estimate of how much
  636
  B.E.A. can provide from its own resources. This is that B.E.A. will, on its revenue account, break even when interest has been charged on all loans made to it. I stress that this is only a working assumption. It is entirely without prejudice—in either direction—to what the Government may eventually propose in order to fulfil the pledge of 1966 that B.E.A. should be able to operate "… as a fully commercial undertaking."
  What we do eventually propose may affect some of the calculations which underlie the figures in this Bill. But in practice this would only mean that the period of time which the new borrowing limits would cover would be somewhat different from what we are now envisaging. Given all the other uncertainties of forecasting five years ahead, this is not a matter of great importance. We could, of course, have introduced a Bill which would merely hold the situation for a year or two ahead until further legislation could be introduced; this is in effect what we are doing in regard to the deficit financing provision to which I shall come in a moment. But when we are discussing capital spending, it is the picture over a period of years which is really relevant. So I thought it was right, and of more help to the House, to try in this Bill to explain and to provide for as best we can, B.E.A.'s capital expenditures over the next five years.
  I now turn to Clause 1(2) of the Bill, which gives B.E.A. a new power to borrow to finance deficit on revenue account. Since it became fully independent financially in 1955–56, B.E.A. has achieved an overall net profit in nine out of the eleven years up to 1966–67. We do not yet know its detailed results for 1967–68; but it has already made it clear in public that it expects to show a loss of about £3 million. It will be able to meet this loss out of reserves.
  It attributes this to a falling-off in traffic growth due to the economic climate throughout Europe generally and the restriction in travel allowance. The growth of intra-European traffic as a whole has fallen seriously below expectations in this past year; for example, traffic in the summer of 1967 increased by only about 4 per cent. over the previous year compared with an average annual growth of 12 per cent. in the five preceding years.

  637
  I should say a word here about the effects of devaluation on B.E.A. Inward tourism should increase; and B.E.A. is making a strong promotional effort to obtain a growing share of the air traffic that this increase will generate. Outward business traffic will also expand as new export opportunities open up. More directly, devaluation resulted in a rise of 16⅔ per cent. in most of B.E.A.'s international fares, and this will greatly benefit its revenues. As against this, there will be higher operating costs overseas, and a possible reduction in the number of Britons taking holidays a broad.
  On balance, it seems clear that devaluation will benefit both B.E.A.'s total earnings and its foreign currency receipts. But it will take some time for the full benefit to show. In any case, it will rot have much direct impact on its capital expenditure, since it is buying British aircraft; and so the main figures in the Bill are largely unaffected. Its impact will be on its revenue account; but even here the beneficial effect will be outweighed by the continuance of the difficulties which it encountered last year, and to which I have just referred.
  Mr. Robert Howarth: While my right hon. Friend is talking about the effects of devaluation, would he care to comment on the effect of increased airport landing charges on B.E.A.?
  Mr. Crosland: I certainly do propose to comment on that in the course of my speech. I will come to it later.
  There is another factor, discussing the revenue account. In the initial period before B.E.A.'s new aircraft are fully worked in, some net losses may be inevitable, and we are pledged to make financial arrangements to deal with this. I must emphasise that we are not talking about a subsidy to cover the use of inferior aircraft: the BAC1–11 and the Trident 3B should prove excellent aircraft for B.E.A.'s operations. But we need to tide B.E.A. over a period of difficulty, until aircraft and traffic can again match well enough to produce a profitable operation overall. In the longer term we shall do this by implementing the pledge of 1966. Meanwhile, we propose to do it by the holding operation of Clause 1(2) of this
  638
  Bill. This enables B.E.A. to borrow in order to finance such deficits on revenue account as may accrue up to the end of its 1969–70 financial year, provided that they do not in total exceed £10 million. I estimate that this sum, plus the use of its accumulated reserves, will be fully adequate to hold the position until March, 1970. By then, of course, we shall have introduced the further and more comprehensive legislation to fulfil the pledge of 1966.
  I may add that as part of our negotiations on that pledge we shall consider setting B.E.A. an appropriate new financial target in accordance with last November's White Paper to replace the 6 per cent. target which it has had for the past five years.
  Mr. F. V. Corfield: Returning to Clause 1(2), as I read it it looks as if at any time before 1970, when the accumulated deficit reaches £10 million, it can be borrowed against, and another £10 million accumulated and then the same process gone through again. I cannot believe that is the intention of it, but it certainly reads that way.
  Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying it is not the intention. I would ask my hon. Friend who is to wind up to read the Clause even more carefully than I have done, and to give a reply when that point is reached in debate.
  Summarising the present Bill, then, it provides for B.E.A.'s borrowing needs on capital account up to March, 1973, by sanctioning a further £113 million over and above their existing borrowings of £117 million; and it sanctions £10 million in respect of deficits on revenue account up to March, 1970. Adding these together, we get the maximum limit of £240 million specified in Clause 1(1). The intermediate limit of £210 million also includes the £10 million deficit financing provision and is estimated to meet B.E.A.'s capital needs up to about the end of 1970.
  Mr. Tim Fortescue: Could the right hon. Gentle-say what the fleet would be at the end of the ten years when all this borrowed

  639
  money has been taken up? The fleet will obviously consist of Trident 3Bs and Trident 2s. Will there be any airbuses? How many aeroplanes and of what kind will be flying with that money?
  Mr. Crosland: The fleet, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Garston has said, will consist mainly of Trident 3Bs and a considerable number of BAC1–11s. The airbus will not be running at the end of the period we are considering, but some progress payments may have been made on it.
  If the hon. Gentleman would like the exact figures of the prospective fleet, I will ask my hon. Friend to give them when he comes to reply.
  I now turn to one or two more general topics, all affecting B.E.A. First, I refer to the decision of the B.A.A. to increase landing charges at Heathrow as from 1st April by 16⅔ per cent. for inter-continental services and 12½ per cent. for other international services. Domestic services, including those to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not affected. No increase in charges is proposed at the other three Authority airports, because with the increasing saturation of Heathrow the Authority wish to induce traffic to move away, and this differential increase represents a modest step to this end.
  The reason for the increases is very simple. Without it, devaluation would have meant a fall in the Authority's direct earnings of foreign exchange of approaching £1 million a year; this increase will largely restore the position. I do not expect it to lead to any fall in demand. It represents no more than 0·25 per cent. on average of British airlines' total operating costs; while most foreign airlines will pay approximately what they paid before devaluation, paying in foreign currency, and so can scarcely complain that they have been hurt. In our present balance of payments situation it makes no sense to sell this important invisible export too cheaply. The Authority is in the same position as an exporter to the United States, for example, who was already selling all he could supply at the pre-devaluation dollar price and so he reacts to devaluation, rightly, by maintaining his dollar price and raising his sterling price by the full amount.
  640
  This is good business for him and good business for the nation.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain in this analysis which he has given whether the initiative and decisions to rectify the deficiency in foreign exchange earnings was one which came from the Authority or from his Ministry?
  Mr. Crosland: The proposal came from the Authority and was approved by me.
  Mr. Anthony Royle: Would it not be possible to exclude British airlines from paying this, in particular airlines such as British Eagle—although I realise they do not come under this Bill? Surely this could have been done by an application to I.A.T.A. and agreement made. It would have been very beneficial to the British airlines.
  Mr. Crosland: As is often the case with interruptions, I was about to come to exactly that point in my next remarks.
  It is, of course, true that the increase falls equally on British operators of international services at Heathrow. This is unavoidable if we are to honour our international obligation not to discriminate in favour of national carriers. But as air travellers know, devaluation has already brought a rise in international scheduled air fares expressed in sterling terms—a rise on average of 15 per cent. in respect of long haul services and of 12½ per cent. in respect of medium and short haul services. Although I recognise that this very substantial increase in revenue will be partly offset by the higher sterling cost of overseas supplies and services, it still is a very large increase compared with the trifling increase in total operating costs which I have just mentioned.
  I am, therefore fully satisfied that the increased charges are justified in the interests both of the Authority and of the country. And as we are dealing here with export prices, I do not propose to refer the increases to the Prices and Incomes Board.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Has not the right hon. Gentleman considered the loss of good will by raising prices? Admittedly, the foreign operator would have to pay them, but does this not mean he may cut out Great Britain

  641
  and we may suffer very considerably by this?
  Mr. Crosland: I recognise foreign operators, many of whom will lose, are not pleased with the increase, and many of them are making indignant statements. When we come to an actual loss of possible traffic if the hon. Member for Balfast. East looks at the figures, however, it is very unlikely indeed this increase will lead to any fall in demand. If one uses the jargon which is used so often in these matters, demand is extremely inelastic to price in this case.
  Next I turn to the very complex question of the minimum prices of inclusive tour holidays by air. The House will recall from my statements in December that, when international air fares were increased following devaluation, I decided that the minimum control prices for charter inclusive tours should remain zit their pre-devaluation levels until the end of the coming summer season which is 31st October. I also undertook to make a thorough review of the whole question of the regulation of minimum inclusive tour prices after that date. I have consulted the air operators and representatives of the travel trade, and the review is now complete.
  For a long time past, the minimum prices of inclusive tour holidays by air have been controlled in order to avoid undermining scheduled services, which have to be operated all the year round. Otherwise the revenues of scheduled service airlines could be seriously affected, and their peak season traffic diverted to charter services.
  These controls are imposed by I.A.T.A. on its members and extended by Provision I of their air service licences to other United Kingdom operators. The minimum prices have also to be acceptable to the other countries concerned.
  For these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that the special arrangements which we made for charter inclusive tour prices this summer should not continue after 31st October, but that we should then revert to the previous basis for controlling these prices.
  But at the same time, the review we have undertaken has shown that we need to make substantial modifications to the minimum price structure for inclusive
  642
  tours, both on charter and scheduled services, so as to achieve a more even distribution of traffic throughout the year, and also in order to encourage inward tourist traffic. The present price structure on most European routes results in lower minimum prices during the summer peaks than in winter; this makes no economic sense.
  Accordingly, I have approved a tariff under the terms of Provision I for the period from 16th October, 1968, to 30th April, 1969, under which the minimum price for a holiday of eight days will be 50 per cent. of the normal tourist class round trip fare available on the route in question, and 60 per cent. in the case of longer holidays. This tariff will apply to journeys in either direction between the United Kingdom and the member countries of E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C., the Irish Republic, Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Malta. The control prices applicable to Gibraltar, which are governed by the cabotage tariff and to other destinations in Europe are not affected by this decision. Operators are, of course, free to apply for other tariffs to the Air Transport Licensing Board. I have arranged for copies of the new tariff to be laid in the Library.
  Only a very small proportion of inclusive tour holidays are taken in countries outside Europe. But I am anxious that the growth of this market, especially in Commonwealth countries, should not be inhibited by the structure of public fares. Accordingly, I have also approved and alternative tariff which will permit certain reductions in the control prices for tours outside Europe.
  The effect of these measures will be to increase the minimum tour prices on both scheduled and charter services by an average of about 12½ per cent. in the summer of 1969 compared with an expected average increase in costs of at least 7½ per cent. But the control prices next winter will be substantially reduced to levels about 10 per cent. below those applicable in the summer. The longer-term future of these tariffs will, of course, depend on the outcome of the I.A.T.A. tariff Conference in Cannes this autumn.
  I want to say something about air safety. I have now received the report of the special review of this subject which my predecessor announced last June after the accidents to two British aircraft at

  643
  Perpignan and Stockport. The review was undertaken by the Director of Aviation Safety and the Air Registration Board, with the help of two independent advisers, Sir Frederick Brundett and Captain F. A. Taylor. I would like to express my warm thanks to all those who took part in it.
  The main purpose of the review was to make a rigorous examination of the way in which British operators in practice meet safety requirements. But with the help and encouragement of the independent advisers the review was extended to include an analysis of accidents over the past 10 years, an examination of the effects on safety of the age of aircraft, and a study of the regulatory machinery itself. The independent advisers have added substantial comments of their own.
  My predecessor promised that he would make the conclusions of the review available to the House. But the report is of such general interest and importance that I propose to go further and to publish it in full as soon as it can be reproduced. I hope this will be early next month. It will then be on sale through the Stationery Office, and I shall, of course, place copies in the Library.
  Meanwhile, the House will wish to know that among the conclusions of the review are: first, that there is no evidence that any aircraft operator, currently in possession of an Air Operator's Certificate, is not competent to secure the safe operation of aircraft within the terms of the Certificate; secondly, that there is no evidence that any type of aircraft currently in use is below an acceptable level of airworthiness; thirdly, that as regards older aircraft a policy of retirement at an arbitrarily defined age would not necessarily lead to improved airworthiness overall; fourthly, that the general safety level has improved over the past 10 years, but that there is still room for further improvement which must be sought both from within the industry and by improvement in the regulatory machinery.
  These are, as far as they go, reassuring conclusions, which are fully shared by the independent advisers. But the report emphasises that safety is closely linked with the operational environment and the economic situation of the indus
  644
  try. I have, therefore, referred the Report to the Edwards Committee, which is studying the industry in all its aspects.
  Meanwhile, I am studying the more detailed recommendations about the regulatory machinery in the context of changes which I am already in process of making. I had already decided to appoint a Director-General to supervise the safety work and certain other professional Directorates. I shall appoint him to exercise the statutory function of Director of Aviation Safety when the present Director retires on 17th April. It will be his task to reorganise the work so as to provide simplified lines of command and greater concentration on training, licensing and the inspection of operations. We shall, of course, be able to discuss air safety in more detail when hon. Members have had a chance of reading the report.
  Finally, I want to say a brief word about the prospects of Britain's aerospace industry, with particular reference to exports, in which, of course, I have a special Departmental interest.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: In all the discussions with the Air Corporations, has the right hon. Gentleman given thought to his duty to those on the ground to ensure that the engines put in the forthcoming Tridents will be as quiet as possible, or quieter than the present generation of engines?
  Mr. Crosland: Like other hon. Members, I have a very strong personal interest in aircraft noise due to where I live in London. Therefore, my instincts are strongly on the side of diminishing noise wherever possible. This is one of the factors we take into account. It cannot outweigh all the other factors, but it is certainly a relevant factor.
  It is disappointing that the Trident 3B is not quieter than it is. The BAC211 would have been quieter, but it is only fair to point out that the Trident 3B will be no more noisy than the Boeing 727, which was the Corporation's original choice. One of the most encouraing things about the sale of the RB211 engines to American airlines is that they belong to the new generation of engines, which will be significantly quieter than the present generation.

  645
  In 1967, export deliveries by Britain's aerospace industry amounted to just over 0200 million. In the first month of 1968, deliveries amounted to £30 million—an all-time record.
  The civil side of the industry has already taken advantage of the benefits of devaluation. The British Aircraft Corporation's order book for the BAC111 now stands at 151. Orders for 20 of these aircraft, worth £30 million with spares have been won in the last three months; and there is no doubt that devaluation has increased the attractiveness of the aircraft to both home and overseas customers. Hawker Siddeley's orders for the HS125 now total 145, of which 19, worth about £8 million with spares, have been gained since devaluation. Orders for its HS748 now stand at 182, including 129 for export. The Britten Norman Aircraft Company has orders for 116 of its Islander aircraft, of which all but 10 are for export and which include 58 ordered in the United States. And all this is in addition to the splendid news, which the House has already noted and welcomed, of the American order for the RB211 engine.
  On this encouraging though not strictly relevant note, I commend the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. Onslow: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to omit from his list of orders the Handley Page Jetstream. Could he say how that matter stands, because this is another project which we believe has great export potential?
  Mr. Crosland: It was not an intentional omission. I was giving examples rather than an entire list. I will check what that company's order book is at the moment and my hon. Friend will give the position later.
  4.59 p.m.
  Mr. F. V. Corfield: Without disrespect to the Chair. I should like to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on the amount of material he got within the rules of order under the Title of the Bill. It never occurred to me that we could discuss the wide-ranging matters on which he finished his speech, encouraging as they were. I should like particularly to thank him for his promise that the
  646
  whole of the Report on safety will be available to the House. This clearly is a matter of vital interest, not merely to hon. Members, but to the public. If I may say so, it emphasises the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman in the system that this should be made available, and this is all to the good from the point of view of public relations.
  On the subject of inclusive tour fares, as I understand it, at the moment, the minimum fare as laid down can be avoided. In other words, it is possible to go a little lower than the minimum fare by flying at night. This is the one thing we ought not to encourage. In many of these structures there is a definite advantage to the operator, if he wishes to offer particularly attractive fares, in taking off during certain hours of darkness, the time of day when it would be better to discourage too much noise interference by air movement. I hope the hon. Gentleman who will reply will be able to assure us that the new structure, which is a little difficult to absorb without seeing the entire schedules, will remove that particular incentive to fly at night.
  Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman in making that statement also keep in mind the large section of the community who cannot easily afford the more expensive fares for day travel and who find the cheapness of night travel a great asset?
  Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman, with due respect, has missed the whole point. Where the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has a certain amount of flexibility in inclusive tours without being rigidly controlled by I.A.T.A., there is not much sense in having a structure of this sort. There is no reason why cheap fares, particularly applying to the smaller airports which are not overcrowded, such as Southend, should not be available at a time when it is more covenient to the surrounding neighbourhood that the airport should be busy. I am not for one moment encouraging anyone to put the prices up and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not take it in that way.
  As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us when he opened his speech, only a short time ago, in November, we were

  647
  discussing similar matters on the B.E.A. Borrowing Powers Order. Our debate on that occasion was a good deal narrower, in that we confined ourselves to projects, payment for which, either in whole or in part, fell to be covered by the relatively modest increase of £15 million which we were then discussing. There is inevitably bound to be a good deal of overlap between the two debates, if only for the reason that some of those payments were progress payments on projects on which there still is money either due or about to become due. I hope therefore, that I need not apologise for reverting to some of the matters which were then considered.
  I would remind the House, as the right hon. Gentleman has already reminded us, that one of the principal matters which concerned hon. Members during that debate, was the then pending decision on the BAC211 and the Hawker Siddeley Trident 3B. The right hon. Gentleman is in a difficult position but it is fairly well known that the contest was between B.E.A. and the President of the Board of Trade on the one hand and the Ministry of Technology on the other. However that may be, I am bound to say he did not entirely convince me that the time was completely passed and that there was no case for looking again at the possibility of reviving the BAC211.
  The winning of the order for the RB211 by Rolls Royce, on which we all constantly congratulate Rolls Royce, must make a substantial difference in that as far as the BAC211 is concerned we are no longer concerned with engine launching costs. The right hon. Gentleman put them at about £50 million, which is approximately 50 per cent., perhaps a little less, of the total launching costs. In addition to that, there was an allowance of £15 million for launching costs for the Trident 3B, and there is a still unknown figure which the Government have promised in principle to B.E.A. as compensation for the increased cost of operating the Trident 3B as compared with their original choice of the Boeing 727.
  I do not imagine that some of the more extravagant figures which have appeared in the Press are accurate, but
  648
  I hope the hon. Gentleman or right hon. Gentleman who is going to wind up will give us some idea of the magnitude of the figures which the Government think are reasonable. My own feeling is that this must depend to some extent on the attractiveness of the aircraft to the passengers. If it has a particular passenger appeal—and the Trident family have been very popular—then a high load factor is achieved and therefore the difference in the direct operating costs of a less attractive aircraft which may be cheaper per mile may well be very marginal indeed.
  The management of B.E.A. is, however, presumably anxious to have a fairly definite figure in mind so that they know what they are going to get. But it is a very vital figure. If it is at all substantial, and even if it is only half the figure recently published in one of the newspapers, it would appear that the difference in capital cost between the BAC211 and the Trident 3B is very marginal indeed.
  The last thing I wish to do is to denigrate the Tridents or the Trident family. They are fine aircraft and I have no doubt the 3B will be no exception. However, I think we all agree in our heart of hearts that the export potential of an aircraft built round an advanced technology engine such as the RB211 is bound to be much greater than that of the last stretch of a type of aircraft which started its life under unfortunate circumstances, having at the request of B.E.A. been reduced in size in a way which made its export appeal very much less than, with the advantages of hindsight, it need have been.
  On the other side of the account it is fair to say that, because of the difficulties facing the B.E.A. Board in making a firm decision on how many aircraft they want in the next generation there has been a very sharp drop in the curve of the increase in air transport. Devaluation has made it difficult to forecast their requirements, but nevertheless that delay has put Hawker Siddeley in a difficult position. They have had a difficult problem in ensuring that their design and production teams are kept available without uneconomic working for an immediate start on this project when the order comes. In order to retain an immediate capacity to carry on the work, they already have had to put up quite a lot of their own

  649
  money in materials and arranging for sub-contracts.
  In making this balance sheet some allowance must be made for reasonable compensation to Hawker Siddeley should the decision go the other way. I fully appreciate there is no object in talking about this now unless a decision can be made very quickly. I can see no good reason why a decision should not be made quickly. The basic figures on which one can assess quickly the true difference in capital cost of these two aircraft ought to be available immediately or within a matter of days. We ought to consider this is view of the fact that the adoption of the RB211 by Lockheeds has not only relieved us of the launching costs of that engine but it has enormously boosted the export potential of any British aircraft powered with the same engine.
  I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this. I know that there are some people who say, "Order; counter-order; disorder". But the situation has changed. I believe that the concept of an aircraft built round the 211 has a tremendous potential and, even at this late stage, it is right that we should look at it again and try and make sure that we have made the proper decision.
  It is also relevant to remember that, when the Hawker Siddeley Trident was in the design stages, it was cut back in size and performance very largely because there happened at that time to be a dip at the curve showing the annual increase in air transport. We have a similar if rather more pronounced dip today. I rust that we have learned the lesson and that B.E.A. and the Ministry will bear in mind that the only sensible way of planning ahead is to do so on the assumption that there will be a resumption of the fairly steady growth which we have known since the war. All the lessons are that we have tended, on the whole, to build too small in terms of both aircraft and engines. It has become increasingly obvious that there are great economies in a large engine rather than a multiplicity of smaller ones in terms of cost and, with modern techniques, in terms of noise, so that all the indications are that we should go for reasonable size.
  That leads one on to a further consideration of the A300 airbus. I do not share the pessimistic view of some hon.
  650
  Members and some commentators outside the House about the project. I believe that it has a considerable potential. It is almost certainly right that it should be powered by two engines instead of three in the circumstances and in view of the ranges for which it is designed, bearing in mind that there are these economies in large engines and bearing in mind, too, the enormous increase in the reliability of the engines of today as compared with those of even a relatively short time ago.
  I do not accept that the aircraft is in direct competition with the airbus or buses which have been built or conceived in America. By the very nature of things, having three engines, they will be designed for longer routes and are bound to be less economical on the routes for which the A300 is designed.
  There are still a number of question marks over the project. The first problem is the agreement of a specification between the three airlines concerned. I have had the privilege of visiting Hawker Siddeley recently and of talking to the Chairman of B.E.A. As I understand it, Hawker Siddeley and Sud-Aviation have endeavoured to collaborate fairly closely with the three national airlines, Air France, B.E.A., and Lufthansa, and it appears that the airlines are a long way from agreeing a common specification. To some extent the position is complicated by B.E.A.'s different approach towards flight crew from that of the other two airlines. B.E.A. insists on three pilots as opposed to two and a flight engineer, and that makes quite a substantial difference in the specification of the cockpit layout and so on.
  However, if it is true that we are some way off an agreed specification and the chances of getting firm orders for at least 75 aircraft from the three airlines which the Ministry of Technology has made a prerequisite for continuing with the project are diminished, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to persuade his right hon. Friend that we should not stick too rigidly to the demand for firm orders for 75 aircraft, particularly if they are to come from the three airlines to which I have referred. My information leads me to believe that the orders will not be forthcoming by July, and to some extent that takes us back again to the 211, because

  651
  there is no doubt that B.E.A. would regard a delay with the A300 as the result of a failure to agree a specification with a great deal more equanimity if it had the 211 than it would be able to do otherwise.
  I suppose that it might be argued that, if we resurrected the 211, that the French would retaliate by vetoing the co-operation with the airbus. It is doubtful if that would be so, because it seems that Air France is the keennest of the three airlines. But if that was the case, it is time that we asked ourselves whether a cooperative effort based on the threat of a veto of that sort is the type of co-operation which offers us the advantages which we have always claimed for European cooperation.
  There is a disturbing report in the Financial Times today which, since it refers to military aircraft, takes me even further away from B.E.A. than some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. It makes the point that the Germans and the Dutch are anxious to carry on without us with the present project plans in relation to the advanced combat aircraft. That is disturbing because, having done a good deal of work on it, we have considerably more expertise. As I understand it, both in this and the V.T.O.L. concept, we have endeavoured to co-operate with the Germans to our utmost, and the news must put a question mark over the long-term success of some of these co-operative ventures, sad as it may be.
  In this rapidly changing world of the airlines, I have always doubted the wisdom of insisting on the 75 order as a prerequisite. I say that basically because airline managements do not operate in this way in present conditions. I have referred already to the falling off in the growth of traffic. There is a tremendous temptation for the airlines to wait as long as they can to see what is on the market nearer the time when they have a need for this type and size of aircraft.
  I do not suggest for a moment that the British aircraft industry has been a failure in the past, but, if we are to make a real success of it in the sense of fully exploiting the considerable potential market in the next ten years, both Government and industry have to be much more sophisticated in studying the market making assessments and backing their
  652
  commercial judgment. The game will not be won by playing safe. There is grave danger of our being beaten by a concept which is no better but which has simply got off the mark quicker. That applies particularly at the present time when there is not only a fall in passenger transport but when cargoes are dipping, as they have been in recent months.
  In this context, I add my congratulations to those of the President of the Board of Trade to B.E.A. for its efforts to build up a greater volume of tourist traffic to Britain from Europe. I hope that it will be remembered that the independents also have a substantial potential in these operations, and that we shall be assured that the Government will do everything to assist them as well in their licensing and other policies. In the past, the independents have afforded a substantial stimulus to the Corporation in the realm of inclusive tours. It is in everyone's interests that they should be enabled to continue.
  I turn briefly to the point which I regard as the most controversial of the matters on which the right hon. Gentleman has touched, namely, the increased landing fees at Heathrow. It seems to me that they are largely contrary to the Government's exhortations about devaluation.
  We hear a great deal about the advantages of devaluation. In my view we hear too little about the corresponding disadvantages, and the problems that flow from it. Basically, the only real advantage of devaluation is that one's prices become more competitive abroad in terms of foreign exchange. But they do that—and this applies to both visible and invisible exports—only if they remain the same in terms of sterling. If the sterling price is increased to match devaluation, there is no increased competitiveness.
  What I do not understand about this is that the Government have been urging the British Motor Corporation and other great exporters to cash in by holding their prices at the original sterling rates, or only marginally above them, to take advantage of the lower prices which they now command in terms of the foreign currencies in which they are exporting, while here the B.A.A. is doing the opposite.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: There is this difference. The B.M.C. can vastly increase its output, and thereby take advantage of the reduced costs in the United States, but the British Airports Authority has only a fixed quantity of output, which it cannot vary.
  Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. It has a fixed quantity of output which could decrease if it played its hand badly. I find it difficult to follow the logic of this. My hon. Friend has kindly collected a copy of the Act from the Library. Section 2 sets out the functions of the B.A.A. Its basic function is to manage certain domestic airports. Its expenditure in doing so is domestic, and is payable in sterling, and its costs do not include anything that has increased as a result of devaluation, other than such imported items as have affected us all. I cannot see that, purely as a result of devaluation, the B.A.A. requires any additional income.
  In short, the B.A.A. has cashed in—and the right hon. Gentleman was frank about this—on its monopoly position. I did not know that it was an accepted theory teat monopolists were entitled to exploit a monopoly so long as some of their customers were foreigners, but, even if this is so, we have a right to consider the views of, and the effect on, our British airlines who, when all is said and done, are bigger potential foreign exchange earners than the B.A.A. is ever likely to be.
  It is true that because of the I.A.T.A. agreements the airlines have been forced to put up their fares, and B.E.A. amongst them. They have had no option but to do that. They maintain substantial overseas operations of one sort or another, the costs of which have gone up in terms of sterling because of devaluation. They, at least, have a sound excuse. In fact, they have no option, but none of this applies to the B.A.A., and I think that it makes a great mistake if the B.A.A. regards itself as being in a monopoly position.
  Heathrow has not some divine law which gives it a pre-eminent position in North Europe as the principal port of call for inter-Continental foreign services. For many reasons it has become less attractive. There is considerable congestion, there are more restrictions on
  654
  night flying, because of the noise nuisance, than there are at many other airports, and there are a number of possible switching operations to other North European airports which will be open to quite a number of foreign airlines on a number of routes. If this happens, it will be damaging to our foreign exchange position. What is curious is that this is one of the principal arguments which is pressed over and over again by those who say how urgent the third London airport is, and the leading exponent of this is the B.A.A. Yet here we have action which seems likely to have precisely the same effect.
  There are two deplorable aspects to this. One is the apparent complete lack of consultation with B.E.A. and other British airlines, and the other is the position of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am sorry to introduce this controversial note, because the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill with particular charm and clarity, but this seems to me to be an important point. The Board of Trade remains the sponsoring Department both of B.A.A. and of the two airline corporations. In matters affecting either Government policy, or the policy of one of these authorities which affects one of the others, representations to the President of the Board of Trade are the sole means of appeal, whichever of the three is involved.
  His responsibility for the Air Corporations is no whit less than his responsibility to the B.A.A., and if the right hon. Gentleman is to fulfil his duties, which have been imposed on him by Parliament in the national interest, he must be in a position to look at any dispute between these corporations in a quasi-judicial capacity. He must not only do that, but he must be seen to exercise a quasi-judicial function when doing so. In my view, in this matter, he has wholly failed to give that appearance. Indeed, all the appearances are that he was either persuaded, or he readily approved—and we know that the Chairman of the B.E.A. has a persuasive personality. Nevertheless, it does not appear that there was any consultation with the airlines, and it does not appear that the decision was postponed for long enough for the corporations to make representations which could be considered in a quasi-judicial way, even if the right hon. Gentleman was then in a position to do that.
  Mr. Crosland: On the question of consultation, perhaps I might tell the House that before I approved the B.A.A. proposal I was aware of the objections being made to it. With respect, the hon. Gentleman has not answered the main difficulty which was raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), which is that if I had not approved this increase, there would have been a significant loss to the British balance of payments. I must repeat my analogy, and ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on it. This is like a manufacturer who is exporting at a pre-devaluation price in dollars at which he could sell almost all that he could supply. If he lowers his price he loses us foreign exchange pointlessly. If he increases his selling price, he is at least maintaining his foreign exchange earnings.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of consistency. I must say that whenever we have given advice to exporters on price policy following devaluation, we have said that under these circumstances the case is strong for their raising their selling prices, and keeping their prices constant in foreign exchange.
  Mr. Corfield: I appreciate the difficulty. If someone has a commodity in respect of which he has an immense hold in a foreign market, it is far to ask what the market will pay, so long as he does not thereby induce domestic competition in the long term. But this is a more difficult problem, because the actual assessment of whether one loses foreign exchange is much more difficult for the President of the Board of Trade to do until at least a year has passed. I say that because this issue is affected by increased fares, and, therefore, increased foreign exchange earnings, for the same service, which the airlines are obliged to charge under the I.A.T.A. agreement. I doubt whether, if we total the whole of the devaluation increase in the air transport industry, even leaving aside the B.A.A. increases in landing fees, there will be this real overall loss resulting from devaluation.
  There might be a loss resulting from other things, notably the falling-off of American tourists coming to this country, and the traffic they bring. The right hon. Gentleman has many more facilities for making this calculation than I have, but I shall be glad to see the breakdown
  656
  which assures him that he is facing a loss in foreign exchange overall. I would have thought this a very difficult thing to assess even with all the resources available.
  I am glad that I gave the President of the Board of Trade the opportunity to intervene—and perhaps he will say more when he winds up—in order to deny the charge that there were no consultations and to say that he was aware, as I think he said, of the Opposition, because it is certainly felt among the airlines, both nationalised and non-nationalised, that they were presented with a fait accompli at the time when they could make representations to the President—and he was the only person to whom they could make representations—because the decision had already been made and there was therefore no opportunity to make effective representations. The right hon. Gentleman will probably agree with me that appearances could have been better, what ever his motives. This is important because we constantly argue the merits of leaving these nationalised corporations, particularly the airlines, to make their own commercial judgments. Nevertheless, they are in a perculiar relationship with their sponsoring departments and it is of the utmost importance that that relationship should be one of mutual confidence and respect.
  Finally, I go back to what I said by way of conclusion at the beginning of our debate in November, and say once again that the Opposition attach as great importance to the contribution that has been made and is being made to our economy by our airlines, whether they be nationalised or independent, as does anybody else, and of course we recognise, in the context of this debate, that it requires money as far as B.E.A. are concerned to keep pace with their equipment programme as regards both long-term traffic needs and the developments which are constantly being offered to them by the ingenuity of the air-frame, air-engine and systems engineers of this country and others.
  Of course they need the money, and it would be quite wrong for us to quibble unduly at a Bill of this sort, but there are matters on which we should have better answers than we have had. In particular, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who winds up will not dismiss out of hand the prospect of looking again

  657
  at the 211 in the light of what has happened in the past week, and also at the procedure by which the matter of landing charges was dealt with, and consider again whether there is not more merit in what I have said, that there is some danger of driving foreign airlines to other airports in other parts of Northern Europe. There is no doubt, reading the papers this morning and seeing that some 50 airlines are refusing to pay, that we have not made ourselves popular. I have never thought that popularity was the most important thing, but I am not sure that at the moment a few friends across the water would not be rather valuable.
  5.34 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Howarth: I welcome the Bill, because I believe it indicates the continuing growth of B.E.A., Europe's foremost airline, as they rightly claim in their advertising. Obviously it is not controversial, and, despite the fact that large numbers of hon. Members are not clamouring to enter the debate, I will speak very briefly and confine my remarks to the problems of re-equipment for B.E.A.
  I start with the order for Rolls Royce engines for the Lockheed 1011. It is relevant to contributions that have already been made by my right hon. Friend and by the Opposition spokesman. It is particularly relevant because the Opposition spokesman made a very mistaken plea to the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider whether the Government should support the development of the BAC211 with the Rolls Royce RB211 engines. I would put the contrary point of view very strongly, which I have held for a long time, and would link it with the decision by certain American airlines to order the Lockheed 1011 with the Rolls Royce engines by pointing out to the Opposition spokesman that what I think he has not appreciated is that the Boeing 747 and the Lockheed 1011 and, starting from this summer, the European airbus, are the first of the family of large-fuselaged aeroplanes—the at least 10-abreast and possibly 12-abreast seating aircraft.
  We are beginning to move away, and it is a definite step in the progress towards very large aircraft, from the six-abreast fuselage. That was the fatal flaw in the BAC211. This was an aircraft which, if
  658
  it had been started four years ago, would have made commercial sense and might have had the sort of sales which are now being taken up by the Boeing 727 200. But this is not the case, and to suggest that a British manufacturer should be commencing at this point in time the construction of an aircraft with a six-abreast fuselage only is to misunderstand where we are in the growth of traffic and the size of aircraft.
  Mr. Corfield: I would not dissent from much that the hon. Gentleman has said, but I would remind him that there is always an intermediate stage and there are always other routes. As the intermediate stage on the busiest routes is surpassed, there are other routes for which these aircraft are suitable. I am sure he would not advocate using the largest aircraft on the Birmingham to Manchester route, for instance.
  Mr. Howarth: That is precisely the dilemma that faced the Government, and they made the choice on the difference in cost between the Trident 3B and a completely new aircraft with a time-scale longer than the Trident 3B, as represented by the 211. I think the decision was right and, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying, I think that the order for the Lockheed 1011 with the Rolls Royce engines makes the case in support of the Government decision stronger. I believe it indicates that American airlines from the early '70s and undoubtedy European airlines from the mid-'70s will be operating these large aircraft, and the sort of aircraft of which we have been speaking will have a very limited life indeed.
  I want to make a number of brief comments about the decisions that have been taken by B.E.A., first of all to order the BAC111 500 and then, albeit after a great deal of time and trouble for everyone, to order the Trident 3B. I join the hon. Gentleman in saying that I hope that the decision will soon be taken. Indeed, every week that passes presents problems both to B.E.A. and to Hawker Siddeley themselves and possibly delays the introduction of the 3B. I know the view taken by B.E.A., that until they clear up the discussions they are having with the Board of Trade they are loathe to place the firm order for the Trident 3B, but I hope the decisions will be taken very quickly.

  659
  This brings me to a point I have looked forward to making. As has been said by the Opposition spokesman, I think it is most unfortunate to see Press reports giving quite fantastic figures of sums of money which it is said B.E.A. are claiming for the operation of the BAC111 500 and the Trident 3B. I was horrified a couple of weks ago to see a front page story in The Times headed, "Bill £75 million for flying British". This story alleged that this was the sum of money that was being claimed by B.E.A. It must be a ridiculous figure. Considering that the BAC111 500 is now picking up orders from independent commercial airlines, this aircraft must obviously have good economics and must offer, particularly since devaluation, a very attractive alternative to the Boeing 737. The Trident 3B has also been assisted by devaluation, because the American alternatives have increased in price. The economics offered by both these aircraft are now very attractive.
  Although I appreciate that this might not be B.E.A.'s first choice, I greatly regret the sort of scare headlines which have appeared, such as those which I quoted. It is most unfortunate that a newspaper with the national and international reputation of The Times should peddle this sort of nonsense. I wrote to the editor of The Times; what I thought was a reasoned letter, challenging this figure and pointing out the damage which this sort of story could do to the prospects for British export of aircraft, not only the two aircraft concerned, but all British aircraft.
  I said that I thought that the following day every Boeing and McDonnell Douglas salesman would have had a copy of that article on the desk of every aviation operator throughout the world and that one could imagine the effect which this would have. Unfortunately, The Times did not see fit to publish my letter. They choose some amazing subjects on which to publish letters, but when they receive one—they may have received others, for all I know—which, I hope, presented a reasonable viewpoint and tried to defend the British aviation industry against nonsensical articles such as this one, they choose not to publish it. This is most unfortunate—
  Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman may be assured that, through what he said, his speech will be fully reported in tomorrow's The Times, to judge from my past experience in these matters.
  Mr. Howarth: I hope so, anyway.
  It would be possible to go on to a number of items arising from the fact that the debate is going rather wide and that we seem to have all day in which to hold it, the few of us who are here. I look forward to the time when we shall be debating the Edwards Committee's Report and its effect on B.E.A.—and, of course, on B.O.A.C.—but that is something for the future.
  I would appeal to B.E.A. to consider its all-important decision to announce in advance when it is to have an all-jet fleet. On a recent visit to the United States, I was greatly impressed by the constant advertising by all the major airlines, I think without exception, that they had all-jet fleets. There was no doubt that very few of the average American air travellers would consider travelling by propellor-driven aircraft any more. They are used as "back-up" aircraft, perhaps in the mountains, but no one thinks of operating anything but jets on the normal trunk and important routes between cities.
  The sooner that B.E.A. justifies its claim to be Europe's foremost airline and begins to offset the advertising of a number of European airlines, which are now beginning to introduce the theme that they are all-jet airlines, the better it will be and the more easily it will win and possibly increase its share of European traffic. This is important. B.E.A. is operating a number of fleets of older aircraft, and the sooner it plans for replacements the better. I know that it is doing this, but it is a very slow process.
  I would like to raise the question of an associated or subsidiary company, British Air Services, through which B.E.A. has interests in a number of semi-independent operators. I am referring particularly to B.K.S., which, it is reported, it contemplating ordering American aircraft. I hope that this will be viewed very closely by the Board of Trade, as it will presumably have to go through the Board of Trade if B.E.A. has a controlling interest in this company.

  661
  I hope that the Department will be as firm on this as it has been with B.E.A. itself, and will decide that, if almost every British independent operator can find the right aircraft from British manufacturers, a subsidiary of B.E.A. should not he allowed to break this principle by ordering American Boeing 737s. One would have hoped that the pattern of the company's traffic could have been met by one of the variants of the BAC111. It is interesting that certain independents are ordering the 500. The Rumanian airline is ordering the 1–11 400 series and I cannot understand why it is thought necessary that B.K.S. should order an American aircraft.
  I hope that what the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) said is correct and that my strictures on The Times will appear in one form or mother. I hope also that B.E.A. will continue with the good work which it has been doing. I appreciate its difficulties and I welcome the Bill because it shows the progress which the Corporation is making.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) commented on the thin attendance of this debate. That may be because some of us who are interested in aviation were up rather late yesterday discussing Concorde, rather than because of any lack of interest in the affairs of B.E.A. At any rate, I hope so, because other debates in which I have taken part on the affairs of the Corporation have always been reasonably well attended.
  As for his remarks about The Times, this is a disappointment which we all suffer occasionally and I am certain that his speech this afternoon will be given its proper attention and the importance that it deserves. I thought that he had much to say of sound common sense, particularly on the re-equipment of B.E.A.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) made his principal criticisms of the Bill from the point of view of the increased charges being imposed by the British Airports Authority. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has been talking to the Chairman of British European Airways, because much of
  662
  what he said was quotations from the Chairman's page in the B.E.A. magazine, which I have studied since it came through my letter box this morning.
  Of course I have given the remarks of Sir Anthony Milward the attention which they deserve and I have studied his case carefully. What he said—I tried to intervene to point this out to the hon. Member, but he did not give way then—was that his complaint was that there was not proper consultation. He did not complain that there was not any consultation, and his criticism was not directed against the President of the Board of Trade but against the Airports Authority.
  If one expects the nationalised industries to behave as commercial organisations, as the hon. Gentleman said he would like them to, it would be better for the consultations to be directly between the Airports Authority and the airlines which are using its services rather than through the intermediary services of the President of the Board of Trade. Surely that would be more convenient.
  I would have said that it was impossible for the Airports Authority to consult all the hundreds of airlines which use Heathrow and that it would probably have needed several months to collect all the views, if that was the policy. I have no doubt that Sir Anthony Milward was properly informed of the intentions of the Airports Authority before the final decision. He devoted a great deal of space to this in the magazine, but the amount concerned is not all that great. It is only £200,000 in the coming year on his international routes, which is not a very high percentage of his total expenditure during the course of the year.
  He says that he would not mind paying such an increase if he were to receive immediate benefit in the shape of improved airport services, but the British Airports Authority has a substantial capital expenditure programme of its own, and this will be increasingly important as the amount of traffic coming through Heathrow increases and as the number of passengers per aircraft increases.
  When one sees the bedlam and chaos in the concourse of London Airport after

  663
  one of the present generations of subsonic jets arrives, one dreads to think what it will be like when several 747s arrive in the course of the same hour. It is for this reason that the Authority is to spend a considerable sum over the next few years on the provision of facilities for processing passengers' luggage and getting passengers quickly from the aircraft into the Customs Hall and then on their way by various means of transport to central London or other destinations.
  Mr. Onslow: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but this need is not advanced by the Airports Authority as a reason for taking this action.
  Mr. Lubbock: No, it is not. I am not saying that it is. I am merely pointing out that the Chairman of B.E.A. says that he would not mind paying an increase of £200,000 in the coming year if he were to see something for his money. I am saying that he will see something for his money, perhaps not in the coming year, but between now and the 1970s when the much larger aircraft are introduced.
  It is fair to expect him to pay something in advance, just as he does for new equipment. He does not complain because he has to make a down payment for the Trident 3B or the BAC111 500 series which he is shortly to introduce into service, and he has no grumble about helping a little to meet the capital charges of the Authority which are being incurred in the course of the construction of these enormous capital facilities.
  The arguments for increasing the landing charges stand out by themselves, even without the expenditure which the B.A.A. is incurring. I agree with the President of the Board of Trade about this. It would be commercial madness not to charge the going rate. If the foreign air lines operating into Heathrow are not to pay any more in terms of their own currencies, they have no right to complain. Nor do I agree with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South that the increase is likely to drive foreign air lines away from Heathrow. Our experience over the last few years is that traffic has grown at a substantial rate. If one extrapolates that rate, it is frightening to see what number of aircraft will be coming into the airports around
  664
  Greater London by the early 1970s, and that, of course, is the justification for the third London airport. All Peter Masefield may have done by imposing these increases is to moderate the rate of increase in the amount of traffic coming into Heathrow, and that would not be a bad thing if it were so.
  As for the diversion of these foreign air lines to other destinations in Northern Europe, to the extent that those other destinations were elsewhere in the United Kingdom, this would be a very good thing. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) will agree with me that there are not nearly enough direct services from Scotland to the Continent. Not long ago the A.T.L.B. refused Caledonian Airlines permission to fly a direct inclusive tour service from Glasgow to Majorca—I cannot think why—but the ostensible reason was that there was a perfectly good inter-change service available at Heathrow and Gatwick.
  I should welcome the initiative of any air line which offered to fly passengers direct from Glasgow to the holiday destinations of Europe—or from Manchester, Birmingham and so on. To the extent that the 16⅔ per cent. increase in the charges for Heathrow will divert airlines to other places in the United Kingdom, it will have the beneficial effect of evening out traffic over the United Kingdom as a whole.
  I tend to agree with what the hon. Member for Bolton, East said about the re-equipment programme of B.E.A. The Trident 3B will be an extremely good aircraft and it is more sensible to go for it than to spend a great deal of money, and it would be very substantial, on developing the BAC211. It would be interesting to know how much of the £120 million which the BAC211 would have cost to develop would have been attributable to the airframe and how much to the engines.
  Mr. Crosland: It might save time if I gave the answer now, because the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) gave the wrong figure. £30 million would have been attributable to the engines.
  Mr. Lubbock: That is interesting and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because it enables us to compare

  665
  the figure of £90 million which would remain for the airframe with only £15 million which it will cost to develop the Trident 3B.
  It has to be remembered that only limited resources are available in this country and if we were to spend this colossal sum on developing the BAC211, the effect on other aircraft programmes would be serious. I have always been inclined to favour the Trident 3B against the BAC211, because we will have our work cut out for years to come with our share of the European airbus. I hope that we shall and that the work will be running out of our ears in the early 1970s as we struggle to build up the programme of a large rate of output of the European airbus. If we had taken on the burden of the BAC211, it would have tied up the resources of the aircraft industry.
  I think that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South will agree that it would also have been a psychological mistake to go for that aircraft, because it would have been an indication to our European friends, the French and the Germans, that we were not interested in co-operating with them in the development of the A300. They might envisage a situation in which we decided to drop the whole thing and go straight from the BAC211 to the Lockheed 1011, particularly as it now has British engines. That might have been a strong temptation to some future President of the Board of Trade or Chairman of British European Airways.
  We have been perfectly right to develop the Trident 3B and it will not be nearly as expensive to operate as some of the irresponsible commentators have suggested. We have it on record from the President of the Board of Trade himself in his statement on B.E.A. aircraft re-equipment that:
  "… after devaluation the Trident 3B is as attractive in terms of running costs as the Boeing 727, for which the Corporation originally asked in July, 1966."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1967; Vol. 756, c. 780.]
  I do not see that there is any question of a vast subsidy being given to the Corporation for operating this aircraft in reference to the Boeing 727 and I hope that there will be an early decision to place a firm order.
  I have one or two questions about the figures which the right hon. Gentleman
  666
  gave. He said that capital expenditure over the next five years would amount to £199 million, of which £86 million would be met by depreciation, sales of aircraft and so on. It would be convenient to have a breakdown of those figures, particularly as B.E.A. has a substantial fleet of older aircraft which, presumably, it will be getting rid of over this period. There are the Vanguards, Viscounts and perhaps some of the Comet IVBs. I would be interested to know if it is the intention of B.E.A. to continue operating its Argosy fleet during this five-year period.
  The growth of B.E.A's freight traffic has been substantial, even in the last year when passenger traffic has stagnated. Will B.E.A. be asking the President of the Board of Trade during this period to discuss the re-equipment of its freight-only fleet with a much larger type of aircraft than it now possesses? If so, that will mean an additional sum on both sides of the equasion; substantial additional capital expenditure, but also the proceeds from the sale of the Argosys, which will have a second-hand value.
  Mr. Onslow: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that that would require the development of a new or variant of an existing major jet type or does he think that B.E.A's freight requirement might be met by, for example, converting the Britannias?
  Mr. Lubbock: I understand that it is possible to convert the Vanguard but that it has the disadvantage of not being able to accommodate the pallet sizes to meet the new international standard which is being agreed. Perhaps B.E.A. will wish to have an aircraft with a larger cross-section than the Vanguard.
  It would also be interesting to know whether, in the discussions with the French and Germans, there has been any mention of a freighter conversion of the A300. If freight is growing at a substantial rate—as it has been in the last few years; faster than the passenger growth—we should be thinking of a pure freighter for European routes so that we are not obliged to buy this type of aircraft from the United States. I suggest that there would be a considerable market for a pure freighter conversion of the A300. This is something that should be borne in mind when considering B.E.A's

  667
  capital expenditure programme, although I accept that this may not have to be done in the next five years.
  Mr. Robert Howarth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that from the start Boeing has been developing a freighter version of the 747 which, I assume, will have good sales?
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman reinforces my argument. If we could develop a pure freight conversion of the A300 there would obviously be a market for it, and the research and development, tooling costs and so on could be amortised over a longer production run, resulting in the price of each aircraft being reduced.
  Is there any thought of extending B.E.A's helicopter operations? I cannot remember how long ago B.E.A. bought the S61 s for an experimental service to the Scilly Isles. I understand that this service is still running at a substantial loss, while B.E.A's helicopter operations for North Sea gas rigs have become extremely profitable in the last year or two. Will B.E.A. extend its scheduled helicopter operations and, in any event, will it make every effort to cater for the increased business which is bound to be available from the operations of oil companies in the North Sea?
  The Minister said that the 1967–68 loss of B.E.A. was about £3 million. I am disappointed in this, but I understand it because of the stagnation of traffic in the last year, for the reasons given by the President of the Board of Trade. The restrictions on overseas spending, with probably fewer Americans coming to Europe, and the general economic situation has prevented B.E.A. from attaining the rate of traffic growth which we would have expected from the experience of the last few years. What is the outlook for 1968–69? Is it too early to give an estimate of the rate of passenger and freight growth respectively? Presumably by now B.E.A. is about to do its annual budgeting. A rough idea of these figures must be known and I hope that they will be given to hon. Members.
  It is sad for the Corporation to run through a period of losses, but I believe that the new fleet which it is acquiring will enable it to be in good shape to
  668
  compete with any European airline at the beginning of the '70s. I wish B.E.A. well. The Bill is valuable and the increased borrowing powers are justifiable on the basis that B.E.A. will be doing a really excellent job for Britain at the beginning of the '70s.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I agreed with a good deal of what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said towards the end of his speech. I regret that I was not able to be in my place during the earlier part of his remarks.
  Yesterday evening, on a visit to Southend Airport, we were told about the bus-stop services which fly between Southend and Aberdeen, stopping at Edinburgh and various other places en route. The airport manager assured us that these services were well patronised and extremely successful. Projects like this should be explored, not merely between Britain and the Continent—although we must always bear that type of market in mind—but also from the point of view of Scotland. There is now a great travelling market for the intermediate type of service; that is, a flight which takes a passenger to stops between Glasgow and London, and for this reason we should not all the time think in terms of the Glasgow-London demand. The same can be said of freight services.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) will agree—because he was one of the hon. Members on that visit to Southend Airport—that every half hour an aeroplane arrived at Southend Airport and that, at a similar interval, one took off. I was assured that these services were profitable. There is, therefore, still a wonderful avenue for aircraft operators to explore in the United Kingdom—always bearing in mind the larger avenue of the Continent and the world in general.
  It is important for us to begin to think about the future of London Airport. I use this airport twice a week. Already the number of passengers being handled there is presenting a problem. When one thinks of the situation that will arise when the new 400-seater turbo-jets come into service, the problem will be even worse. The airport is in a state of perpetual change, with work going on in

  669
  almost every part of it. If, in addition, we have supersonic aircraft landings there, the problem will be virtually insuperable. Not only is there a lack of manoeuvring space but an insufficiency of runways. If that is the case now, what will it be like in the future? Last Monday the aircraft in which I was travelling was held up and had to circle for half an hour before being able to land.
  I agree with the hon. Member about increasing flights to and from Scotland. That has been a long felt want and the demand has been made for a long time, but nothing much has been done to meet it. It was a pity that the request, made over so many years, for a service embracing Dundee was regularly refused by B.E.A. Now, when a private operator has decided to come in, the venture merits success. I could never see any reason for refusing this type of service to meet the intermediate demands of London, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen and so on.
  That should be met particularly when we see that on the western side of Scotland Prestwick is getting nervous about its future. It is feared that Abbotsinch is attracting too much traffic and therefore Prestwick is suffering. It is a pity tat that feeling should be created at a time when there is a clamour for more services in Scotland. Prestwick on the western side could be used in a similar sort of bus-stop plan as exists in the east.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will note that the numbers and problems at London Airport are increasing. Traffic is increasing. That will make the need for the third London Airport even more urgent. I hope that there will be no undue delay in getting ahead with the inquiry into the Stansted question because time is no longer on our side. In the interests of the expansion of aviation and of the aircraft industry in Britain, the third airport is a pressing necessity. I hope d ere will be no unnecessary delay in coming to a conclusion on this matter at the earliest possible date.
  The aim of this Bill is to provide British European Airways with finance to buy the new equipment which it must have. That, of course, includes aircraft, but it does not appear to comprehend engines. The Minister put it very euphemistically when he said that B.E.A.
  670
  has asked to buy the Trident 3B. That is where Ministerial imagination enters the field. All of us know, although one does not actually say so, that B.E.A. was told what it had to buy. It was not the Corporation's preference. The engine it wanted was not the 3B but the Rolls Royce 211.
  Mr. Robert Howarth: My hon. Friend is not going back far enough. Originally B.E.A. wanted an American aircraft. It started by wanting an American aircraft with American engines.
  Mr. Rankin: I am fully aware of that. My only reason for not going back to that was because I want to deal with the problem as it faced us here in Britain. I am well aware of the merit and truth of my hon. Friend's interruption. B.E.A. was told that it could not have that aircraft and no reason was given for the refusal. Many believed that it had something to do with the engine. Now we hear the praises of the 211 sung across the Atlantic. It is still the same engine. In view of the fact that the qualities which it carries are witnessed by this £100 million sale, surely, as time is still on our side, we might think again about the Trident's power unit.
  We are proposing to provide B.E.A. with £115 million, or rather with the right to draw on that sum of money. The question of profitability is one of the items always raised when the aircraft operator asks for aid, particularly when the request comes from B.E.A. or B.O.A.C., with whom we have come now to a sort of final composition. I wonder if the Government have given any thought to striking a similar composition with B.E.A. and, instead of going on with this financial business, thinking of giving a loan at a fixed interest rate, or following the pattern of creating an Exchequer dividend capital account. I do not see why they should continue on the existing basis which is not always satisfactory; which becomes recurrent, instead of trying to reach a new pattern of investment which seems very practical and to be operating quite successfully with B.O.A.C. I fail to see why it could not operate equally well with B.E.A.
  When we talk about profitability in this industry, in fairness to the operators we should realise that it is a very variable type of business. The competition is

  671
  intense. I ask my hon. Friend to think again about the present set-up in awarding routes.
  The Air Transport Licensing Board has been functioning for quite a time and in my view not always effectively. For example, it decided that competition on the London-Glasgow route would be a good thing. B.E.A. was doing well on the route so the Board said that there would be room for a competitor. No one—and I was a user myself—could make any legitimate complaint about the efficiency of B.E.A. in serving the route. Nevertheless, a competitor was introduced.
  The assumption was that, automatically, the number of passengers would increase because another airline was serving the route and, therefore, no penalty would be involved for B.E.A. But the Board was not satisfied with that. It introduced a third airline on the route—B.U.A. Whether it was partially because of that or not, B.U.A. I believe has now gone more or less bankrupt. Whether its competition was effective or not, I am not sure.
  However, despite all this competition on the route, the number of passengers has not increased sufficiently to give an operating profit both to B.E.A. and British Eagle. The consequence is that there is a tendency for B.E.A. passengers to be reduced in number. The same thing is happening to British Eagle, although in its case the reduction might not be so evident because it is running more modern aircraft.
  As the hon. Member for Orpington said last night when we were discussing the Concorde, putting a new aircraft on a route means that, because of its newness, people will be attracted to it away from the older aircraft. But this was an unfair position to create on the London-Glasgow route. The Minister of State should have another look at the functioning of the Board and consider whether or not he should keep it in existence. As I see it, the Minister himself is quite competent to deal with the problem. He knows it in a way the Board cannot. He is more informed about the factors surrounding the operation of aircraft than the Board. So he is fitter to deal with the problem of licensing. We must recognise the increased
  672
  competition, not just what we ourselves have created for our major operator on domestic routes but what it has to face outside the United Kingdom.
  The other problem airline an operator must face is that, although he may plan for a certain rate of growth, as he must, saying, "We want X more passengers next year and will do this and that to get them" as there may be internal changes—for example, the Budget—which affect his profitability and upset his plans. Government intervention in the national interest can impose severe handicaps on the operator.
  Another factor over which the operator has little control is the premature obsolescence of an aircraft. We have seen this happen in our own services. It has happened with the Vanguard, which has been made obsolescent because of the speed of development of new aircraft. It is a turbo-prop in a jet age. This is a very big change and can severely affect the operations of an airline.
  Mr. Robert Howarth: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend twice. Referring to the competition on the London-Glasgow route, he made a remark about B.U.A. which, on reflection, he might wish to reconsider. While it is true that the company had some difficulties, it is now beginning to pull out of them and this has been exemplified by the fact that it has just ordered five new BAC111s. As far as one can see, the airline is quite viable and, indeed, is increasing its fleet.
  Mr. Rankin: I thank my hon. Friend warmly for that intervention. Perhaps at the time I was thinking of events of a few weeks ago, when in the aviation group we were very much concerned, for it seemed that B.U.A. was about to face financial difficulties. I am sorry to have created a wrong impression and I accept fully what my hon. Friend has said.
  I have here the economic review presented to us by B.E.A. for the year ended 31st March last year. We should consider what it says because it is very important. We are investing money in B.E.A. and should look at what is happening, because this reinforces what I have been saying about its difficulties. There was a profit of £5,095,027 before payment of interest on total capital borrowings and excluding the loss on the

  673
  Scottish Highlands and Islands services. They give certain comparisons as to the revenue yield per L.T.M. cost per C.T.M. and overall load factor. I mention that merely to go on to say that the significant change between last year and this year was a fall in load factor despite the fact that this change also happened to be quite small. It was this small drop in load factor from 60·2 per cent. to 59·3 per cent. which caused B.E.A.'s net profit to fall by £575,429. That is only a fractional fall in load, and yet it represented a fall in actual money profit of over half a million pounds; and therefore it emphasises the importance of the load aspect and what can derive from competition which in my view is unnecessarily prejudicing the Corporation that carries the flag. I do hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will think very seriously about this problem and also about the other problem which B.E.A. carries.
  Part of B.E.A.'s contribution to community services is represented by what it does on the Western Isles. For that it has already incurred this year a loss of over a quarter of a million pounds. This is a service to the community and I feel that the Government must in one way or another face up to this fact. Are they prepared to give some consideration to British European Airways which have been responsible for this social service for so many years? It has performed it well and has borne without complaint the loss on financial outturn which it causes to B.E.A., standing always as it does with the accusation before it that it is not making as big a profit as it might wall do.
  I know that my hon. Friend has often had this issue presented to him, and that hi; Department has lived with it for a long while; but I want merely to remind him that it is still there and in my view there is no reason why the community should shelve on to B.E.A. a burden which is a community burden. I therefore see, no reason why the Government should not give special consideration to this problem, in financial terms, in order to assist British European Airways in bearing that burden.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: It gives me particular pleasure tonight to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) who
  674
  speaks so well for Glasgow and Scotland, as I speak for Belfast and Northern Ireland.
  I believe it was the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) who remarked that this debate was sparsely attended, probably because many of us were still debating at 2 o'clock this morning another aspect of the aircraft industry. It seems to me, looking round, that we still have in the House today very much the same team as were in the House at that time.
  The hon. Member for Govan will perhaps remember that in Standing Committee C in 1960 we debated the Air Transport Licencing Board. I am not surprised to hear him take the attitude he does and almost to regret the fact that B.E.A. has introduced jet aircraft in one of its services. I can see him perhaps suggesting that it would be better to have no competition at all so that B.E.A. could go on operating turbo-prop aircraft services until the year dot. But I take a very different view from the hon. Gentleman's.
  Mr. Rankin: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not intend to give the impression that I regretted advance in any quarter. I want to see advance, but I want to see it all round, and I do not want to see the national airline handicapped in any way whatsoever in its advance.
  Mr. McMaster: I do not wish to spend too much time on this point. The hon. Gentlemen spent some time on it, and what he said is on record. He concluded his speech on that point, and I take a very different view from him about the operation of the Air Transport Licensing Board.
  I travel almost weekly by B.E.A. through London Airport to Northern Ireland, and I find the efficiency of B.E.A. not quite as good as it has been in the past. I am sure the hon. Gentleman must have noticed it. I have noticed it myself and it has been commented upon to me by many passengers. Only a week ago, while travelling home on an urgent call to my constituency, I wished to change to an earlier flight and I met with considerable opposition in trying to get on an earlier flight. In the end, I was reluctantly put on one, and then found to my surprise that there were several empty seats. This means that the staff

  675
  at London Airport, operating as they do under difficulties, of course, are not as much on their toes as staff in some of the independent companies who have been given a licence to operate a very limited service in competition with B.E.A. As I see it, B.E.A. has virtually a monopoly position. On many of the routes within the United Kingdom, the Air Transport Licensing Board seems to have been motivated by excessive conservatism.
  In the case of the Air Transport Licensing Board granting a frequency to an independent line, there is a right of appeal and the final appeal goes to the Minister, which, perhaps, is unfortunate because the Minister is the protector of the public purse and is responsible for the expenditure by B.E.A. of the money we are debating tonight and, therefore, must protect the investment. The operation of the Air Corporations Act over the past eight years has had the effect of limiting very strictly the competition which British United Airways and British Eagle have been able to offer, so that their services have been hardly viable; and the hon. Gentleman is right in commenting on the financial difficulties into which British Eagle and British United have passed.
  I have seen British European Airways failing to operate a frequency at a time that many of the travelling public would have liked and B.U.A., on being granted a frequency, immediately duplicating it with faster aircraft. This is competition of the very finest type. But I feel that the hon. Gentleman went too far in suggesting that B.E.A. suffers from this competition. It has the giant slice of the cake. The dice are very much loaded against the independents.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will go on to tell us that the main objection of B.E.A. is about independents being allowed to come in and cream off the main trunk routes—those which are the most profitable. The position is not as he suggests.
  Mr. McMaster: I am going on to deal with this point. The service within the United Kingdom, particularly to Northern Ireland, offered by B.E.A. is gradually falling behind that of similar services
  676
  offered in other countries. The hon. Member for Govan, referring to the ordering of aircraft, said that he would not venture to America. If he did he would see the type of services offered by airlines there and, when he compared them with those offered by B.E.A., which has a virtual monopoly in Britain, he would have some surprises.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said that in many airlines in the United States only jet services were offered. They no longer operate turboprops. In many of its continental services, where it faces much stronger competition, B.E.A. operates almost exclusively with jets. Only we in Britain are left with slow, less efficient, turboprops. There is considerable room for improvement, and more competition would cause B.E.A. to improve its service.
  Loading and unloading of planes and the "bus-stop" service were referred to. There is a "bus-stop" service, which has been operating for a long time, in the United States. Passengers can walk straight on to the aircraft. I have not seen the statistics but I suggest that B.E.A. might carry out a survey. It might be found that 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the travelling public has travelled before. The ticket is pre-booked. I do not see why a passenger who knows the ropes should not walk straight through the building at London Airport and reduce congestion by going straight out on to his aircraft instead of changing his ticket at the desk and having another voucher issued, which is again changed as he gets into the bus. One operation would save time.
  Only one or two girls would be necessary, instead of the 12 who take the luggage or advise those who have never travelled before. We do not need a whole row of them at London Airport. I remember that a few years ago I made a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, about running buses direct from the side of the aircraft to London. I also passed this on to Mr. Milward as he then was, the Chairman of B.E.A., and was delighted when he accepted the idea. This is not a new idea, but it might well be used to the advantage of the British travelling public. We spend vast sums of money—and an example is to be found in this

  677
  Bill—in increasing the efficiency of the service by introducing jet aircraft which cut perhaps 10 minutes off the flight to Belfast. This is at great cost to the airlines. We then waste the same amount a time, or perhaps double or treble, hanging about London Airport.
  It is a little pointless buying faster aircraft at higher prices and then not paying the same attention to the loading and unloading of passengers and luggage. I would also encourage more passengers to carry their own luggage on to the aircraft. This would reduce costs.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Would my hon. Friend agree, speaking of the method of conveying passengers to planes at London Airport, that what used to be an easy operation for elderly persons is now highly dangerous? One is put into one of these buses and taken at high speed, standing up. One has a considerable amount of difficulty in keeping one's feet. Is this not something which could be improved?
  Mr. McMaster: Yes. I would like to see much more progress being made with the direct loading at one level into the aircraft, of passengers and luggage. One could go out alongside one of the jets and, instead of going right down, like the Duke of York, marching his men up to the top of the hill and down again, one could walk straight on at the same level. This method is adopted in the United S sates and progress is being made in this direction at London Airport, but it is painfully slow. I agree that those buses running out without any seats are a real hazard for elderly people, or people with children, or any other infirmity. [Interruption.] I will not rephrase that sentence; I think the House takes the point.
  The Government have lost an important opportunity in the ordering of the now aircraft to re-equip B.E.A. We have been delighted to see that Rolls-Royce has sold its 211 engine to Lockheed. I very much regret that the Government did not see fit to go ahead with the B4C211. This aircraft would be ideally suited for the route to Belfast. We do not want the airbus to Belfast, it is too big, we would only have one or two services in a day. We do not want the small Trident 3B because this service referred to in the Bill is a busy one, increasing between 12 per cent. per annum and 14 per cent.
  678
  per annum. It is a wonderful service, making a profit when others were making a loss. An aircraft that would fit into the slot, as the manufacturers say, such as the BAC211, seems ideal.
  The Minister should look at this again. We are manufacturing this RB211 engine for Lockheed and we hope to manufacture a down-graded version of it for the airbus, the A300, when that comes along. We are not sure that it will come along, and even if it does, there seems to be a gap between the Trident 3B, which has a very small export potential, and the airbus. Britain should be manufacturing an aircraft between the BAC111, which is a very fine aircraft, and the airbus. We should be designing something. Perhaps by now the BAC211 is out of date, but we could use this advanced-technology engine in a newly-designed aircraft, even better than the BAC211, but along those lines, to fill this slot. The Minister would do well to follow the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and reopen this whole question.
  There has been a very sharp rise in the fares on the services within the United Kingdom, particularly to Northern Ireland. It seems only four or five years ago that B.A.C. received great support in Northern Ireland following an advertisement for peak fares to London in winter of £3. If one was lucky enough to get on to the flight standby and save the fare, one could fly from Belfast to London for £2—a remarkably low fare for that distance, but not out of line with some of the fares charged in America and other parts of the world for similar distances. Now the standard fare has been raised by 10 per cent. If one includes the bus fare, it costs almost £20 to fly return in winter on an ordinary flight from London to Belfast. This very sharp rise has caused a great deal of discontent among passengers.
  It might be said that I am taking extreme cases, and not comparing like with like, but off-peak flights with the standard flights. As to the standard flights I have received many complaints, as a Member for Belfast, on the sharp increase in fares to Northern Ireland. I say this with some strength, because one notices in paragraph 27 of the decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board in

  679
  July last year the remark that "B.E.A. are making a profit on the Belfast flight". If they are making a profit and have made a continuous profit on this flight, why is it they need to put up the price? Are B.E.A. doing what the Minister suggested in opening this debate—maximising their profit? Are they milking the profitable routes in order to pay for the less profitable ones or the ones that are making a loss, for instance, the Highlands and Islands? How does this fit in with the Government's regional plan?
  I suggest that this service to Northern Ireland is a vital lifeline. We are in a peculiar position in Northern Ireland, in that we have a sea barrier. This has an effect on our efforts to develop and encourage new industry to come to Ulster. As a result of this, our industrial development has lagged behind the rest of that of the United Kingdom. Our unemployment rate, even with the recent decrease, is still over 7 per cent., which is almost three times the national average.
  One of the ways in which we can improve our industrial development in Northern Ireland is by improving our transport links. This is where an air service is the ideal type of service for business men travelling between the South of England and Northern Ireland. They do not have to trouble with trains and boats. It is therefore essential, if this industrial development in Northern Ireland is to go ahead quickly, that we should have a good, economic, cheap air service between Belfast and London and other cities in the British Isles.
  I feel very strongly that the Minister should re-examine the fare structure between Belfast and London and consider whether the fare has not been raised too much, to see what effect this will have in building up traffic, remembering what I said a few moments ago about the monopolistic position of B.E.A. on the route.
  If there are services such as the Highlands and Islands services which are making a loss and the Government feel that it is socially desirable that B.E.A. should continue to operate the services, the Government should be prepared to subsidise them out of public funds in the same way that certain railways are
  680
  now subsidised. It is not fair to the travelling public to Northern Ireland to expect them to pay more on a service which is making a profit in order to subsidise other services in the rest of Britain. It also seems to be directly contrary to the Government's economic policy and industrial development policy which should, if anything, encourage the State air corporation to reduce its fares in order to encourage industrial development in Northern Ireland.
  I should like to mention the aircraft which have been referred to already. The Minister, in opening the debate, referred to orders for British aircraft which had been placed: the Trident 3B, BAC111, series 500, and the airbus. The hon. Member for Orpington mentioned the need for a freighter aircraft to be operated by the air corporations. The air corporations should look particularly at the type of aircraft which are being produced in Northern Ireland. It was suggested that they could look to America because of the system of palletising loads, but we have a small freighter produced in Northern Ireland—the Short Sky-van—which seems ideal for the uses of B.E.A. This aircraft is now being sold to the United States, and it will be somewhat contradictory for B.E.A. to look to the United States for a freighter or develop the Vanguard, which will not take a pallet, when it could order such aircraft as the Short Sky-van to serve this function.
  These planes can take a pallet, could fly directly to London or to other towns in the United Kingdom, and would also be of great use in furthering the industrial development of Northern Ireland. They could offer a first-class service to manufacturers setting up new industries in Northern Ireland—a quick, inexpensive service to the main industrial centres of the United Kingdom. This alone, with a policy of cheaper air fares, would do a great deal to improve the industrial development and build up the air traffic between Belfast and the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, the rest of Europe, particularly if we entered the Common Market.
  The subject of airports has also been mentioned today. I feel very strongly that the British Airports Authority was ill-advised to increase the landing fees at British airports following devaluation. I

  681
  would refer the Minister in this context to a recent article in a South African magazine called Prospect. The Minister spoke of an analogy when referring to the British Airports Authority increase in tariffs. This magazine pointed out how a manufacturer of machine tools had sent a short note, following devaluation, to a purchaser in South Africa advising him that as a result of devaluation, the manufacturer could charge 16 per cent. more for the machine tools but that he was only going to charge 14 per cent. to the South African purchaser. The South African purchaser was understandably irate about this. He immediately sent a letter to the manufacturer in Britain saying "Thank you for nothing" and got in touch with the Japanese to see what their rates were for machine tools. I suggest it is very bad business to raise tariffs just because we are in a position to charge more, and this applies equally to our airports. It is important for the industrial development of this country—and I should like to put this Bill into the background of our general economy policy—to encourage trade and commerce.
  We will soon have a third airport for London, and when we do we will want to encourage more traffic to the United Kingdom from the Continent and from America. This policy of the Government—without any consultation, without warning and apparently without economic justification—in raising the landing fees by an arbitrary amount to get the maximum from the operators can do nothing but create much These operators will frequently have a choice, particularly on inter-continental flights, in whether they wish to use the airports in this country or not.
  We want to build up airports. At the moment Heathrow is overloaded, but once we have another airport—whether it is Stansted or elsewhere—we will want to increase the traffic and, with better methods of air traffic control, we will be able to build up the frequency.
  The aim of the Government in this Bill and in its airport policy should be to reduce tariffs as far as possible in order to build up greater trade and commerce and encourage more airlines to fly to London and, through London, to the United Slates and elsewhere.
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I susspect that more hon. Members might have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, if we had been aware in advance how far we might range in this debate and still remain within the rules of order. But, perhaps it is just as well that advertisements to this effect are not circulated to hon. Members. You have heard a good deal about aircraft within the last week, Mr. Speaker, and you may share my wish that we could achieve the status of a specialist committee on aviation matters, so that we might discuss these things more fully in our expertise and perhaps disagree more deeply within the somewhat restricted membership of those closely concerned with aviation affairs.
  It is not my intention on this occasion to try to prove what I might call "Bence's law", that "speeches expand to fill the time available for their completion", so I will touch only briefly on one or two points made by speakers in the debate.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) is not with us at the moment, and perhaps I may leave him to read in HANSARD my advice to him on the trouble he has had with The Times, which is to cancel his subscription and to take the Daily Telegraph instead. That should ensure my being reported in both newspapers.
  I should like to return later to the points which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) made about the landing charges at Heathrow. I find it very hard to accept his argument that it was impossible for there to be consultation with the airline operators before these charges were brought into operation. Today's newspapers carry a report of a meeting of the Heathrow Airport Airline Operators' Committee at which 40, I believe, of the 43 airlines represented, including those from Eastern Europe as well as North America, united in their opposition to the charges. If there could indeed not be proper consultation, it is very important that some means should be found to enable proper consultation to take place in future.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who is not at present in the Chamber, made some valid points about crowding at Heathrow, although there are those who believe that air traffic control procedures could be developed

  683
  to a higher pitch which would enable more landings and take-offs to take place there. However, I should like to take this opportunity of putting to the Minister a point concerning general aviation flights at Heathrow. Small, taxi executive aircraft are, I am glad to say, becoming increasingly popular. But we must recognise that when they make use of a major international airport they take up slots in the landing or take-off pattern which might be put to much greater passenger benefit if instead of a 10-seater aircraft using them a 100-seater aircraft were allowed to come into the traffic stream.
  There is also a good deal of evidence of the risk entailed by allowing general aviation flights in the area of a major international airport. The Minister will probably have seen some figures on this subject in this week's edition of Flight. If he has time to touch on this point, I should be glad to know whether he is in agreement with the Chairman of the British Airports Authority, or whether he sees any prospect of developing for general aviation purposes the airport at Northolt, of which the R.A.F. can hardly be making saturation use.
  The hon. Member for Govan also referred to the pressing need for the mounting of the inquiry into the third London Airport. He might not have listened to speeches made on this subject from this side of the House some months ago in which we stressed the urgency of this need. The whole House is glad that the Government have at last accepted it. It would be of general interest if the Minister could tell us tonight what progress is being made on setting up the inquiry.
  The hon. Member for Govan suffered the unusual experience of being accused by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East of not going back far enough in time, which he must have found a somewhat new charge. I was also a little sceptical about his proposal to instal the RB211 engine in the Trident, which I should have thought would create a surplus of power. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not at his most serious when he made that point.
  It was very mischievous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that B.U.A. was on the verge of bankruptcy. If he were present, I should ask him to withdraw that
  684
  statement. Independent airlines, indeed all airlines, have faced a difficult period, but the evidence which we have had recently, with the considerable orders placed by B.U.A. for new British aircraft and the major part which the Air Holdings Group played in securing the RB211 order by putting down a bid of their own for 50 airbuses, should indicate that this is by no means a bankrupt concern. It is very much a go-ahead, determined and enterprising concern. To throw allegations of that kind around the Chamber is the height of irresponsibility.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) made a useful contribution, as he always does, particularly by virtue of his being a regular airline traveller. It is worth remembering that travelling experience by air is not confined to those fortunate enough to be able to take frequent trips abroad. The communications by air which exist between the various parts of the United Kingdom are an integral part of our society. They provide a service which might well be developed and expanded in certain other areas of Britain, notably the South-West. We are often insufficiently air-minded as a nation, and when we consider transport and communication problems we are very slow in appreciating the part which aviation can and should play in bringing the various parts of this quite small island closer together.
  Another absentee whom I must mention is the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), who made an intervention concerning competition. He seemed to cast scorn on the idea that the introduction of independent operators to some of the domestic scheduled flights had been to the public disadvantage. He spoke of "creaming off" the most profitable sectors. This is a very narrow attitude. The right way in which to gauge these matters is in terms of providing more cream for the customer. If we want more choice, better flights and more modern aircraft, competition is the way to introduce them and the customer is the person who will benefit, I have no sympathy for narrow points of view of that kind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East reiterated the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) about reconsideration of the BAC211. I should like

  685
  to clarify one point with the Minister. My hon. Friend quoted £50 million as being the figure which had been estimated for the engine element in the development of the BAC211. The Minister intervened to say that the correct figure was £30 million. I am puzzled about this, because it is at variance with the evidence given to the Select Committee xi Nationalised Industries reported in paragraph II 36 on page xxiv of its second Report, in which it says:
  "… the Ministry of Technology put the launching costs at £60 million or more for the aircraft itself and £50 million or more for the engine".
  Perhaps this is all water under the bridge, but some of us in the past have felt inclined to accuse the Government of using an elastic slide-rule in doing their calculations on projects which they do not want to support. I should not necessarily condemn the Minister for that, but if we are to be able to reassess past decisions with a view to getting similar decisions right next time, it is important that there should not be an element of doubt about £20 million left in the history of the venture.
  The Minister said that he was sorry that the Bill had to be brought forward in this form. The House shares his regret, because we had looked forward to getting the financial structure of B.E.A. resolved for the next 10 to 15 years. We know how hard it is to find places in the legislative queue for Bills of this kind. We should have welcomed an opportunity to get the matter right and to be fairly certain that for 10 or 15 years we should not need another Air Corporations Bill.
  I was not clear from what the Minister said about precisely why the timing had gone against him. I understood him to say that discussions were far advanced and that he could not reveal the nature of the financial arrangements he was contemplating, but that he believed that the discussions were nearing their end and that he hoped to be able to tell hon. Members during the further stages of the Bill what the proposals were.
  If the arrangements can be finalised in time for the Bill to be amended, is it the Government's intention so to amend it? It seems to me unlikely that we shall get into Committee before Easter, and therefore we have a certain amount of time to play with. We have a month before we can expect to reach the Com
  686
  mittee stage. Is there no possibility of getting the discussions cleared up in that time? Sir Anthony Milward, Chairman of B.E.A., writes in the current issue of BEA Magazine:
  "I know from my discussions with the President and his staff that they are as anxious as we are to get this cleared up quickly and honourably."
  I know that there is not an easy process to be gone through, but there is good evidence of good will on both sides and I very much hope that it will be possible, with co-operation between the Board of Trade, B.E.A. and the manufacturers, to get this settled and enable the House to clear up the whole thing.
  I make this point with slightly more emphasis because I am not certain that Clause 1(2), which authorises the Board to borrow £10 million against the revenue deficit, has very much to do with the purchase of the Trident 3B. It seems to me to be designed, sensibly perhaps, to deal with the short-term financial difficulties which B.E.A. may face if—as is possible, although we hope that this may not happen—it finds itself running into fairly substantial annual losses, not just this year but next year as well. It is conceivable that B.E.A. could lose about £10 million if air operations become an uneconomic sector in a relatively short period. This contingency fund will guard it against the consequences of that, but I do not see how it will help it to finance the costs of introduction of the Trident 3 and provide it with any element by way of compensation for such financial penalties as it may incur on its operation.
  There are one or two other items on which B.E.A. may have to spend money and which the Minister did not mention. One is hotels. The right hon. Gentleman knows how important it is that when people have been flown into this country they should have somewhere to stay. There are those who believe that the shortage of hotel beds is one of the main limiting factors in international air travel, and there is certainly evidence of a need to provide more hotel facilities. I do not know whether there is any intention that B.E.A. should be responsible for their provision, and I am not sure that I am wholly in favour of B.E.A.'s doing so. So long as there are other people who can do this, I do not see that it is a necessary adjunct of air line operation.

  687
  The other and very important project on which money must be spent is the electronic data processing of air freight and the development of the new cargo terminal at Heathrow, which should have considerable effects in saving costs of both exports and imports. That is not to be despised.
  I return to the question of landing charges. I share the unease of my hon. Friend on this subject. One thing which came out in the exchanges during the Minister's opening speech which does not make it any easier for me to understand the situation, is why the initiative in the question should have come from Mr. Peter Masefield. I cannot see anything in the Airports Authority Act, 1965 which obliges the Chairman of the British Airports Authority to take into account considerations of foreign exchange. I am not wholly in favour of chairmen of nationalised authorities exceeding their briefs. It is particularly undesirable that they should do so unless the Minister responsible takes the initiative in suggesting that they should do it.
  If the Minister had told us that he proposed to the chairman of the Airports Authority that he should consider this matter and submit recommendations to him, I should have found it easier to understand the way in which the matter has come about. But we have been told that the Authority took the initiative in this and I am puzzled to see how what has happened wholly squares with the evidence which Mr. Masefield gave to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I quote from page 98 two exchanges, in the first of which Mr. Masefield says, speaking of landing fees.
  "If we wanted to alter them, we would have to go to the Board of Trade; I think we would have to go to the Prices and Incomes Board."
  The President of the Board of Trade told us that for some reason which is not wholly clear, this did not have to go to the Prices and Incomes Board. I am not sure that he has explained why.
  The second answer Mr. Masefield gave is even more interesting in a way. Asked about the basis on which the fees are fixed, he replied:
  "As I understand it, there were three basic factors taken into consideration. Number one,
  688
  and I think the primary one, was charging what the traffic would bear. Number two was achieving an adequate return on capital. Number three was to have one simple single fee which would embrace everything instead of these rather complex charges of all sorts of things which happens in some other places."
  The third of those criteria has gone to some extent, because we now have what we did not have before, a differentiation between the domestic and international landing fee. If I am correct in my understanding, these were previously the same and the inter-continental fee was more heavily weighted. There are now three instead of two, so there is more complexity.
  I suppose that it could be said that we are now receiving a greater return on capital, but there is no evidence that fees previously represented an inadequate return. So I come back to the question of what the traffic can bear. The President of the Board of Trade should have taken greater pains to see that there was full consultation on this, and he should have heard evidence from both sides. Sir Anthony Milward is very critical of the increase, and the foreign operators have been very critical. I see nothing in their reaction which leads one to suppose that they are likely to try to divert traffic in the direction of this country. I know that the foreign operators will not be paying any more than they were before, but although they have been denied an uncovenanted bonus as a result of devaluation, B.E.A. will certainly pay £200,000 a year more on their international routes, on top of the extra £100,000 which will be the cost to it, direct or indirect, of the latest Budget.
  Here we have another £300,000 a year being put on B.E.A.'s shoulders at a time when we are already aware that it stands in danger of making a loss of £3 million. This is not likely to make its task of providing air services any easier, and I do not believe that it is likely to make its staff morale any better. It is a fairly reasonable proposition that people who work for a firm that is not making money have a lower morale than those who are working for a firm that is making a profit. It is important that the morale of a Corporation like B.E.A. should remain high, because so much depends on all members of the staff doing their tasks with great diligence and responsibility.

  689
  I turn to the question of aircraft noise. I think that there is an obvious connection here. We are being asked to vote large sums of money for the purchase of aeroplanes for expanding air operations, and to a great many members of the public that will simply turn itself into a proposition that we shall buy them more noise in the sky. I do not regard these matters in that way, but the Minister knows that there are many people who feel as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) feels, that noise is an abomination, and there are some who would go as far as the hon. Gentleman sought to do last Friday, which is to ground every jet aircraft in current airline service at the end of five years, and, incidentally, throw many people out of work and lose a lot of money.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I sought to do no such thing. In any event, I was prevented from doing anything at all half way through the proceedings by the Chief Whip.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is prevented tonight from debating the ending of Friday's debate.
  Mr. Onslow: Were I in order, I should most emphatically dispute the hon. Gentleman's first assertion but unquestioningly accept his second. The serious feature of what happened was not that I was prevented from making one of the best speeches I have never delivered but that the Minister was denied the opportunity of giving certain information to the House which I believe that he was ready to give and which I think the House would have been glad to hear.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman complimented the Chair on being so generous tonight. He must not abuse its generosity.
  Mr. Onslow: I would never seek, Mr. Speaker, to abuse your generosity. The Minister may be equally anxious this evening to give us certain information. May I leave the thought in the mind of the Chair that when we talk about spending large sums of money on buying aeroplanes, the people who live underneath them would be glad to hear a statement from the Minister on certain proposals he may have in mind.
  690
  We know there is an intention in the Board of Trade to introduce noise certification. We have waited some time to hear precisely what these proposals might be. They were first outlined to the House very roughly almost exactly a year ago, on 17th April, 1967, by the then President of the Board of Trade. We understand and appreciate the complexity caused by the need to obtain international agreement. Nevertheless, if we can be told anything about proposals for introducing noise certification, the public will most heartily welcome greater information being provided to them, as they should always welcome information which helps them to understand the peculiar problems of aviation and air operation.
  Incidentally, it is time that a more up-to-date copy of the Ministry's pamphlet on aircraft noise was produced. It was printed in May, 1965, and it is still in current circulation. Much has happened since. This whole subject is one on which there ought to be a White Paper, and indeed there ought one day to be a proper debate. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your generosity.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has misunderstood. Noise is in order but the circumstances of the ending of Friday's debate are not in order.
  Mr. Onslow: I am afraid that I did misunderstand you, Mr. Speaker, but that paragraph will join my collection of speeches never delivered.
  I turn now to labour relations, a matter which was not mentioned by the Minister but which is relevant in the immediate context of the operation of B.E.A. and, slightly more obviously, of B.O.A.C. We have an unpleasant threat of another Easter strike. I very much hope it will not happen. The travelling public resents being held to ransom in this way. Any trade unionist misguided enough to take it out of the travelling public on bank holiday cannot expect to receive much sympathy or support.
  On a more general matter, I ask the Minister to give us a short comment on the Pearson Report of the Court of Inquiry into the dispute between B.O.A.C. and the British Air Line Pilots Association, which deals tangentially with B.E.A. particularly in the third of the conclusions

  691
  of the inquiry, on page 36 of the Report, which reads as follows:
  "There is strong dissatisfaction among the pilots about access to the level of decision, about status and about consultation at the appropriate management level, and in our view there is some foundation for this dissatisfaction."
  That is founded on the full Report, paragraph 79 of which states:
  "Something has gone wrong with the relations between the pilots and the management in the two corporations."
  We know and welcome the fact that B.A.L.P.A. have returned to the N.J.C. I hope the Minister can tell us that something has been done to restore the unfortunate breach in labour relations between pilots and employers. This is a matter of great importance to the travelling public, the pilots and the corporations. We have not had a reaction on this from the Government side, although I realise this is directly the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour and not that of the Minister himself.
  May I comment briefly on two points made by the Minister? The House will be delighted to know that he has decided to publish the Air Safety Review. He has for some time been pressed to say how far it had gone, and we shall certainly want to debate it. Meanwhile considerable reassurance is to be derived from the conclusions he has outlined to us. There should be no further cause for the kind of alarmist comment which was set off by the unfortunately coincident crashes which took place last year.
  When the Minister comes to consider the changes in the regulatory procedure, I would ask whether an increase in staff will be required. I assure him that, if it does, I shall not object. I had a Question down to him some time ago which showed that there had been an increase of 19 per cent. in passenger miles flown and an increase of three in the staff of the Air Safety Department. This suggests an imbalance which I hope can be rectified. I have also had correspondence with the Minister of State on the subject of type certification of pilots and I hope this matter can be tidied up when the regulatory procedure is being revised.
  The Minister did not touch on accident inquiry procedure. I do not know if this was covered by the inquiry. The Minister of State will remember that we
  692
  had an adjournment debate about it, and he expressed certain uneasiness, which echoed my expressed uneasiness, about the procedures we have at the moment. He told us then that he did not have a ready answer. I am not pressing him to produce an answer out of his hat, but, the progress of the Stockport inquiry has to some extent underlined the uneasiness I expressed. Since this is still sub judice, I will say no more now than that the inquiry has taken a somewhat erratic course, and it is possible to conceive that it might have been conducted with greater expedition and at less expense if it had taken a somewhat different course at the outset.
  The Minister ended his speech by giving a review of the export prospects of the industry, and these, as I am sure the House will agree, were highly creditable and most encouraging. They are a vindication to any Member of the House who is prepared to say, as I am, that our aircraft industry is one of our most important export industries, and that it has an enormous potential. The Government can help. The Government have helped and nobody is denying that the Government are helping now. Perhaps the Government will be expected to help more in the future.
  The main credit still goes to the industry; so much for Plowden. The events of the past few years and the successes achieved by the British aircraft industry make the Plowden Report look even less convincing in retrospect than some of us felt it looked at the time it was produced. Anyone who believed there would be a major redeployment out of this industry into other sections of the British economy will be very surprised when the effects of these latest orders and the implementation of the Concorde project come to be felt. Perhaps the Ministry of Technology could be persuaded to drop their inquiry into redeployment from the aircraft industry and mount an inquiry about redeployment into the aircraft industry.
  The only anxiety we can have is whether there will be adequate capacity for all the work now coming in, whether there will be adequate capacity at Rolls Royce to develop the RB207 engine for the airbus. One of the secrets of maintaining initiative in this field is to reinforce success. With the RB211 we have

  693
  had enormous success, which must be reinforced. Efforts must be concentrated on it. I have the uneasy suspicion that in the process, inevitably, Rolls Royce will not be able to devote the attention to the RB207 which might be needed for it to be ready in time to fulfil the airbus requirement which has been set upon it.
  I end by re-emphasising what my hon. Friend said. Aviation is an expanding industry, in aircraft manufacture and in aircraft operation, and we on this side of the House believe it is one in which Britain has in the past held a leading rôle and must at all costs now retain it.
  7.29 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): Several hon. Members have remarked that, for various reasons, the debate has been thinly attended. Certainly it has not been thin in content or in quality. If you will allow me to say so, Mr. Speaker, at least part of the credit for that lies in your own lap, because you have allowed us considerable freedom to discuss a wide variety of topics which are related to the Bill without being integral to it.
  In those parts of the speeches which have been directed to the Bill, there has been general approval of its provisions. Speaking for myself, I found it extremely helpful to hear the wider aspects of aviation debated, and I shall make sure that the Edwards Committee is well seized of the points which have been raised today.
  One or two of them were very much matters for that Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) made some criticisms of the licensing system. That is very much in the sphere of the Edwards Committee and will be considered by it.
  My hon. Friend also brought up what is an old subject in this House when he referred to the Highlands and Islands and the "losses" that B.E.A. suffers there. He asked about the prospects of a subsidy to cover the losses. It is extremely difficult, however, to say that these social service activities result in a loss. One sees a loss in the accounts, but what one does not see is the profits from inter-lining which may result from those activities. This, too, is a subject
  694
  which the Edwards Committee is considering at present.
  Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Belfast, East complained a good deal, and again he referred to the A.T.L.B. and services to Belfast. B.E.A.'s licence contains no restriction on the number of flights which it can run between London and Belfast, and it is up to its commercial judgment to decide how many it shall run. However, it has not a monopoly on the route. B.U.A. runs services to Belfast from Gatwick. Its licence is a restrictive one, but it has an application in to the A.T.L.B. to have its frequencies increased. Of course, I cannot comment on the prospects of that application.
  In what was a particularly helpful speech, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) mentioned the subject of noise. Although we have responsibility in the Board of Trade for helping to see that the airlines prosper, independents and public corporations alike, we have a direct obligation to the people underneath the glide paths and elsewhere who suffer from noise. In the course of years, we have taken a great many steps to mitigate what undoubtedly is a nuisance. Some of them, about a limitation on night flights, and so on, are just in mitigation.
  The real means of combating noise clearly lies in engine design. A tremendous amount of research has been done already, with very fruitful results, into ways and means of getting quieter engines with silencers, suppressors, and so forth. The latest results have reduced what is known as jet roar so far that we are beginning to be annoyed by the compressor noise which was hidden by it. It is the ghastly whistle which jet engines have as aircraft come in to land. Research is going on into it both in private industry and in Government establishments.
  Ever since the meeting of the International Noise Conference and the Wilson Committee, we have been in close discussion and negotiation with the United States and France about the possibility of bringing in some form of noise certification. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I can tell hon. Members that the discussions have gone forward so fast and so successfully that we are now in a position to introduce legislation in

  695
  the House, subject to the one qualification that there is a slight difficulty about the propriety of adding a new Clause to a Bill which is going through its Second Reading. However, that is probably a matter which can be discussed fruitfully with the Opposition. So far as we are concerned, we hope to proceed with the legislation.
  Mr. Onslow: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Civil Aviation Bill, that has gone through its Second Reading and now awaits Committal to a Standing Committee. I should be extremely interested to have discussions with him, however, to see how any obstacles might be ironed out.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Lubbock: Surely the suggestion is one for the House as a whole to consider and should not be left to the usual channels.
  Mr. Mallalieu: That is a procedural point. Whether we should have a whole day's full-scale debate and whether or not it is proper, I would not know, but—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better get back to this Bill.
  Mr. Mallalieu: In whatever form it comes, the legislation will initially and primarily be to do with the new generation of engines. We hope that it will be possible to reduce the noise in new engines by anything up to half that of existing ones. In addition, we have to consider engines which are now flying or in the pipeline. Obviously there are immense difficulties. If planes which still have plenty of service in them are grounded, questions of compensation may arise. But there may be other ways of doing it by still better silencers on existing engines or even by re-engineing in some way. Therefore, in the legislation that we propose to introduce by one means or another, we shall have power to deal with engines which already exist, though we may not necessarily be able to use them.
  A good many hon. Members have referred to the increased landing charges. I was a little disturbed by the point put
  696
  by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) about consultation. The procedure is that the British Airports Authority normally would give six months' notice of any increase. That would permit time for consultations with and protest by all the airlines. It was not done in this case, but my right hon. Friend made sure that the proposed increase which the Authority wanted to make immediately was delayed for about two months.
  There comes a point in my right hon. Friend's position as arbiter when he has to watch the interests of the airport authorities as well as those of the airlines, just as he has a mixed duty when it comes to aircraft noise. Though the Authority put forward its proposal for an increase mainly on the basis of its own finances, when my right hon. Friend was considering the proposal he had to consider also the national interest, and of course the national interest was very much concerned with the balance of payments side of the issue, and with getting foreign exchange.
  The Authority's point of view is that although, on the face of it, its figures look pretty good, they are not nearly as good as they seem because of the work that the Authority is having to do. The last published figures represented a return on assets of about 12½ per cent. About 5 points of that 12½ per cent. come back to the Exchequer in terms of interest, and still more goes off in Corporation Tax. What is left is not a great deal with which to finance the developments which the Authority now faces. In the Board of Trade we are under constant pressure from Scottish Members, or at least from some of them, to do something about Turnhouse, to improve the facilities there, and to put in a new runway. This is only one of the many projects to which the Authority will have to contribute substantially in terms of finance.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South quoted from the Bill and said that one part of it meant giving continuous subsidies within this figure of £10 million. My right hon. Friend explained that that was not the intention, and nor is it. There is no question of the deficit being written off. It will remain on the accounts, and can be extinguished only by later profits.

  697
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) raised the question of the profits of the B.E.A. beyond this year and next. My right hon. Friend said that it looked as though the current loss would be about £3 million, and he was asked how much it would be in the following year. According to the present estimates, it will not be less than it will be in the current year. Beyond that I am not prepared to forecast.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) raised a point about the possible purchase of foreign planes by a subsidiary of B.E.A., by B.K.S. We are aware of various proposals, and we are watching them with even more than our customary care.
  I propose, now, to say a few words about the constitution of the B.E.A. fleet at the end of the period about which we are talking. It is virtually certain that the air bus will not be flying in the B.E.A. fleet at the end of 1973. Assuming that orders are placed for it—and I have every reason to assume that they will be—the air bus should come in shortly after then. In 1973 there will not be any air buses. but there will be 23 Trident 1s, 15 Trident 2;, on present estimates, 26 Trident 3s, or perhaps a few more, and 19 BAC111s. Those planes will mainly constitute the fleet. There may be older planes still in service, but I do not want to go into detail about that, first, because I do not know, and, secondly, because it might tend to prejudice the position of the B E.A. if by any chance the Corporation proposes to put them up for sale.
  Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the B.E.A.'s plans for freight operations over this period?
  Mr. Mallalieu: The proposal mentioned across the Floor of the House was to convert its Vanguards. So far five have been converted to freighters. When they are converted, they can take a pallet. According to the advice which we have received, these converted Vanguards do a freighter's job extremely effectively.
  Mr. McMaster: What is the seating capacity of this Trident? Is it not small compared with existing Vanguards, and does not this mean that for the next four or five years the number of seats in the Trident 3B will be insufficient to meet the needs on domestic flights?
  Mr. Mallalieu: I do not carry these figures in my head, though perhaps I should. They are about the same as the Vanguard, and there ought to be an increase with the stretched version. The hon. Gentleman is justified in saying that there is a gap between the size of these aircraft and the airbus.
  Incidentally, I ought to thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion about land buses which he made to the Corporation. His idea was adopted, and has proved to be a good one.
  Hon. Members have suggested that we should look again at the question of the BAC211. I shall not go into the old history about who was in favour of this plane and who was not. I think that the time has come to make a decision, and I believe that this is very much the view of the B.E.A. The Corporation is worried, not about the quality of either the Trident or the BAC211 compared with American planes, but about the delay in approval for it to go ahead and re-equip its fleet. It is this delay which, to a substantial extent, is likely to cause losses in coming years when the Corporation is in competition with other lines which have not been subjected to the same kind of delay.
  The BAC211 is not the responsibility of the Board of Trade. It is much more the responsibility of the Ministry of Technology, but we should not hesitate to go back to that Ministry, and indeed to the Treasury, if we felt that after such a long delay it was in the best interests of the airline and of the country that we should go ahead with it, but I cannot at the moment hold out any hope about that.
  Mr. Corfield: I see the difficulty. We do not want to make confusion worse confounded, but I think that it would be useful to have the true difference in the capital costs as it now exists, bearing in mind the effect of the Rolls Royce order on the launching costs of the engine.
  Mr. Mallalieu: It would be difficult to give an exact estimate of what the cost of further delay would be—which would be an element in it—but I shall consider the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan mentioned the difficulties about Abbotsinch and Prestwick and was suggesting that the latter might

  699
  possibly be used as part of a bus service. The Airports Authority and Glasgow Corporation have come to a reasonable and firm understanding about the relationship of these two airports—that they are both going to be necessary and are complementary; that Prestwick is for long-haul traffic, primarily North Atlantic, and Abbotsinch is for medium and short-haul traffic. We hope that agreement will be maintained.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, South raised a question about inclusive tours and the cheaper fares for night flights. I think this is a good point. I do not know whether we can do something about it, but I will ask the Authority and my right hon. Friend to have a look at that and see if we can make some suggestions.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington also raised the question of B.E.A. and helicopters. The position is that B.E.A. are awaiting delivery of a fifth S.61 and this will join two of the other S.61s which are at present operating between Beccles and the North Sea drilling rigs. The Scilly Islands service, which lost money for several years, has broken even during the past year and will, of course, continue. B.E.A. had the idea of running a helicopter service between the three airports and this was dependent on their having a heliport somewhere around this part of London. I think that the whole House of Commons, and certainly the Board of Trade, looked on this prospect with a good deal of alarm, as did the G.L.C. also, and so far nothing more has been heard of that proposal.
  On general aviation, there was a question as to whether it would be possible to take the light aircraft away from Heathrow and put them into Northolt. I should have thought that was a question of air traffic control. There might be difficulties, but I see the point and will look at it.
  I think it is clearly the opinion of the House that this present Bill is one that we should pass, but of course it does not presume to deal with the whole position of B.E.A., still less with the position of civil aviation as a whole. In the course of the next 18 months, the Government will have to take some very
  700
  important decisions about the future course of civil aviation as a whole, and indeed of B.E.A., B.O.A.C. and the independents, and this we shall do in the light of the Edwards Report. One thing remains certain: that the network of air services built up and sustained by our main flag-carriers—B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—will remain, and for that they are going to need the best aircraft, and preferably the best British aircraft, they can get. B.O.A.C. were looked after in the Air Corporations Act of 1966 and were set on a new and, I hope, a sure course. I am glad to say that under the chairmanship of Sir Giles Guthrie they have overcome their troubles. They are now making handsome profits and are paying worthwhile dividends, and I hope they will go on doing so. Now it is B.E.A.'s turn and the present Bill is just the start. It will enable the position to be held until we again come to Parliament with a fully considered and, I hope, agreed measure to put B.E.A. on the right track.
  Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend said that this was to hold the position until the time came "to put B.E.A. on the right track". What right track—financially or operationally?
  Mr. Mallalieu: I mean mainly financially. The Air Corporations Act of 1966 dealt with B.O.A.C. finances and we must now proceed to deal with B.E.A. finances, probably on the same or similar lines.
  Obviously Parliament will not wish to have presented to it a series of civil aviation Measures, each modifying the previous one. At the same time, I am sure we want to see implemented as early as possible the eventual financial agreement with B.E.A. I cannot forecast the course of events precisely, but I want to assure the House that it is not our intention to allow B.E.A. to run into a decline while waiting for Edwards. B.E.A. are themselves very much alive to the problems ahead and we shall expect them to put their own house in order and to earn the aid they receive.
  In this connection, I was delighted to hear a tribute paid by an hon. Member to the way that B.E.A. are now turning to the idea of I.T. tours, and so on, and the drive they are putting into getting tourists from abroad to come to this country.

  701
  With the assurance that B.E.A.'s situation is not viewed with any complacency, either in B.E.A. or in the Board of Trade, and that we shall come back to Parliament with a considered measure of aid to B.E.A. as soon as that is practicable, I invite the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill. What is in the Bill has not proved particularly controversial. It is more what is not in the Bill that is the subject of controversy. However, I hope what I have said tonight and what my right hon. Friend said in opening will persuade everybody that this Bill is the right measure for us to adopt now as the first step towards setting B.E.A. on a sound course for the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Grey.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  AIR CORPORATIONS BILL

    AIR CORPORATIONS [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of present Session to raise the limits on the amounts which the British European Airways Corporation may borrow, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums falling to be paid out of or into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund which is attributable to provisions of that Act—

    (1) raising the limits imposed by section 22(1) of the Air Corporations Act, 1967 on the amounts which the Corporation may borrow from £110 million or such greater sum not exceeding £125 million as may be specified by the Board of Trade to £210 million or such greater sum not exceeding £240 million as may be so specified;

    (2) authorising the Corporation to borrow from the Board of Trade, within the limits aforesaid, any sums which are required by the Corporation for the purpose of financing any accumulated deficit of the Corporation on revenue account which has accrued at any time before the end of March, 1970 to the extent to which that deficit does not exceed £10 million) and any sums required to repay sums borrowed from the Board of Trade for that purpose.—[Mr. P. W. Mallalieu.]

  REDUNDANCY FUND (NATIONAL LOANS FUND ADVANCES)
  8.0 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I beg to move,
  That the Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Loans Fund) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.
  If the House approves this Order, it already having been approved in another place, my right hon. Friend will thereby be empowered, in agreement with the Treasury, to receive temporary loans to the Redundancy Fund up to a maximum of £15 million. The House will know, because it debated the issue several times before, that Section 35 of the Redundancy Payments Act enables my right hon. Friend to borrow originally from the Consolidated Fund and now from the National Loans Fund. The Act itself makes provision for borrowing up to a limit of £8 million, which may be increased to a maximum of £20 million if both Houses approve Orders authorising additional amounts, and it is that approval for which I ask this evening.
  Since the Act became law, two changes have already proved necessary to maintain the Redundancy Fund's solvency. The first was an increase in the weekly contribution from 5d. and 2d. for men and women, respectively, to 10d. and 5d. This change came into force in February 1967. On 24th July last year, the House approved a second change, an increase in the borrowing power limit from £8 million to £12 million, when I told the House why the greater borrowing powers were necessary. Tonight, I ask, for similar reasons, for a further increase, and, with the permission of the House, I intend to outline those reasons.
  The House knows that when the contributions were increased to 10d. and 5d., it was the Minister's view that a contribution level of 1s. and 6d. would provide a more certain safeguard for the Fund's solvency. Had those figures been presented to and accepted by the House, a weekly income of about £830,000 would either have kept the Fund in balance or have returned it to surplus before the end of this year. Certainly, this Order would not have been necessary, nor would the Order of 24th July, but, as it was, the

  703
  lower figures of 10d. and 5d. were proposed and approved.
  Of course, the responsibility for that smaller figure and its approval is the Government's and the Government's alone, but we made our recommendation knowing that the view of both sides of industry, both the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., was that a weekly contribution of 10d. and 5d. would be adequate, and that both preferred it to the higher figure. We accepted their suggestion in the knowledge that, in a very real sense, the Redundancy Fund is industry's fund. Industry finances it entirely. Both sides benefit from its existence and their views on the level of contributions which are demanded to keep it in balance deserve proper recognition.
  We also knew that if increases to 10d. and 5d. proved inadequate, temporary borrowing was possible. In the long run, of course, the Fund must be self-supporting. Contributions must cover the Fund's permanent outgoings, but borrowing powers were intended to make allowances for temporary short falls in revenue and we seek tonight to take further advantage of those powers.
  The House will recall that in his Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government intended to increase the employer's contribution to the Fund by 2d. and 1d. from 2nd September onwards. It is our aim that the fund will move into surplus within 18 months or two years from that date, but, in the meantime, its solvency must be preserved and safeguarded.
  The weekly income from the present contributions is £690,000. In exceptional weeks, payments from the Fund have amounted to over £1 million. Over the last nine months, the average weekly payment has been £799,000. As a result of this constant imbalance, the Fund now has a deficit of £11 million, and simple prudence demands that we should safeguard the Fund's position between now and September by allowing for the possibility that the deficit will rise beyond the £12 million ceiling which is at present allowed—
  Mr. John Page: On what date was the £11 million deficit recorded? I missed the date.
  Mr. Hattersley: It rose to £11 million some time during last month. The actual week, because these things are calculated on a weekly basis, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman, but it was certainly during March—
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us some time—perhaps he is coming to it—at what level the costs of outgoings from the Fund are now running?
  Mr. Hatterlsey: The hon. Gentleman clearly missed the point when I made it. I told the House just now that, in exceptional weeks, outgoings have been over £1 million. In the last nine months, the average figure has approached £800,000, at a level of £799,000.
  Nine months ago, I told the House that the £12 million borrowing limit would probably not be reached, and I said just now that the Fund is already over £11 million in deficit. Since that means that the £12 million figure may well be passed, I am sure that the House will expect to be told what has happened since I made that forecast, which has proved manifestly incorrect.
  I must make it absolutely clear that the increased calls on the Fund do not result from unemployment having reached a higher figure or having been at a constantly greater level than we estimated. Nor does our request for extra borrowing powers imply that we expect the fall in unemployment during the next five months to be less than we originally hoped. The level of unemployment alone does not determine the outgoings from the Fund. Payments vary according to the men and women made redundant as well as according to the numbers of redundancies at any one time. Their age, length of service in their last job and the pay which they received all determine how great their redundancy payments should be.
  All these factors influence the size of each redundancy payment and complicate the forecasting of outgoings from the Fund with any accuracy. For example, 10 men under 40 with six years' service and average earnings of £20 per week receive from the Fund less than one-third of the payment made for 10 older men with 15 years' service, and average

  705
  earnings of £24 a week. To forecast with any accuracy the calls on the Fund, we would need to predict not only the number of new redundancies but the ages, service and wages of those men who become redundant. This is one of the factors which has not only made predictions impossible but results in the fluctuations in the weekly outgoings from the Fund and in a figure which may be of the average of £799,000, but can fluctuate widely from that to an amount of over £1 million.
  It is important to understand that the necessity to ask for approval for this new borrowing ceiling makes one thing very clear—that is, the fallacy implicit in the doctrine of the permanent pool of unemployed. Were the men who are unemployed this month the same as those unemployed two months ago, we should be making many fewer redundancy payments than now. What is clear from the pattern of redundancy payments is that there is movement both on to and away from the unemployed register. This is known as redeployment. The House has many times asked for evidence that redeployment exists, and I am happy to provide it from the Redundancy Fund this evening.
  Finally, the need for increased borrowing powers in no way stems from calls on the Fund which amount to abuses of its provisions. Of course, a fund of this size and complexity runs the risk of occasionally making payments which are thy; result of fraudulent or semi-fraudulent claims, but this could not possibly account for more than a tiny fraction of the total expenditure. Many of the critics of the Fund who might attribute our need to raise the borrowing limit to £15 million to misuses of the Fund do so because they misunderstand the Fund's purpose and the scheme's value.
  I should be out of order in dwelling on either of those two mistakes which are constantly made by critics of the Fund. All I can seek to do is ensure that its solvency is preserved until September in the intention that, after then, contributions will more than cover the payments which the Fund must meet.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the increased contributions take into account past debt and pay off that?
  Mr. Hattersley: Indeed, we are required to do that under the Act. In the long term, the scheme must be self-sufficient and preserve its own solvency. When I say that it is our aim that the Fund will move into surplus within 18 months or two years from September, when the increased contributions are made, it is our clear aim that it will do two things—first, that the contributions will more than cover the weekly outgoings, and, second, that the surplus of weekly income over outgoings will wipe out the present deficit of £11 million.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: I was proposing to begin by saying that this must be a sorrowful and embarrassing occasion for the Parliamentary Secretary. Instead, in view of his remarks, I must call this a shocking occasion for the House, hon. Members having been told that the Fund has now run into a deficit £11 million.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, with as much self-confidence as he could muster and with his usual debonair charm, presented this news to the House, but that was not enough to overlay the really dismal results which the Government have shown through the whole of their redundancy policy in the last few years. The arguments adduced by the hon. Gentleman were identically repetitive, apart from the figures, with the speeches he made in the previous debate. The same can be said of the remarks of his right hon. Friend on previous occasions. I do not see how hon. Members, the public or employers can have confidence in the hon. Gentleman's optimistic predictions about the future of the Fund.
  The Government are tonight in the position of a man going to his bank manager to seek an extension of overdraft facilities. Like the prudent bank manager, my hon. Friends and I must ask some probing questions, such as why the new facilities are needed and, even more important, why the confident predictions made previously have been shown to be so inaccurate. The Order increases the aggregate amount that may be outstanding from £12 million to £15 million for the period up to 25th April, 1968. It was only eight months ago, in July, 1967, that the Parliamentary Secretary asked for the then

  707
  available ceiling to be raised from £8 million to £12 million. On that occasion he said:
  "I emphasise again that any problems of tiding over difficulties are in a sense hypothetical. Certainly they are hypothetical in terms of a £12 million ceiling. My right hon. Friend believes that that £12 million ceiling will never be reached. It is certainly possible that the existing ceiling of £8 million may prove adequate, but I am sure that the House will agree that prudent management of the Fund requires us to make sure that sums are available to bolster and buttress the Fund to keep it out of deficit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1967; Vol. 751, c. 275.]
  Eight months ago the hon. Gentleman confidently predicted that the ceiling of £12 million would never be reached. Having risen from a deficit of £5,300,000 at that date, we now have the staggering revelation that it was £11 million at mid-March. I was anticipating a figure of £8 million to £9 million, but I had no idea that it would be as high as £11 million.
  Was the hon. Gentleman sincere in what he said tonight and does not he think that the Fund will be knocking on the door of £15 million within another eight months? I do not see why there should be a dramatic change in pattern—and this is the weakness of his argument—when the proposed increase from September will be 2d. for a male worker and ld. for a female worker, since the Fund has gone galloping on and accelerating into deficit after the payments had been more than doubled, from 5d. to 10d. and from 2d. to 5d. Can we be given an estimate of the highest figure at which the hon. Gentleman expects the Fund to be within the next 12 months?
  Returning to the analogy of the bank manager, he would ask what steps the customer proposed to take to get his overdraft back into balance. The completely inadequate answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary is that the Fund will be brought into balance again by further and greater contributions from the patient mulch-cow of the business community. Although I am not a farmer and while I do not represent a farming constituency, I suggest that this industrial mulch-cow will soon be getting dry and that the butterfat content of what it is able to give will be getting low. I would also not be surprised if this patient milchcow did not start kicking out a bit when
  708
  the icy-fingered milkmaid from the Ministry in St. James's Square puts in her next appearance. The increase in the income of the Fund must be made up by new contributions from employers. They have been doubled once, in February, 1967, and now they are to be increased again.
  The hon. Gentleman made great play with the fact that the real trouble was that his right hon. Friend had given way to the C.B.I. and T.U.C. representatives in agreeing that the figures should be 10d. and 5d. at the last increase, when he really wanted it to be 1s. and 6d. He tried to make out that if he had not given way quite so easily the Fund would not have run into debt in this way. But that is not what his right hon. Friend said. Having discussed in detail the 10d. and 5d. contribution, his right hon. Friend said:
  "On the basis of forecast levels of expenditure, these increases should be sufficient to reverse the present adverse trend and bring the Fund into balance in the early part of 1968 and build up a small reserve about a year later."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 373.]
  With all the information at his disposal, with a doubling of the contribution from employers and with the advice of the statistical department of the Ministry behind him, the Minister of Labour thought in November, 1966, that by now the Fund would be in balance.
  It is at this point that we come to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. There has been a fashion in recent times for hon. Members to quote from their own speeches. That happened frequently in the Budget debate. I will, therefore, humbly quote from an intervention I made in the previous debate. I said:
  "The Order and the speech of the Minister this evening are a frank admission of the colossal failure of Government planning and the complete punch-drunkennees of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1968; Vol. 736, c. 382.]
  Those were prophetic words and they have proved absolutely true.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, and the hon. Gentleman tonight, threw away rather carelessly this new impost on all businessmen and employers of the country. It is a 20 per cent. increase in the contributions they have to make to the Redundancy Fund, resulting—I should like my mathematics to be correct on this—in a further increase of £4 million on the overheads of

  709
  businessmen. This is at a time when the Government are introducing new controls on incomes, prices and dividends. This is the kind of action which makes businessmen weep for the failures of the present Government.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: Rubbish.
  Mr. Page: Hon. Members on this side of the House have constantly queried the philosophy behind the operation of the redundancy scheme. Those of us who have an appreciation of the intellectual qualities of the Parliamentary Secretary hope that he is carrying out in the Ministry some alternative thinking on the whole philosophy of the scheme. The scheme provides a golden or a silver handshake to people when they are made redundant, but there is absolutely no—[Interruption]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order.
  Mr. Page: I do not need your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck). In the scheme there is no gauging of the need of the recipient. It is right that we on this side of the House, on an occasion when a vast new borrowing power of many millions is being requested, should be able to protest. We should be entitled to query the reasons for which it is used.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot discuss the principles of the main Act on this Order. He can confine himself only to the reasons for the increase of £3 million.
  Mr. Page: I will keep carefully to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the reasons for the increase is the obvious squandering of redundancy payments where they are not necessary. Very few hon. Members on either side of the House believe that we should make redundancy payments, which cost the Fund a considerable amount—possibly £500,000 or more—to the staff of I.T.V. companies recently, when they had merely lost a weekend between one employer and another and their employment was completely assured under the contract with their new employer. It is fair that this should be mentioned because payments like this, which, of course, are in accordance with
  710
  the Act, cause such a run on the Fund that it gets into the state it has reached.
  I hope that I shall be in order in asking whether, under this new borrowing power, the position of dock workers is being considered. Dock workers are one of the few groups of workpeople not covered by redundancy schemes, even though their employers pay contributions. In the docks redundancy schemes are urgently needed.
  That brings me to the end of this disappointing little post mortem on the blatant bad management by the present Government in handing out large sums to individuals when they do not need it, which means—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member, I am afraid, is transgressing the rules of order by getting on to a discussion of the principles of the main Act.
  Mr. Page: I take your reproof, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Ministry of Labour will take a long, cool, reappraising look at the past performance of the Redundancy Fund, at where present policies are going and, if necessary, have the courage to come to the House with amendments which will completely change and revolutionise and make unnecessary debates such as this in future.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: We are having an extremely good night in spending Government money. Prior to discussing this Order we were considering the nationalised Air Corporations Bill and the Minister told us that there is a prospect that he will be writing off the debts of B.E.A. to an unspecified tune. By this Order, like the National Plan, like Budgets introduced by the present Government and promises by hon. Members opposite, the money goes fast and furiously down the drain. The only consolation is that the Prime Minister is tonight apparently involved in discussions about reshuffling his Cabinet. The more of them who are made redundant the better. We would not be concerned if a certain amount of payment were made for redundancy of the Ministers involved by this kind of expenditure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that none of these interesting matters is referred to in the Order. The

  711
  hon. Member must come to the terms of the Order.
  Mr. Ridley: Does not my hon. Friend think that the Government have brought this Order forward in anticipation of the heavy drain on it—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Lewis.
  Mr. Lewis: We have only just been told by the Minister tonight the amount of this expenditure. The House is not very full at present, but that is understandable, for when this Order was laid, although it suggests an increase in borrowing powers up to £15 million, no one knew that the Minister would tell us that £11 million or more had already been spent. If the House had been given warning of this, certainly if the Opposition had been warned, there would have been many more present to deal with the Minister.
  We on this side of the House accept that redundancy can be valuable and that redundancy payments are helpful to deal with it if the Fund does what the Minister suggests it is doing. Those of us who were involved in dealing with the Act when it was before the House expected that redundancy would assist in the redeployment of labour. The Minister tried tonight to suggest that much of this expenditure was caused by redeployment, and that it was not creating unemployment. I beg to differ. He probably believed what he said, but I do not see how he can tell.
  Unemployment has been marginally going down anyway, and, looking at the figures of unemployment on the one hand and at the retraining situation on the other, I do not see that that can possibly be true, because if the £11 million or more had been spent in making redundancy payments available to people being redeployed the Government's retraining facilities would have had to be expanded to deal with the situation. Everyone knows that the retraining facilities available through the Government are limited, that their development has been slow, and that the numbers of people in their thirties and forties coming forward for retraining are too few.
  The truth is that the Fund is being used to make redundancy payments to
  712
  people in their fifties, in many cases in their late fifties. The Minister rightly said that there was very little question of die use of the money in a fraudulent way. We accept that. People are not fraudulently misusing the Fund; they are simply getting round the rules. They are taking advantage of the rules the Government laid down, and the Government should have anticipated this. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) mentioned the use of the Fund to make payments to staff of the independent television companies who were paid off by one company. They were made redundant although they were then taken on by another company. Their contracts were honoured and they were continuing in the same employment, but simply because the name of the company was changed at the head of the notepaper they received redundancy payments.
  But that does not apply only to I.T.V. It was taking place in the shipyards some months ago, when the shipyards were without work and the order book was a bit thin—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is really discussing the principles of the original Act, and he cannot do that on the Order.
  Mr. Lewis: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But I am pinpointing the way in which the increased money to be borrowed will be used in the same way unless the Government do something about it. I am trying to cite an example—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is challenging the principles of the main Act, and he cannot do that on the Order.
  Mr. Lewis: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I return to the Order. The shipyards were using money from the Fund, and others will do it again, to pay off people aged 56 or 57, when the Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well that there is the peak payment under the Fund, a few years in advance of pension. Beyond that, the payment disappears altogether. The £11 million has been reached so quickly because many firms have been paying off people at that age. They have taken them on again within a matter of months. Their

  713
  pension rights have therefore been kept intact and in due course they have retired on their pensions. The Government should look into this. They know perfectly well that this happens and it is not right that they should ask for borrowings of this kind when they know that that is going on.
  I also ask the Government to look at the nationalised industries. I would guess that the same kind of thing is happening there. It is important to re member that it is completely useless to the country to spend as much money as this on redundancy payments to people of that age. Exceptionally, it can be justified because it helps the individual. But if it is happening on a large scale, we are not getting the retraining which the Government want. It is, therefore, not in keeping with what was expected when we passed the Act. The money is being misused. It is my guess that if this goes on the hon. Gentleman will have to come back to the House and have the sum increased from £15 million to £20 million. That is what we want to try and avoid.
  This is in keeping with the lack of economic control. We have more Treasury Ministers than ever. We have more Ministers at the Ministry of Labour than ever. We have a Prime Minister who is supposed to be concerned with our economic affairs. Yet here is a little fund, a tiny little fund. The hon. Gentleman said it was concerned only with the employers. If that is so, the Government are being taken for a quick ride.
  I can see how the Government have been taken in after the Budget we have had to suffer, with increases in taxation of £950 million, but I object as a taxpayer to being taken for a ride, and I am sure that everyone outside objects as well. The hon. Gentleman may think that I am making heavy weather of this.
  Mr. Hattersley indicated assent.
  Mr. Lewis: I accept that he does so. But he must understand that this kind of thing is duplicated in every Government Department. It is because of the additions of £1 million, £2 million, £3 million, piled one upon the other in a multiplication of deficits and debts, that we are in the state we are today.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) have been a little hard on the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in one respect, and only in one respect. In that respect, I want to thank him for coming to the House and taking this small extra borrowing—it is only £3 million—and not apply for the whole of the tranche of £8 million that he could have asked for by Order. We should also thank him in that when he last came to the House for more money, again he only took a small tranche—£4 million. This attitude at least gives the House an opportunity to check the progress of this rake, to check on the deterioration of the Fund which is taking place week by week.
  When the Fund started, I began a graph. I marked the levels of expenditure and income two years ago. But the deficit curve went off the bottom right-hand corner long ago and the graph is of little use to me now because the scale on which I started was hopelessly inadequate to deal with the way in which the financial transactions of the Fund have developed.
  I will go over this remarkable story. First, we were told that expenditure from the Fund would be approximately £350,000 per week—all these figures are in thousands of pounds a week. When it started in April, 1966, it cost approximately £450,000 a week; in November, 1966, the Minister increased the contribution from 5d. to 10d. and told us at the time that the cost was £650,000 a week. He said that it would drop to £600,000 a week and then would drop more until we would be in surplus. In July last year, he said that it was costing £700,000 a week. Last week he said that it was running at nearly £800,000 a week.
  In consequence we had to increase the contribution. It started at 5d. per man, is now 10d. and, under the Budget, is to go up to ls. This is really the most appalling piece of estimating and it is not just the first time, for on no less than three occasions the Government have been absolutely haywire. How can they come along here without even an apology to the House? The hon. Gentleman admitted that his forecast

  715
  had been wrong, but he did not seem to have any spirit of due humility about the magnitude of the error the Government have made; and I thought it was a bit mean of him to blame industry for this. He said it is the fault of industry, that it is for industry to keep it solvent, that industry thinks the fund is marvellous and therefore industry will be only too keen to support it.
  Who makes the rules? Who decides on what scale payments are to be made? Who decides about stopping up the abuses which my hon. Friend has mentioned? Who is the arbiter of what is a fair situation in which to pay redundancy and what is not? Is it industry? No, it is the Government; it is the right hon. Gentleman himself. From these benches there have been pressures to stop this or that loophole and to deal with abuses, and we have been told all the time that it is absolutely wrong to do so and that we should not question this marvellous piece of legislation. There is an additional loophole which my hon. Friend did not mention, the example of Rootes when the older workers came to the management and said, "You are going to shorten things. There will be short-time working this winter. Will you give us the sack first so that we can get our redundancy pay and we will come back as soon as trade picks up if we may?"
  Then there was the transfer from one subsidiary to another, with firms transferring workers from subsidiary A to subsidiary B, quite often at the request of those workers so that they could cash in on their redundancy entitlement. There was a great deal of connivance with examples of people leaving of their own accord and the employer saying he had sacked them so that they became eligible for the entitlement. The crowning argument was the hon. Gentleman's statement that this was very good evidence of redeployment, showing that redeployment was really taking place. But it is a mirage. We have been told all the time that there is to be a Promised Land of solvency and that the Fund will break even. Every time the hon. Gentleman comes back to the House he tells us that the oasis with its waters and surrounding palm trees is another few miles further on across the desert, and he has
  716
  invited us to soldier on for a longer time. He says that in 18 months after September next the Fund will be in the black. That is two years from now. The oasis is a long way off and some of us are begining to believe that it does not exist at all.
  The reason is that in creating this system we made available to everybody a retrospective extra amount of pay for every year's work they have then done. We put a price on the head of every man in the country who had been in employment; so we cannot blame them if they find ways of cashing in on the capital sum each of them is carrying. Indeed, I have every sympathy with them. But we have our priorities wrong now, because this scheme is costing £51 million a year. At the present rate of expenditure it may be a little more, but that was the figure the hon. Gentleman gave the last time he spoke about it.
  The whole of the earnings-related supplement only costs £15 million a year. One could have had three and a half earnings-related supplements for one redundancy pay scheme. The priorities are not in order. This money for which the right hon. Gentleman is asking would be better spent in other ways, and there are many good causes for which the Ministry is short of money—retraining, unemployment supplement, many parts of the policy of mobility of labour where the money could well be used. To come to the House and to say: "I want to spend £51 million and I want a chunk of it now for redundancy payments", is a classic example of getting priorities wrong.
  I do not propose anything drastic, but I hope that the Government will learn from what has happened, will listen to the points made by my hon. Friends, and will reconsider whether this is the right way to spend the money. The tone of the House after a stiff week will, I hope, convince them that there are some of us who still feel that Government expenditure should be scrutinised, questioned and criticised in this way when it is out of control, as this clearly is.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Hattersley: If I may speak again, with the leave of the House, and attempt to answer some of the questions; virtually the opening words of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) were "that this was a

  717
  good night for spending Government money". I do not know to what other issues he refers, but if he thinks that the Order which we are debating and the Fund of which this Order may form a substantial part is involved, he is mistaken. We are not concerned with spending Government money at all. The essential feature of the Redundancy Fund is that it is and must remain self-sufficient. All I am asking the House to do is to preserve its solvency between now and September. Increased contributions from industry will then make it self-sufficient again.
  Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Government's case, and the Opposition criticisms, our debate is not concerned with Government spending in any way. A much more relevant question is that which all hon. Gentlemen have asked, and which I sought to answer in my brief introduction. This was whether the Government could legitimately have been expected to estimate outgoings from the Fund with a greater degree of accuracy and success. I have clearly made the point insufficiently clear, but I have already told the House that the outgoings from the Fund for each week over the last few months have averaged about £799,000. There have been exceptional occasions when outgoings have been as high as £1 million in one week. From those figures the House will see that there are very great fluctuations, which are not correlated simply with the numbers made unemployed, made redundant, in each week, but correlated with a number of factors which it was not possible and never could be possible for the Government to know.
  These are concerned with the age of the men made redundant, with the time the men have spent in their last jobs and their average wage. To say that any Government should be able to predict with anything like accuracy, not simply the level of unemployment, in say the first week in April, 1968, but the level of new unemployment, the level of redundancies, and in addition the average wage paid to these men, their average length of service and their average age, is asking far too much of the Government—more than any Government could hope to do.
  Mr. John Page: In what way has the pattern changed during the period in
  718
  which the scheme has been running? I would have thought that it would have been running long enough for some kind of pattern to emerge to give some guide lines enabling the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend to stop having to make predictions which are later found to be completely false. Why is the pattern not more fixed?
  Mr. Hattersley: There is a rough and crude pattern, but it is not a pattern that has a picture so specific that it enables us to predict within close tolerances. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, understand when I say that during the last two months the net figure of unemployment—I do not refer to the seasonally-adjusted figure—has fallen, but there is not an equally substantial reduction in the outgoings for the Redundancy Fund. It is not possible to make that sort of precise prediction.
  Having said that, and knowing that from the inception of the scheme the Government prepared for this specific contingency by enabling my right hon. Friend to borrow, should that prove necessary, during periods of abnormally high outgoings, the hon. Gentleman was wrong to say the Government are in the position of a suppliant going to his bank manager and asking for yet another loan. At worst, we are in the position of a man going to the bank manager and saying "We always knew or always feared, or were always prepared and we told you we were prepared, to ask for £20 million. We were prepared for it because we were a prudent customer of this bank. However, we are not asking for that full sum but for something appreciably short of that maximum. It is not a maximum of which you are not aware; it is a maximum which we told you about at the inception of the scheme."
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: This is an interesting point. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman said I was wrong in suggesting this was Government money. He would not be discussing it tonight if this were not Government money. The Government are borrowing; the hon. Gentleman has accepted that. If he borrows more and comes back for more after this, clearly the only way he can recoup is by getting it back either from the employee, or the employer, or the taxpayer.
  Mr. Hattersley: As a statement of the obvious truth I cannot argue with that, but as a statement relevant to what I have just said it is a good deal easier to argue with.
  If the Fund remains in permanent deficit, two alternatives are open to my right hon. Friend: one is to increase the borrowing limit to £20 million. It is not open to him to go beyond because the Act specifies that sum. The second is to increase the contribution. The second alternative is the one we are going to take—the alternative which my right hon. Friend has said we were going to take during the Budget speech.
  This leads me to the third question which amounts to the suggestion that since our estimates have fallen so short in the past, since we have had to ask the House twice for additional borrowing powers—I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman who reminded the House of the convenience of asking for a lot at one time rather than minimum sums twice; I am sure he agrees with me that the Government did the right thing on both occasions in asking for the minimum when they thought necessary—how can the House accept my assurance that no further sums will be needed? The answer is this: Even during the period of maximum outgoings the average over the past six or eight months has been £799,000 a week. By 2nd September, when the increased contributions are due, the weekly income will be £830,000 per week. Even if outgoings persist at their present level, which I am sure the House will agree is an unlikely eventuality, there will be a weekly surplus on the fund.
  What I am suggesting to the House is that by offering the knowledge that the contribution is to increase, I am offering the certainty that the borrowing powers at present asked for will pay the Bill until that time.
  The only part of the entire debate to which I take violent exception is the suggestion by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that in some way I blamed industry for the deficiencies in the Fund and the necessity to ask for greater borrowing powers. I was careful in my original statement to express the simple and obvious fact that the responsibility for the contribution being at its present level rather than at the level of 1s. and 6d. was the responsi
  720
  bility of the Government and the Government alone. I have taken that responsibility and have accepted that blame, if "blame" is the right word.
  I go on to say that in my view we were absolutely right, first of all, to discuss the level of contribution with industry and, secondly, pay great heed to what they strongly recommended. The House will know that at the National Joint Advisory Committee some months ago we again discussed with both sides of industry the level of contribution to the Fund. I have no doubt at all that in the knowledge that were our predictions to prove incorrect, and were the new contributions to prove inadequate, borrowing was available to provide temporary cover, we were right to agree to the smaller contribution and to the smaller outgoing from industry. Since the Fund is solely financed by industry, and since most of the benefits of the scheme flow to one side of industry or the other, it is no less than just that their voices should be almost paramount in deciding how the Fund is financed and raised.
  Mr. Ridley: Does the Fund pay interest to the National Loans Fund on the borrowings we are discussing?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course, it does. Otherwise it would not be possible for me to say that this was not a charge on the public purse. The National Loans Fund and the Redundancy Fund are in something like a commercial relationship.
  I turn, with some difficulty, to the allegation that the exercise is, in part, necessary because of payments which amount to abuses of the Fund's spirit, intention and, sometimes, its rules. I say "with difficulty" because of the rules of Order covering the consideration of this matter. However, two things must be said. First, clearly we are asking for increased borrowing powers for the Fund as it exists, not for the Fund with additional sectors, like the docks, included or for the Fund changed out of recognition by amendment and alteration. Secondly, as I said originally, if there are abuses, if there is some system whereby men are receiving payments to which they are not entitled in law, those abuses and illegal payments are so infinitesimal that they do not influence the total outgoings from the Fund to any appreciable extent.

  721
  Many people who say that the Fund is liable to abuse do so because they mistake its purpose and intention. Since we have heard at some length about what was described by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury as "the Rootes loophole", I possibly have the right, and almost the obligation, to comment on it and to tell him whether I think that a loophole of that sort and perhaps of that size is making a contribution to the deficit which we are discussing.
  If there is a company—and I refer not to Rootes but to a hypothetical motor company—which discovers that it can produce in 1968 as many motor cars as it produced in 1965 with a smaller work force, and if it is in the national interest that it should do so and that that reduction in work force should be carried out with a minimum of industrial friction and a total absence of industrial dispute, and if when that reduction in work force is made a number of men say, "We will not resist redundancy, as we might have done, because we know that at our age, on our salary and with our length of service there will be a substantial redundancy payment", and if they go on to say, "If somebody is to be redundant, I hope that it is me", does the lion. Gentleman think that that is a payment which is not in the national interest? I believe that it is a payment which could be a help to the company and to the economy and a positive boon to the national industrial interest.
  Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with the case in which there is an added condition that when trade picks up they will be the first men taken on again? That is the loophole to which I refer, not the one to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.
  Mr. Hattersley: The rules of order again prevent me from describing the complications of making it impossible for that situation to come about. But, having hypothesised that far, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the alternatives. In that situation in which a reduction in the work force is necessary and there is no means by which the redundancy can be cushioned and by which the blow can be softened, the balance of industrial advantage comes down fairly and squarely on the side of having a redundancy payment.
  722
  But that is not the only advantage and benefit which we get from the existence of the Fund and from the need to increase the borrowing limit to £15 million. This is the second debate in which I have spoken on this subject and, if my memory serves me right, it is the second debate in which hon. Gentlemen opposite have said hard things about the Fund, but have not found it in their hearts to say a word about the advantages which accrue to many hundreds of thousands of redundant men who have found redundancy less painful because of the existence of this Fund.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford asked what conclusions can be drawn from these employment and redeployment figures. He suggested that I was over-stating the case when I said the evidence of the Fund suggested that redeployment was a reality and not a political slogan. Over the last six weeks to two months, the simple unemployment figures, not the seasonally adjusted figures, have been falling. If it were simply a matter of a few of the unemployed men entering new jobs and the rest remaining permanently or semi-permanently unemployed, no redundancy payment would be made. The redundancy payments have continued to average £799,000 a week over the last months. Substantial numbers of new redundancies have occurred. If substantial numbers of new redundancies have occurred, although the overall figure for unemployment has remained the same, the conclusion we must draw is that a substantial number of recently redundant men have found new occupations.
  If redeployment does not mean leaving one job and, after a short period of unemployment, taking on a different job, I do not know what the definition of that word is. That is clearly what it is, and all the evidence presented by the Redundancy Fund shows that this is so.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I appreciate the attempts of the hon. Gentleman to answer the arguments I have put. He was not suggesting the case of a man leaving one job, receiving a redundancy payment and going into another job of the same type. This is not what he was suggesting happened. It is not what should happen; it is not what we want to happen. We want the man to retrain. The point I

  723
  am making is that the men may be getting redundancy payments, and they may be getting other jobs in the same category, but they are not being retrained.
  Mr. Hattersley: I look at you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with apprehension as I endeavour to answer the question. The hon. Gentleman has fallen into error again when he assumes that men moving from one job to another must be retrained after the first job and before the second. More often than not, in a ratio of thousands to one, men are re-trained after entering the second job. If training is necessary for redeployment, that training may be carried out when the man is re-employed.
  Clearly, the House is in agreement that solvency must be, and clearly is, the Government's principal concern. The £15 million ceiling will preserve that solvency. The new rate of contribution in September will make solvency permanent. I hope we all agree that our intention to maintain solvency with minimum borrowing powers is the right step to take.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Loans Fund) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.

  ANTI-DUMPING (SILICONE SURFACTANTS)
  9.5 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): I beg to move,
  That the Anti-Dumping Duty Order 1968 (S.I. 1968 No. 384), dated the 14th March, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
  This Order has been made under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957. It imposes an anti-dumping duty of 5s. 9d. per lb. on silicone surfactants—the detailed chemical formula is set out in the duty Order—originating in the United States of America and produced by the Union Carbide Corporation or the Dow Corning Corporation. Silicone surfactants are used in the manu
  724
  facture of polyurethane foam for upholstery and similar purposes.
  The House will be aware that, before duties can be imposed under this Act, the Board of Trade must be satisfied that dumping is taking place, that it is causing or threatening material injury to a British industry, and that anti-dumping action would be in the national interest.
  In this case, an application under the Act was received on 11th December from Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, which is the major British producer of this material. On the evidence presented by I.C.I., the Board of Trade decided that there was a prima facie case of dumping and of material injury to the British industry, and a public announcement that the Board was considering the application was made on the 22nd December, 1967, inviting representations from interested parties.
  After careful consideration of all the evidence submitted, my right hon. Friend was satisfied that imports of silicone surfactants originating in the U.S.A. were being sold at dumped prices: and, secondly, that dumped imports from the Union Carbide Corporation and the Dow Corning Corporation had caused material injury to the British industry and threatened it with still further injury.
  The House will, I know, understand that I cannot give detailed reasons for these findings because they are based on commercial and financial information given to the Board in strict confidence. But I can assure the House that we investigated the case very carefully, including the facts of dumping and the costs and the return on capital of the British manufacturer.
  We also considered the national interest, including the consumer interest. Two firms told us that the United States product was more satisfactory for their needs than the British product. We considered their representations and came to the conclusion that there was no overriding technical difficulty about the use of the I.C.I. material for nearly all purposes. However, we appreciated that action against the American suppliers would put I.C.I. into a very strong market position. Accordingly, we sought two assurances from I.C.I., which it gave to us very readily. The first was that it would not, without our consent, increase its

  725
  prices above the level ruling at the time of its application in December, when its prices were already depressed by the clumping. The second was that it had more than enough capacity to supply all potential United Kingdom customers with their requirements in 1968. We consider that these assurances adequately protect the consumer interest.
  The procedure that we have followed h reaching a decision on this case, as in other cases, was in conformity with tie provisions of the Anti-Dumping Code which was agreed as part of the Kennedy Round negotiations.
  The Board of Trade is often criticised Ear the time that it takes to consider anti-dumping applications. In this case, vie took anti-dumping action in 3 months from the receipt of the application. This can hardly be described as undue delay.
  The duty on silicone surfactants took effect from the 19th March, 1968, and, for the reasons I have given, I hope that the House will approve the Order.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Lady for her very full explanation of this relatively simple Order.
  Having spent some time in the industry, perhaps I am in a better position than she is to pronounce the names of the chemical which appears in the Schedule, but that is about as far as I can claim to go. Certainly I do not intend to read the Schedule to the House.
  On the face of it, this is a clear case of dumping, and one might say that this instance offers an almost model case for the operation of the 1957 Act. Here was a company seeing a market for a new product developing in about 1960 in the rapidly expanding sphere of flexible polyurethane foams. It wanted to get into it, but it had no suitable product.
  It was refused a licence for the product b y the American manufacturer and, therefore, it set out by research and development to discover its own. It was costly, but it was successful, and the company w as able to break into the market. By the end of 1967, I.C.I. had achieved a 50 per cent. penetration of the British market and had also achieved a flourishing export business which was greater in
  726
  volume than its home market, and this is a very significant fact.
  During this period the price of the product had fallen substantially due to the strenuous competition which existed. Indeed, eventually the price of the material came down to the level at which the imported material was being dumped within the definition of the Act, even though it had protection of only a 10 per cent. duty.
  It is something surprising that a material of this sort, which, by its chemical definition, contains carbon atoms, is not a synthetic organic material qualifying for protection at the higher rate. I think, however, that this is outside the terms of the Order, and I shall not expect the hon. Lady to comment on it.
  A second company, Dow Corning, then came in and undercut an already low price. This provoked the domestic manufacturer, I.C.I., into approaching the Board of Trade to seek protection against the dumping. The complaint was followed by a prima facie case and the usual advertisements, and the Order was made. I should like to reinforce what the hon. Lady said about the speed with which her Department acted in this case. This has attracted favourable comment, not only from the firm concerned, and indeed not only from the industry, but from industry generally. I hope that it is a foretaste of things to come, and that as experience of operating this Act, which is a complicated piece of legislation, develops, the Board of Trade will be able to match, and indeed improve upon, the speed with which it worked in this case.
  Last night, because of the timetable, we were precluded from debating the Amendment Bill which, if it had been in force, would have empowered the Board of Trade to impose a provisional duty once it is discovered that a prima facie case had been made out, and then retrospectively to confirm that if, in the end, it was satisfied that dumping and material damage had been done. It is interesting to note that the three months' period for the provisional duty is the main period built into that Bill, and that if it reaches the Statute Book in its present form it will just about cover the period which elapsed between the application

  727
  being made and the Order being published.
  The hon. Lady referred to the assurances which she received from I.C.I. about capacity, and one would have thought that this was justified. It runs an 800-ton plant, and expects to commission a 1,200-ton plant by the end of the year. Equally, the undertaking about price seems to be appropriate, the firm having undertaken not to increase the price as a result of the anti-dumping duty—and it is important to make this proviso—above the level operating when the application was made. If costs should rise substantially for any reason, naturally the firm will feel free to take such action as it considers appropriate.
  I was not wholly satisfied with what the hon. Lady said about the question of quality. It is clear that the surfactant with which we are dealing is a critical cost component in the costs of manufacturing the polyurethane foam into which it goes. Not only is it a major cost item, but the specification of the material that is used is equally critical, and from information which I have been able to gather it appears that there are different grades of surfactants which are used in different qualities of foam. They have different properties, and it cannot be said that one grade is suitable for all purposes, or that a grade which does for one will do for another. I was interested to hear the hon. Lady say that there were two manufacturers facing this problem.
  For part of the output of one manufacturer, material supplied by I.C.I. will not suffice, unless the firm succeeds in changing its process. This is a quite important factor. This particular foam requires a surfactant which is non-hydrolisable. This means that it must not absorb water, must not undergo any chemical change if it is mixed with water. This is very important, because in making this particular type of foam the surfactant is mixed with water. Furthermore, it has to be mixed with water to enable it to be stored for a long time, partly to get the benefit of bulk deliveries and partly to ensure that the material is chemically stable. The United Kingdom material does not meet these requirements, therefore the firm in question is going to have to continue for the time being to use the
  728
  imported material, on which they will have to pay the anti-dumping duty at 5s. 9d. in the £. In the meantime it is their intention to try and adjust their process to see if it is possible to switch to the I.C.I.-produced material.
  I should like to make one point on this and to ask the hon. Lady if she would answer one question. It cannot be assumed that the imposition of a dumping duty, even in so clear-cut a case as this, is going to be an entirely painless operation. Somewhere along the line somebody is going to find himself in difficulties. We all support the antidumping legislation: it is an essential part of a trade framework within which one hopes that trade is steadily getting more and more liberalised, but it does not necessarily mean that nobody is going to get hurt.
  The question I want to ask is what attitude the Board of Trade takes to a case such as this, in which there is a genuine point of substance raised by one or more of the users of the material relating to the specification, the quality or type of material they are able to use. Has the Board of Trade considered the possibility of making a limited exception for material that meets a certain specification so that, where the importing firm cannot buy it from the domestic manufacturer, it can nevertheless import the material for this limited purpose, meeting this much narrower specification, from the overseas source? It seems to me that there is a danger that one is imposing an unnecessary cost which may hinder the firm in its operations and, although the dumping duty is as eligible for drawback as any other duty, this could impose additional burdens on an industry without giving any additional protection to the United Kingdom manufacturer because he could not meet a demand for the material to that specification.
  Having said that, if the Parliamentary Secretary can give me some answer to the question I have just posed, I see no reason why we should not allow this Order to go through.
  9.18 p.m.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I should like to comment on one or two of the points raised by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). The

  729
  user interest is one of the most important factors we take into account in considering the national interest. I think the hon. Member knows that our antidumping legislation is unusual in having this national interest criterion.
  In this case, as I have said, there are two consumers, not one, who claimed that they needed the American material for technical reasons. I understand that non-hydrolisable material can also be used with a different type of lubricant, and we cannot make limited exceptions for users, but we do make drawback provision for export.
  The other point about non-hydrolisable material is that we believe it is only required because of storage problems and are convinced that these can be overcome with I.C.I.'s help. A case was made to us by both the users and we felt that one failed to present a good case while, as regards the other, I.C.I. felt that they could meet the user's needs subject to minor changes, with which I.C.I. would help them considerably. The user did not satisfy us that the domestic product could not meet his needs with a little goodwill and give and take. In any event, anti-dumping duty does not prevent the user buying the American material, as the hon. Gentleman said, at an undumped price, although this means
  730
  that he would pay a price much more like that paid by the American consumer, which is a distinct increase on the price which they have been paid.
  But the valid argument, which the hon. Gentleman himself made, is that the purpose of this legislation is to protect industries which make up a valid case to the Board of Trade and reason that we have brought this form of legislation into play is that we were convinced that this was a clear case of dumping. It was carefully investigated by the Department and we felt that, although there were certain limits within which some of the users might have felt that they would face difficulties, those difficulties could be overcome, and that, therefore, the order should go ahead.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Anti-Dumping Duty Order 1968 (S.I., 1958, No. 384), dated 14th March, 1968 a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.

  ANTI-DUMPING (SILICONE SURFACTANTS)
    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
    Colonel Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts; Mr. John Smith added.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

  GROSVENOR SQUARE (DEMONSTRATIONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I begin by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity of drawing attention to this matter. I have a unique qualification to raise it, in that I believe that I was the only Member present on the occasion. I will not only discuss the events of this rather unhappy Sunday, but also inform my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State of the negotiations beforehand between the Metropolitan Police and the officers of the Vietnam Ad Hoc Committee, which organised—or, perhaps, failed to organise—this demonstration.
  My hon. and learned Friend is probably aware that the officers of this organisation made representations to the Metropolitan Police on 5th March, they agreed a route and, on the suggestion of the police, a procedure. I understand that the route agreed at that meeting was from Trafalgar Square up Charing Cross Road, along Oxford Street, up Holles Street into Wigmore Street, down Orchard Street, through North Audley Street and into Grosvenor Square, not in front of the American Embassy, but around the three sides of the Square, and that they would exit from the Square up Upper Grosvenor Street.
  I understand—I have met those concerned—that the police suggested—I think that this was a wholly admirable suggestion—that letters of protest should be handed in and a request was made by the organisers for a list of the participating organisations. This list was given by the organisers, 40 in number, and it was agreed that up to five people would leave the main body of the demonstration at the corner of North Audley Street, would hand in their protest letter to the American Embassy and then rejoin their groups at the corner of South Audley Street. This was excellent and would have given a focus to the demonstration; people would have felt that they had an opportunity to let off steam and make their point.
  732
  As we know, this procedure was not carried out, and I believe that the police have some responsibility in the matter. The line of route was changed at the last minute and, while I do not think that the organisers in any way quarrel with this, it must be remembered that instead of going up Holies Street and Wigmore Street and down Orchard Street, it proceeded along Oxford Street and then turned left into North Audley Street. At the junction of North Audley Street and the Square a great deal of congestion occurred as a result of the police barrier. I believe that this was, to a large extent, responsible for what happened afterwards.
  I have with me a photograph which was obviously taken from the roof of one of the nearby buildings. This picture appeared on page 6 of the Illustrated London News of 23rd March. I draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend because he will see from it the precise location of the police cordon and the fact that a bottleneck was created at the corner of North Audley Street and the square.
  Give or take five feet, I estimate that no more than 25 to 30 feet were allowed for the demonstrators to get through and march around the Square. That was the great mistake. I should, perhaps, mention that the organisers bear some responsibility in that they did not announce at the meeting in Trafalgar Square the route that should have been taken. It would have been advisable for them to have had stewards on the route announcing over megaphones the route that was to be taken.
  A bottleneck was created and it was impossible for the sea of people stretching along both sides of the street to get through the 25 to 30 feet allowed to them. I was pushed through, as were the vast majority of demonstrators, and I suppose that they felt—I say this because I was not aware of precisely what was happening and I am sure that the same can be said of the vast majority of people there—that they were being denied access to the Square.
  It had been agreed earlier that the leaders of the various participating groups would hand in letters of protest. The leading group was headed by Miss Vanessa Redgrave. She appeared at the head of the march and made a request

  733
  to hand in her letter of protest. I understand that her request was refused by a chief inspector. The vast majority of demonstrators were obviously not aware of this, but I am sure that those who were in the vicinity would regard that occurrence as something of a provocation.
  The demonstrators were eventually pushed through the bottleneck and were given no direction as to the route the demonstration would take. Perhaps, not unexpectedly, they thought that they would disperse into the Square. Had the police been more intelligent on this occasion in handling the demonstration, they could have anticipated this reaction. Although I was not present, I understand that this happened to a demonstration which took place on 22nd October.
  As I am criticising the police, it is incumbent on me to suggest how this situation could have been handled. Naturally the American Embassy must be Protected, but I suggest that the use of foot policemen, and certainly the use of mounted policemen, was not the most effective way of handling it. One way in which it could have been handled would have been for barbed wire barriers to have been placed in front of the Embassy. I have in mind the sort of barriers on light wooden frames that were used during the war. The second way would have been the use of buses. I understand that the police use buses to blockade the entrance to Downing Street. People do not climb over barbed wire and they have no means of scaling buses. This would have been very much less of a provocation and a much more efficient way of protecting the Embassy.
  The demonstrators dispersed into the Square and there an attempt was made to disperse the crowd by mounted police. When this matter first came to the Floor of the House, I said that I regarded it as a provocation. I am not alone in saying this, for it is the view of the National Council for Civil Liberties and a considerable number of my correspondents. I will quote from letters I have received which vividly illustrate the reaction of many participants. One letter said:
  "I witnessed, and I am prepared to testify in court, a mounted policeman who rode his horse out in front of the rest of the police and then charged at full gallop across the Square towards the Embassy some 30 or 40 feet in front of him at a girl 20-years-old who
  734
  was not doing anything. There was no one near her. This policeman galloped straight at her. Luckily it was a glancing blow. I am convinced that had he hit her she would now be dead. I was the first to reach her. I think she was unconscious for about a minute. She lay as one dead. I think well over 100 people saw this incident."
  No one can suggest that those 100 people would react to that display of violence with indifference. I suggest that it was a clear provocation and the demonstrators responded as one could perhaps expect. Flowers and other missiles were thrown. This kind of violence helps to create an atmosphere conducive to violence. Obviously crowds of demonstrators have to be controlled, but I think it quite wrong for mounted police to be used for this purpose.
  Attempts were made by the police to clear the Square, and these, of course, were effective, but one of the consequences was that people were arrested in a very arbitrary manner. I draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend to two such cases. Doubtless he has had drawn to his attention the letter in The Guardian by Mr. E. Appleby, Justice of the Peace for Blaydon. That said:
  "It has been proved to me beyond all reasonable doubt that it is possible for a person of exemplary character to be convicted of assault in London. As a former magistrate I feel this is a grave situation.
  One case will illustrate. An inoffensive student of exemplary character and integrity, standing some distance from the police, taking photographs, was set upon by four policemen shouting ' Let's get this one! 'He was dragged into a van and told not to use his camera or he `would not see it again '. Next day he was charged by his assailants with assault and summonly convicted. No opportunity had been given him to use a 'phone or to contact his parents. And no time before or after his arrest had he done anything which could be remotely construed as an assault!"
  I also draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to a report which appeared in The Times on 25th March recording the dismissal of one case by the magistrates at Marlborough Street. Referring to a letter written by a defendant, it said:
  "In his letter he says that a number of policemen kicked him and after his arrest he was dragged behind a police coach and cuffed about the head. What made me considerably more anxious, he says, was that a policeman afterwards told him he did not think the accused man was guilty, but he, the policeman, could lay himself open to a charge of wrongful arrest if he did not produce some 'half-truths'.

  735
  The man alleges that he told the policeman he intended to plead Not Guilty. 'Soon after he approached me waving his statement at me and said: "This is much stronger now",' he says in his letter, 'He told me while we were waiting that on many occasions he found it necessary to invent half-truths when giving evidence, since he knew the defendants were guilty, but without these embellishments they would be acquitted. He also suggested that this was common practice in the police force'.
  He adds that although the violence was unpleasant he was considerably more anxious about the behaviour of the policeman since this was of universal importance. The man gives the number of the policeman he says was involved.
  The man appeared at Marlborough Street on Friday. Mr. St. John Harmsworth, the magistrate, dismissing the charge, said that after hearing the defendant from the witness box he was quite sure he was not the sort of man who would come to court and deliberately lie to save his own skin."
  There are various other complaints of this nature. I shall not weary my hon. and learned Friend by drawing his attention to a dossier on the incidents compiled by the National Council of Civil Liberities, which I or the Council will send to him.
  Commander Lawler strongly refuted any charges of police brutality. I shall cite evidence of such brutality, and in particular I draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to the systematic attempts the police made to destroy any photographic evidence. I shall quote from two letters I have received from participants. The first is from an accredited observer of the National Council for Civil Liberties. He says:
  "The demonstration was being dispersed and moving northwards along Duke Street in a ragged but not disorderly way. I was walking on the right-hand pavement with a few friends and I noticed as we came past the police bus that the police were getting very rough with demonstrators up in the corners of the goods entrance. I stopped momentarily and then observed a superintendent charging across the street towards what I then saw to be a film cameraman who was filming the incidents across the road. Several other policemen were standing around in Barrett Street or Picton Place apparently unconcerned at the cameraman's activity.
  When the superintendent reached the cameraman—with the clear aim of destroying camera and film (and film-maker too if necessary)—about a dozen other people, half police, half civilians, converged on the pair, the former concerned to aid the superintendent and the latter to rescue the camera and cameraman.
  For my own part, I took only two steps forward when I was surrounded by five police
  736
  men, received a knee in the groin, was thrown to the ground and kicked by five or six boots. After a time I was hauled up and according to accounts of witnesses afterwards two attempts were made to arrest me but I was not in a state to respond and in the end was dropped."
  I should now like to quote from a letter by a participant who obviously, due to his situation, could not have committed any violence or provocation against the police. He writes:
  "I joined the march to the U.S. Embassy more out of interest than a fervent belief in the anti-American cause (although I do have strong anti-Vietnam war feelings). I went along at this, my first big demonstration, taking photographs. By the time I reached Grosvenor Square I found I had run out of film and had to buy one from someone for 10s. Then, in order to keep out of trouble in what looked like a potentially dangerous situation, I settled myself in a tree and began taking pictures of the scenes. I was mildly shocked and surprised at some of the actions of our police; such as kicking demonstrators as they lay curled up, defenceless, on the ground …; charging the crowd with horses. As the line of police pushing the crowd back advanced and drew level with my tree, I became suddenly aware of a policeman hacking away at my leg with a long, pointed stick and shouting at me to come down. I took a photograph of this action, at the same time telling the man what I thought of him. I then began to climb down from the tree and what followed shocked me more than anything else has shocked me in my life and caused me to lose completely my previous confidence in the police. A group of at least a dozen policemen stood waiting on the ground. I thought, ' How nice. They are going to catch me as I jump.' Not a bit. I was still six feet from the ground when my foot was grabbed and I was pulled to the ground and kicked and punched and trampled on. I heard one brute say: Get his camera. 'I stumbled to my feet in time to see my valuable film being ripped from the camera and, of course, ruined. Another appeared to think I had another camera in my pocket (it was actually an empty case). So I was again thrown to the ground and the case taken from me."
  Again, I do not think I need quote any more of that letter. There were so many attempts to destroy photographic evidence. Some of this evidence, however, escaped destruction and I hope in due course to show my hon. and learned Friend some of the stills taken by one of the moving film units and certain other pictures.
  Commander Lawler also says that there were no examples of police acting with brutality. Again, I am afraid the evidence does not support him. It would be appropriate at this juncture to draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to the Associated Press picture which appeared in some of the newspapers. He

  737
  will see Constable C.170 restraining one of his colleagues, who has a truncheon in his hand and is about to beat a girl. Most of the newspapers cut this picture. They did not show the action of Constable C.170, who was attempting to restrain the violent action of his colleague.
  I want to quote from another N.C.C.L. observer on the question of violence. He says:
  "Shortly afterwards, while the mounted police were still trying to clear the gardens but there were still large crowds of marchers in the north east quarter, I saw one major incident of police violence I am able to report. A constable used a heavy truncheon to strike repeatedly two girls and one man…"
  He gives people names, and goes on:
  "As the girls were cowered on the ground and tried to protect themselves from the blows, there seemed to be no justification for this violence whatever. Both girls were streaming with blood when they got away, having cuts on the head."
  He did not see whether the man was injured. He adds that other police were around and tried to prevent other demonstrators approaching.
  There is no doubt the police, when arresting people, acted with violence. I have another letter, to which I shall not d-aw my hon. and learned Friend's attention, from a correspondent who reports the violence to which he was subjected when he was placed in a bus.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: The hon. Gentleman has made several references to what he calls "accredited observers" of the N.C.C.L. Will he assist us? How many such accredited observers of the N.C.C.L. were sent to this demonstration? I assume that they must have been sent by the N.C.C.L. What were they told to look for?
  Mr. Jackson: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the instructions which the N.C.C.L. gave to its 25 accredited observers. The letter to them said:
  "You will appreciate that we are not concerned with the objectives of the demonstration and that we shall in no sense be acting on behalf of the organisers or participants. Our job is to ensure that the right of peaceful protest is not interfered with. If incidents do occur instigated either by the marchers or by the police they should be noted."
  The purpose of the observers was merely to observe and in no way to participate.
  Mr. Onslow Mr. Onslow rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches. There is, I hope, an opportunity for debate tonight.
  Mr. Onslow: I am most reluctant to prolong speeches, Mr. Speaker. But may I ask the hon. Gentleman how many incidents of brutality not involving the police were reported?
  Mr. Jackson: I have gone through this report very quickly. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the number but I can tell him that such incidents are reported by the observers.
  Mr. Onslow: Why not give them?
  Mr. Jackson: I should make my position clear. I am not suggesting, nor are the N.C.C.L. or the majority of participants, that the majority of the police acted in this way. The majority of them acted with commendable restraint and I make that clear. But the House must accept that very few people are prepared to speak out for those who were involved in the demonstration. The participants have had an unfair Press. The Press has not, with exceptions, by and large drawn the public's attention to the incidents I am relating.
  Another matter I would like to draw to my hon. Friend's attention is the action of the police in searching the buses containing persons wishing to participate in the demonstration. I am sure hon. Members will know that certain buses were stopped en route to London, taken to London police stations and searched. Certain so-called "offensive weapons" were found and a young man was today fined £15 for having a small packet of pepper in his possession, though I would hardly have thought that pepper was an offensive weapon. Also, paint was found; and ball-bearings which presumably were to be thrown under horses' hooves were also found.
  All these buses were taken to various police stations throughout London but only in the case of the Cambridge bus were any charges preferred against those involved. I have had a report from the contingent from Sheffield and, as I know some of the persons involved very well, I would like to have my hon. Friend's comment on it. The Sheffield bus was stopped on a motorway. The driver had been told in the middle of the week that

  739
  he was to be stopped. Of course, he did not inform the demonstrators of that. He was told that he would be taken to Hendon police station. The right of the police to stop the bus was, of course, challenged by those on the bus and they were advised by Superintendent Hunt of West Hendon Police Station that he had power to act under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839.
  When I received this letter I took the trouble to look up the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839 and I would like to quote the relevant passage of Clause 66 to my hon. Friend. I feel that the police contravened the powers which they have. The relevant passage, I believe, is this:
  "and every such constable may also stop, search and detain any vessel, boat, cart or carriage in or upon which there shall be reason to suspect that any thing stolen or unlawfully obtained may be found, and also any person who may be reasonably suspected of having or conveying in any manner any thing stolen or unlawfully obtained; and any person to whom any property shall be offered to be sold, pawned or delivered, if he shall have reasonable cause to suspect that any such offence has been committed with respect to such property, or that the same or any part thereof has been stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained…"
  I am no lawyer, but I have had advice on this and I understand that the powers which the police have in respect of the 1839 Act are to search vehicles, vessels or carriages in respect of property which they suspect may have been stolen. There is no question of there having been anything that had been stolen on these buses, and if one looks at the event it is apparent that the police knew this.
  The police were obviously privy to the intentions of the organisers. The bus company was contacted in the middle of the week in Sheffield and was told that the bus would be stopped and taken to Hendon police station. Nothing was found on the bus, except a tin of paint with a small brush, which it was intended should be used for painting the blank banners brought by the demonstrators. These people were detained in the police station. The police insisted on having their names and addresses, and physical descriptions.
  I would like to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether the police have the power to do this. I would also like to know what happened to this information. These are peaceful demon
  740
  strators, no charges were levelled against them and nothing was found in this bus. Is this information passed on to the local police? I suspect that it probably is.
  I have deliberately given what is possibly a one sided view of what happened on 17th March. It is only right and proper, because we have had a one-sided view, certainly from the other side of the House, and no one has attempted to put the other side. I would like to make my own position clear. I do not in any way condone the violence, whether it took place at the behest of the demonstrators or the police. It is very regret table. Nevertheless, this violence was provoked, and it was likely to happen when force was offered. It was unintelligent of the police to use mounted police with drawn truncheons. If people are to be restrained, and I am not suggesting that they should not be, the restraint should be offered by police on foot.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous, but I would remind him that he has been speaking for 30 minutes. It is a very brief debate, and others have to speak.
  Mr. Jackson: The charges which I have levelled against the police are levelled against a minority. I was present and I felt that the vast majority of the police acted in an exemplary way. Having said this, we should not attempt to whitewash what a minority of policemen did. We should not close our minds to alternative means of crowd control. Obviously the American Embassy has to be protected, as do others. It should be protected not by mounted policemen, not necessarily by policemen on foot, although they obviously should be involved. Physical barriers should be put up, of the type I have suggested, namely buses or barbed wire. I have a great number of letters complaining about the conduct. The National Council for Civil Liberties has prepared a dossier and I very much hope that my hon. and learned Friend will receive a deputation from the Council, when he can perhaps go into this matter in greater detail than is possible tonight.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. R. W. Elliott: We are elected to this

  741
  House to defend freedom, the freedom which we know and cherish. It is a freedom of speech, a freedom—a right—to make public or private complaints if necessary. Those of us who switched on our television sets on the night of 17th March had not believed that we should see freedom taken advantage of so much and so badly used as it was by the hooligans who ran riot in Grosvenor Square 01 that Sunday—that most un-British of days.
  The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) has taken a long time it this debate to attack the police in their attitude towards those who demonstrated on that day. I think it would be the wish of the vast majority of the people in this country for someone—and it is me at this moment—to stand here now and say to the police who officiated during these disgraceful scenes in Grosvenor Square that we believe they were provoked almost beyond human endurance; that their behaviour that day was wholly honourable and unbelievably controlled; that we admire them in the way in which they controlled that unseemly, disgusting and disgraceful mob, and that we commend them for the work which they did on that day.
  The hon. Member for High Peak said something with which I agree, and it was only one small thing. He said that the organisers of the demonstration bear some responsibility for what happened. No one is going to disagree with him on that. They certainly did. The misguided actress and others who led that procession could quite easily have made their objection in a peaceful way. It would seem from what we have been told this evening that the misguided actress, Miss Redgrave, caused, or those around her caused, trouble when the letter which she wished to hand into the American Embassy was refused. Did she have to carry an envelope? Did she have to make objection with a seething mob behind her, deliberately engendered? Of course she did not. I make no comment at this moment on the rights or wrongs of her cause, but she could have made objections in a hundred other ways.
  Those who demonstrated not only had some responsibility, they had all the responsibility for the disgraceful happenings of that day. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, representing the
  742
  vast majority of the people of this country, would wish to condemn these holligans who demonstrated in this disgraceful way and would wish also to commend the police for their behaviour on that day.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: One thing is quite clear. The Members of this House support absolutely the right of British citizens to demonstrate in the streets of this country without interference from the police, provided they are demonstrating in a peaceful manner. The events to which the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) has referred do not conform to that definition. This was a demonstration which was carried too far. It was a demonstration, if one can believe the reports that have come into our possession, that one has read in the newspapers and received from other sources, designed to provoke violence by some of the participants, although not all of them. I believe among that vast demonstration the majority of people were setting out to demonstrate peacefully, but there was, within that vast concord of people, a small minority out to provoke that demonstration into the paths of violence. It is incumbent upon us all in the House to condemn that small minority who put in jeopardy the future of free demonstrations in this country.
  I am not a stranger to demonstrations in Trafalgar Square. I can remember demonstrating against my own party in 1948 and 1949 when the then Home Secretary banned a May Day demonstration. I will not go too far into the past, because I am sure Mr. Speaker will bring me back to the present.
  There have been in the past demonstrations in which many of us have participated, and we have always found it is due to the efforts of the Metropolitan Police, in particular those who serve in the mounted section, that those demonstrations proceed in a relatively peaceful manner. It is necessary, when there are thousands of people demonstrating and when there is an organised attempt by a minority to provoke violence, that the mounted police are able to move very rapidly, are able to move into the violent sections of the crowd and remove from demonstrators broken poles from banners that have been destroyed and which are

  743
  used—as I have seen them used—to assault policemen.
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that the mounted police attacked only that section of the crowd? If so, I can contradict him.
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
  Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend is a man of great intelligence, and, no doubt, in view of the rumours going about of Cabinet changes, he thinks that coming events cast their shadows before them. He referred to me as his "right hon. Friend". I hope that he is right after the weekend. However, I think that both he and I will be sadly disappointed.
  I can speak only from my experience. I have complete confidence in the mounted section of the police. In large demonstrations like this, there must be occasions when there is provocation on both sides. There is no doubt provocation by some members of the police force who reach the point of exasperation. They have been abused and they have had things thrown at them, and in a moment of temper they do an unwise act. We all condemn unwise acts by a disciplined body—they should not happen—but we must recognise that everyone is human. Certainly policemen are human. There were among the demonstrators reasonable people who were provoked.
  I wish it to go out from this House, and particularly from this side of it, that we have complete and absolute confidence in the Metropolitan Police, who we consider have done a first-class job. We know that they will continue to afford to citizens the opportunity of peacefully demonstrating for political rights.
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I associate myself most warmly with what has been said about the commendable behaviour of the police by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North
  744
  (Mr. R. W. Elliott). The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) has raised a number of points of an administrative nature, as he is perfectly entitled to do, and has made certain very serious detailed allegations against the conduct of members of the Metropolitan Police—some of them named, some of them not identified.
  The House might think that, if these incidents occurred, very serious offences were committed by the police, and it would have been more seemly for the evidence to be given in court, rather than in the House, where it could have been properly upheld or challenged. This House is not the proper place in which to make random attacks against members of the police force for serious breaches of the law, to say nothing of disciplinary offences.
  I am concerned to look a little deeper into the Grosvenor Square incident. I wish to quote a letter which appeared in The Times from Mr. Tariq Ali, who describes himself as the Chairman of the March 17th Ad Hoc Committee. He said in The Times of 21st March:
  "It is interesting to note the hypocritical protestations of Tory and Labour M.P.s who get upset when police horses are hurt, but who remain silent at the mounting violence in Vietnam. It is this attitude we demonstrate against in an attempt to break the silence inflicted on this nation by the two major political parties."
  He goes on to threaten that he will carry out even more violent demonstrations in future.
  The "hypocritical protestations" about the horses certainly had nothing whatever to do with Vietnam, but it is fair to ask: what about the hypocritical protests about Vietnam and against the Americans made by people who are basically anti-American, pro-Communist and pro-Vietcong? What about the hypocrisy of these demonstrators when never a single word is printed, let alone voiced in demonstrations, by them about all the cruelty done elsewhere in the world—the mass murder of the Watutsi, the public hangings of the entire Opposition Front Bench in the Congo, the imprisonment of the Soviet writers, and of Mr. Gerald Brooke, the sacking of the British Embassy in Peking, and the mass murders of civilians in Hue—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting deeper and wider than the Adjournment subject.
  Mr. Iremonger: I am referring to the unfairness of the allegation of hypocrisy against those who protest against the riots in Grosvenor Square when the hypocrisy of the writer of that letter to The Times in not protesting against other things than Vietnam is so egregious.
  It is worth underlining the point Mr. Tariq Ali made when he said his object was to break silence about Vietnam. He had some time to organise his demonstration, and during that time it would have been quite possible to nominate Parliamentary candidates in Warwick, Dudley, Meriden and Acton where voice could have been given to protests against Vietnam. That was the opportunity to break silence. Why was it not taken? The reason is that the one thing these people are frightened of is the ballot box—apart from the courts of law—which is the one place where justice can b:, done. I often tell these armchair militants among my constituents that their proper method of protest is to stand for Parliament and to oppose me. When I do this they melt away into thin air.
  What is the nature of these protests? I do not believe, apart from the political activists on the Left wing, it has anything much to do with Vietnam or with any particular issue. It is the expression of a deep mood which subsists generation after generation, and is not related to specific political issues. The people demonstrating in Grosvenor Square are the same kind of people who in the 1930s demonstrated against Spain and as members of the Peace Pledge Union.
  Mr. Speaker: Whether they were or not is a wider subject than can be dealt with in this specific debate. We are asking the Home Secretary about something far which he is responsible.
  Mr. Iremonger: We need not take these protestations too tragically or seriously, but there are two things we must take very seriously. The first is that the police should have all our sympathy for the patience they show. The second is that the police should have all our sympathy for the impatience that members of the public show at what seems to them to be over-tolerance by the police in
  746
  dealing with outrageous conduct. Those who protest to me protest against the police not using hoses, and against the police not using more militant and violent methods. I hope the Home Secretary will say to the House that the police methods are right. What these people fear more than the violence they protest against is the decency and tolerance of the British police. That is the most effective weapon in the hands of the forces of law and order, and it is far more dramatic in its effect than more violent methods could be. The tolerance of the police is what is most hated by agitators, and that is why they try to whip up violence, so that the police will be provoked against them.
  Finally, I should like to ask, would the hon. Gentleman give the House information, which his Department should have, of the exact nature of the alien element in the crowd? To what extent was stimulus given to the demonstration by people who came to this country from abroad with the express purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this country among us? Is the Minister keeping a watch on them and making sure they will not be allowed to enter this country again? The House is entitled to know to what extent they were responsible for the violence and what steps the Government are taking to ensure they will not be able to play a similar part in the future.
  10.9 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) first dealt with the case of the march going wrong and the course it took. He then dealt with a number of specific issues such as the use of horses, method of crowd control and the search of buses. He dealt also with a number of specific incidents. It is not possible for me on this occasion to deal with the specific incidents. They must be investigated, as they will be. Every complaint will be looked at. I share the view of some hon. Members that he has given a distorted picture of what went on. I do not believe anyone would guess from the description he gave of what happened in Grosvenor Square that three times as many policemen as demonstrators were injured.
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that many of the injured demonstrators were taken away by their friends?
  Mr. Taverne: Many other people received injuries of various kinds, but three times as many policemen as demonstrators required treatment in hospital. That fact alone speaks for itself.
  When it comes to the examples that my hon. Friend gave, I must confess that one is somewhat suspicious of some of the allegations made when one finds that there has not been a sufficient attempt to check up on facts. Take the point about the presentation of the petition, which my hon. Friend says was one of the major causes. He says that if only Miss Vanessa Redgrave had been allowed to present her petition, all would have been well.
  The fact is that the main body of demonstrators arrived in Grosvenor Square at about 5.30 on that day. At about a quarter to six, Miss Redgrave and a group of members of the Vietnam Ad Hoc Organising Committee arrived at the south-west corner of the Square. They were allowed to pass through the police cordon to hand in a petition at the Embassy. If my hon. Friend had looked a little further, he would have found that that is what Miss Redgrave says herself. Only recently she appears to have told a Daily Express interviewer:
  "I went to the demonstration to deliver a letter. Today I had a polite reply from Ambassador Bruce saying that he had forwarded it to the State Department."
  That is a rather significant pointer to some of the wild allegations which have been made. There may be something in some of them. I do not know. These matters will have to be investigated.
  Let me give the House a picture of what actually happened in the course of the march, because clearly this is very important. I have before me a description given by the officer in command of what happened at the end of the meeting in Trafalgar Square. It says:
  "After the meeting, the head of the procession moved from Trafalgar Square at 3.52 p.m. and the tail moved at 4.17 p.m. Whilst leaving Trafalgar Square, the demonstrators refused to move off in the usual six abreast formation, but linked arms and proceeded to Charing Cross Road and Oxford Street. The procession became a rabble, with demon
  748
  strators linking arms across the whole width of the roadway and both footpaths. At times, the leaders came to a halt and remained stationary for several minutes before moving off again. Several private motor cars being used by persons unconnected with the demonstration were rocked to and fro by demonstrators for no apparent reason, whilst other demonstrators sat on the bonnets of motor cars and some climbed over stationary motor cars. The German contingent were particularly militant at this stage and occasionally halted in the roadway until there was a clear space ahead, then, holding their banner poles horizontally with each man in the front rank gripping a pole with both hands, they ran forward in step chanting 'Sieg Heil'. Both footways in Regent Street were crowded with pedestrians in an attempt to get out of the way, many being obviously cowed. Police were fully committed in attempting to keep the demonstration moving but it was apparent, even at that early stage, that the organisers had no control whatever over their supporters. Several groups of demonstrators broke away from the agreed processional route. At Cambridge Circus, the demonstrators came to a halt and occupied the whole road round the Circus after breaking through a police cordon. Approaching Oxford Circus, the head of the procession was taken over by a group of anarchists and, at the Circus, some demonstrators sat down in the roadway."
  Then we come to the crucial events in Grosvenor Square, which my hon. Friend attributed to bad management on the part of the police:
  "The first demonstrators, which was the group that had visited Dow Chemicals, entered Grosvenor Square at 5.20 p.m. and followed the agreed route around Grosvenor Square into South Audley Street. At this time, there were about 2,000 supporters of the demonstration and spectators in Grosvenor Square awaiting the arrival of the main body, and at about 5.30 p.m. the main body arrived, coming down North Audley Street and occupying the whole width of the street. The leaders turned east along the north side of Grosvenor Street, but stopped half-way along the road. Their colleagues following behind forced their way into the Square, and extremely serious congestion was caused at the north-west corner. I went to the head of the procession and urged the leaders—there was no sign of organisers or marshalls at that time—to keep moving to relieve the dangerous crowding of their fellow demonstrators. There was a reluctant move for about 20 yards, but the leaders again came to a halt."
  It was, I assure the House, the loss of control by the leaders of the organisations taking part and the failure of the procession to move round the Square and into South Audley Street, as agreed previously with the organisers, that led to the subsequent disturbances.

  749
  My hon. Friend spoke of provocation by the police, but it is quite evident that there was a deliberate attempt to provoke the police. Some fairly extensive arrangements had clearly been made in advance by some demonstrators to prepare for violence. This came to the notice of the police, and during Sunday morning coaches containing demonstrators were slopped by the police. They were found to contain six bags of marbles, 81 bags of paint—and I cannot believe that 81 bags of paint were only to paint the banners—three bags of flour, four cannisters, and two bags of pepper. At 3 30 p.m. a constable found a motor van parked in Spring Gardens with 13 smoke bombs and 1,000 plastic bags containing red dye.
  My hon. Friend said that not many people were prosecuted. This is right, because in any cases it was not possible to trace particular items to particular individuals, and obviously it would be wrong to prosecute if one could not do so. It was because of these rumours, and this complaint of some sort of violence, that every organisation which had been associated with peaceful demonstrations in the past refused to take part.
  I have dealt with the question of the petitions. Let me come now to the point made about the use of horses, and the methods of containment which my hon. Friend mentioned. First, I must express my agreement with my hon. Friend who said that what is so serious about this kind of behaviour is that it prejudices the peaceful right of demonstration with which it would be totally unjustifiable to interfere. We must not be so blinded by wild behaviour, as the Home Secretary said on the day following the disturbance, as to take measures which will prevent persons from demonstrating in good faith.
  What are the solutions to this kind of problem? Obviously it would be wrong to proscribe particular organisations which are responsible for such demonstrations. The traditional view has always been—and I hope that we shall maintain it—that persons having similar opinions, whatever one's view of those opinions, should have the right to organise themselves and put forward those opinions, provided they do not go beyond the limits set by the law in the interests of the
  750
  community as a whole. It would be a most dangerous step to proscribe particular organisations. What the law does, quite rightly, is to single out specific actions contrary to the interest of the community, without impairing the right of free speech, of which the right to demonstrate forms a very important part.
  If I might look at that generally, I do not think that it is feasible or practicable to try to restrict demonstrations, as someone suggested to particular places like Hyde Park. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has power to prescribe the route followed by demonstrators, but even there, when there are a large number, and when they are determined not to take part, not the organisers, but the others, in the way that is planned, it is clear that they cannot necessarily be confined to the route, and if one has a group of 10,000, by what means could they be confined to Hyde Park if they wanted to move into nearby streets? It is also impossible to limit in any way the number of persons who are taking part in any demonstration.
  There is the question of the rôle played by certain foreign students. This matter was raised tonight. I think that one should freely allow foreign visitors entry into this country, subject to the usual rules irrespective of their political views, and it has not been the practice to refuse to admit foreign nationals here if they are going to take part in peaceful demonstrations of a political nature. The genuine pacifist who comes here to take part in pacifist business is someone who should be allowed to do so. But this does not mean that we have to admit someone who was known, on reasonable evidence, to be coming here to foment disorder, or to express views which are likely to lead to a breach of the peace, or whose presence would be likely to make it more difficult to maintain law and order. In deciding whether or not we should admit a foreign national we take account of all available evidence, including the record of conduct on occasions such as that we saw on that particular Sunday. The admission of foreign nationals is a matter of discretion for the Home Secretary and, in the light of recent experience, my right hon. Friend will not hesitate to exercise his powers under the Aliens Order in a manner which public interest requires, but one does not want to exclude people

  751
  from visiting this country if they have adequate financial resources and friends, because of their political views. That would be quite wrong, and I am sure the House would not want the Home Secretary to exclude people on those grounds.
  Mr. Iremonger: Were the police able to get the names of the little red Nazis, who goose-stepped with their banners?
  Mr. Taverne: I would not like to conclude that they were all little red Nazis. There were individuals, whose names were, I think, noted. I cannot speak about this more generally, but there might well be cases in the future in which there would be individuals who would not be allowed entry into this country if it were thought likely that they would abuse the occasion to foment disorder and cause injury and damage.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman say if he has had any expression of regret from the German Embassy in this country or any indication that they are willing to assist the British authorities in restraining people who are coming here to make trouble?
  Mr. Taverne: I cannot answer that question. I am not aware of anything in the nature of such assistance. It might be very difficult for the Embassy to assist us in controlling the entry of particular individuals. Again, I think it would be quite wrong to regard a particular group of highly organised, highly militant students behaving in a particular way as in any way representative of German students.
  Let me come now to the more particular questions. My hon. Friend has talked about physical barriers, but it is really rather difficult to envisage what certain kinds of physical barriers could do to deal with a crowd of something like 10,000 which is in a fairly disturbed state. It might be possible to put buses there, but the buses might suffer considerable damage as a result of being in the way. The most common suggestion which has been made, particularly by many members of the public, is that the police should use hoses. It seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for not departing from the traditional methods. Indeed, on this occasion,
  752
  generally speaking, I would have thought that the reputation of the police in the country was higher as a result of their use of traditional methods to contain this particular demonstration than it would have been had hoses been used. It would be a short step from hoses to tear gas, and a short step from tear gas to the use of steel helmets and shields. I would think it best to leave the Commissioner to direct and control his men in well established ways if he is satisfied that in this way control can be maintained, and the officer in charge on this occasion was satisfied that traditional methods could keep things under control, and they did so.
  My hon. Friend has rightly raised the question of the use of horses. It is recognised by the police and the Home Office that mounted police should be used on such occasions only as a last resort. As the Home Secretary explained to the House when he answered Questions on 18th March, the officer in command of the police in Grosvenor Square on the previous day had been very reluctant to use the mounted officers, who had been held in reserve, but the situation became so difficult—and I think everyone could see the nature of the situation from the television reports—that to continue to hold them back would have led to greater damage and greater injuries. That was his view and I do not think anyone is in a position to question the judgment of the officer in charge on that occasion. I can tell my hon. Friend that he mounted police are essentially a reserve force, a highly trained reserve, to restore order and prevent injury, and to do so quickly.
  I come back to my hon. Friend's complaints. Complaints will be investigated, and cannot be dealt with in a debate. I cannot deal with the question of photographers. Photographers did present a difficulty because of the very nature of their work in trying to get action pictures as close to the action as possible, which means that they are bound to get in the way when policemen are rushing from one place to another. But there has been no approach to newspapers to prevent photographs from being published; indeed, were published. The television coverage was clearly elaborate.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend believes that, as a whole, restraint and self-discipline were shown—he has admitted

  753
  this. This is true of the National Council for Civil Liberties as well. The public reaction is also clear. Of the letters which we have received in the Home Office, an overwhelming proportion have commended the work of the police. Some, indeed, asked for more violent methods of crowd control, but those letters praising the police have outnumbered by more than ten to one those complaining about the police.
  If one compares the way in which this demonstration was handled and was seen to be handled with the scenes which one often sees in other countries of these demonstrations being handled with such aids as shields and helmets, hoses and tear gas, one must conclude that the way in which our police handled this very difficult situation, in which there was bound to be a conflict of evidence and some clash, is something of which the whole nation may be proud.
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Murray: It is right that my hon. and learned Friend should have paid that tribute to the police, whose demonstration in the square that Sunday was commendable. There are provocations in these cases. People talk about the provocation of police horses, but I might point out to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) that some people are
  754
  provoked by beards, but that does not mean that there has to be counter-violence. The figures of police and civilians injured show where most of the violence was directed.
  Many of us on this side have demonstrated in all sorts of causes and one thing which stands out is the co-operation between police and demonstrators ensuring that things go right. One often feels sorry for police who march beside demonstrations and get footsore but ensure that good humour always prevails.
  I was concerned about the number of weapons found at this demonstration. It seemed that people came armed after seeing some of the posters with, perhaps, a little addition by someone else. Many people might take it, judging from the statements in the Sun on 19th March by Tariq Ali, that they came with violence aforethought because they felt that words were no longer enough.
  It is a good thing that many hon. Members have said that the police did a fine job and that they needed all the support, not only of the House but of the public, to do their job properly for the protection of persons and property.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Earnings (South-West)
  Earnings (South-West)
  National Plan
  National Plan
  Department (Increased Costs)
  Department (Increased Costs)
  Travel to and from Work (Costs)
  Travel to and from Work (Costs)
  Nurses and Midwives (Pay)
  Nurses and Midwives (Pay)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Prices and Incomes Policy
  Prices and Incomes Policy
  Humberside Feasibility Study
  Humberside Feasibility Study
  South-West (Grey Areas)
  South-West (Grey Areas)
  Salaries
  Salaries
  "Upswing"
  "Upswing"
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  South America (Co-operative Development)
  South America (Co-operative Development)
  Television Recordings Ltd. Group (Crown Agents' Investment)
  Television Recordings Ltd. Group (Crown Agents' Investment)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Retirement Pensioners (Charges)
  Retirement Pensioners (Charges)
  Telephone Exchange, Christchurch
  Telephone Exchange, Christchurch
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Civil Defence (Expenditure)
  Civil Defence (Expenditure)
  Breathalyser Tests, Gateshead
  Breathalyser Tests, Gateshead
  Chief Constables (Pay)
  Chief Constables (Pay)
  Chesnut Road, Tottenham (Traffic Offences)
  Chesnut Road, Tottenham (Traffic Offences)
  Public Demonstration, Grosvenor Square (Injured Persons)
  Public Demonstration, Grosvenor Square (Injured Persons)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Proposed Price Increases (Civil Servants)
  Proposed Price Increases (Civil Servants)
  Savings
  Savings
  With-Profit Endowment Policies (Bonuses)
  With-Profit Endowment Policies (Bonuses)
  Grattan Warehouses Ltd.
  Grattan Warehouses Ltd.
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicle Tyre Regulations
  Motor Vehicle Tyre Regulations
  Transport Bill
  Transport Bill
  Bringhurst-Great Easton (Proposed Speed Limit)
  Bringhurst-Great Easton (Proposed Speed Limit)
  Driving Lessons (Fees)
  Driving Lessons (Fees)
PORTS
  Proposed Dock, Bristol
  Proposed Dock, Bristol
ROADS
  A268, Peasmarsh (Improvement Scheme)
  A268, Peasmarsh (Improvement Scheme)
BOARD OF TRADE
  South-West Development Area (Boundaries)
  South-West Development Area (Boundaries)
  West Midlands (Industrial Development Certificates)
  West Midlands (Industrial Development Certificates)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Grocery Prices
  Grocery Prices
  ANGLO-SOVIET CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
  ANGLO-SOVIET CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
  BALTIC STATES (DISPOSAL OF ASSETS)
  BALTIC STATES (DISPOSAL OF ASSETS)
  BRITISH EMBASSY, WASHINGTON
  BRITISH EMBASSY, WASHINGTON
COTLAND
  Meat and Livestock Commission (Headquarters)
  Meat and Livestock Commission (Headquarters)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Building Preservation Orders (Inquiries)
  Building Preservation Orders (Inquiries)
  Sewerage Scheme (Heathfield, Horam and Broad Oak)
  Sewerage Scheme (Heathfield, Horam and Broad Oak)
  Gravesend Corporation (Grants)
  Gravesend Corporation (Grants)
  Rent Rebates, Gravesend
  Rent Rebates, Gravesend
HOUSING
  Warley Council (Housing Programme)
  Warley Council (Housing Programme)
  PRIME MINISTER (PUBLIC RELATIONS STAFF)
  PRIME MINISTER (PUBLIC RELATIONS STAFF)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WORK CO-ORDINATION)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WORK CO-ORDINATION)
  NATIONAL PHYSICAL DISASTERS
  NATIONAL PHYSICAL DISASTERS
  WALES (MINISTRY OF POWER POLICY)
  WALES (MINISTRY OF POWER POLICY)
  PRESIDENT HO CHI MINH
  PRESIDENT HO CHI MINH
  EUROPEAN SECURITY
  EUROPEAN SECURITY
  MEMBERS' LETTERS TO MINISTERS (REPLIES)
  MEMBERS' LETTERS TO MINISTERS (REPLIES)
  MEDICAL EDUCATION (ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT)
  MEDICAL EDUCATION (ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesian Political Refugees, Botswana
  Rhodesian Political Refugees, Botswana
  Mr. Hassan Chimutengwende
  Mr. Hassan Chimutengwende
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Forces' Pay
  Forces' Pay
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Universities (Computer Installations)
  Universities (Computer Installations)
  Association Football (Chester Report)
  Association Football (Chester Report)
  Bournemouth College of Technology
  Bournemouth College of Technology
  Authors (Public Lending Right)
  Authors (Public Lending Right)
HOSPITALS
  Transport of Patients
  Transport of Patients
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Nationalised Industries, Blaenau Ffestiniog (Disabled Persons)
  Nationalised Industries, Blaenau Ffestiniog (Disabled Persons)
  Job Applicant (Trade Union Membership)
  Job Applicant (Trade Union Membership)
GAS
  Natural Gas (Conversion of Installations)
  Natural Gas (Conversion of Installations)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Archbishop of Canterbury

SHOTTON STEEL WORKS AND EMPLOYMENT IN FLINTSHIRE
3.5 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 what are their plans and those of the Steel Corporation for the future of the John Summers & Sons steel works on Deeside at Shotton, Flintshire, and why they have excluded Flintshire from the Welsh Development Area.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the Corporation have not yet drawn up any plans other than those in their first report on Organisation (Cmnd. 3362) for the long-term development of any part of the nationalised steel industry. The Government will, as was made clear in Wales: the Way Ahead [Cmnd. 3334], aim to ensure the full use of the labour and other resources available in North-East Wales, which includes Shotton, although the circumstances of the Shotton area do not justify its designation as a development area.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that statement, may I ask him whether he is aware that a fortnight ago a national newspaper came out with an article which said that the Steel Corporation had decided either to close down or materially run down this industry at Shotton? Do Her Majesty's Government realise that this would have a very serious effect on employment in the Flintshire area, particularly as for some reason Flintshire is not a development area?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have not read the article to which the noble Lord refers but, taking his account of it,
1320
I can say that it is quite inaccurate. With regard to the future of Shotton, the Corporation regard it as of prime importance. They are well aware of the large investment in it and of the need to make good use of the assets there. With regard to the question of a development area, unemployment in February in the area was only 2·2 per cent., which is relatively low. This is being constantly watched by the Board of Trade and if any change of policy should be warranted it would be made.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that this is not a question merely of Shotton? The whole Merseyside area has a great deal to do with Shotton and lives with it to a great extent. Any closure at Shotton would have sad repercussions in Merseyside.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am dealing with the Question on the Order Paper, but I think that the grouping of Shotton in the Scotland and North-Western Group is a help to Merseyside, and that is one of the reasons for the grouping.

NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSION AND NATIONAL INSURANCE FUNDS
3.8 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: 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 who are the National Debt Commissioners and when the National Debt Commission last met.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the National Debt Commissioners are the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice, the Accountant General of the Supreme Court, the Governor of the Bank of England, and the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. They last met on October 12, 1860, under the chairmanship, I understand, of the late Mr. Gladstone.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, does my noble friend consider that this is a suitable body to manage the National Insurance funds?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree that there is an element of Gilbert and Sullivan about this; but, on the other hand, it does seem to work.
LORD MITCHISON: 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 directions have been given, and to whom, during the last ten years by the Treasury under subsection (3) of Section 35, or under that subsection as applied by subsection (2) of Section 36 of the National Insurance Act 1946.]
LORD BESWICK: None, my Lords.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, have not the Government been rather remiss? Could they not have managed to invoke the National Debt Commissioners and then have given them some directions?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, some instructions as to management do go from them, as the noble Lord must be aware, but not, of course, under the direct supervision of the Commissioners whom I named. I am aware that this is an interesting field of research and one which perhaps my noble friend would like to pursue, as I see from the Order Paper he wishes to do, on another occasion.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I certainly will accept that reply, with many thanks to my noble friend. But may I ask him whether it is not the case that management has had some singularly unfortunate results?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, they have to this extent: that I understand their real title is the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt.

CASE OF NIGERIAN GIRL WIFE
3.12 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what justification there is for legalising sexual intercourse between a girl of 14 and an adult male, since this is contrary to the laws of this country.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I understand that my noble friend has in mind a case reported in The Times on March 28, in which the Divisional Court held that a Nigerian girl aged 14, married under Nigerian law to a Nigerian, was not exposed to moral danger within Section 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963. It is not correct to say, as the Question does, that intercourse between a girl of 14 and an adult male is contrary to the laws of this country. It is so only if the intercourse is unlawful, and it has been held in a previous case that "unlawful" means outside the bonds of marriage.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer, may I ask him to recall the history of this particular case? A man of 28 arrived in this country with a girl of 13 after a tribal polygamous marriage. Is my noble and learned friend aware that the man had three illegitimate children in Nigeria; that after the marriage he contracted venereal disease from a prostitute, and that he had intercourse with the girl before she had reached puberty? Is he further aware that, because of this, the girl was taken into care and that she did not reach puberty until a short while ago, while still in care? With this history, does my noble and learned friend think that it is wise to allow this girl to resume cohabitation, in view of the fact that in this country be believe that girls of this age should be protected and because this would be, in my opinion., discrimination on grounds of race?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lord, girls reach the age of puberty at different times in different countries. We decide on the validity of a marriage not according to whether we approve or disapprove of the marriage laws of other countries, but according to the law of the place where the parties are domiciled. These two were Nigerians, who married in Nigeria, and the Court has held that their marriage was a valid marriage. Great difficulties would arise, I suggest, if it were made a criminal offence for a husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to understand from what the noble and learned Lord has said that, as we are recognising Nigerian law in this country, if a divorce were instituted on polygamous grounds we should also recognise that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are, of course, countries in which a polygamous marriage is a valid marriage, and where that is so we recognise it as a valid marriage here.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the corollary that we should also recognise polygamous divorce? Do we recognise that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the law of divorce is different from the law of marriage.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, would it not be wise for us to convey to countries such as Nigeria, through our High Commissioners, that the law of this country allows marriage only above a certain age, and that it is therefore undesirable that people should come here with wives who are under that age? It might be a useful condition to make before their arrival here.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think this would be difficult. We do not allow girls to be married under the age of 16. The age varies in different countries. The most respectable Italian girl can validly marry an Italian in Italy at the age of 15. If they came here as tourists I think it would be regrettable if the man had to be prosecuted every time he had intercourse with his wife.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, was not the mother of Henry VII only 14 when he was born?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that was before my time.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, would not the noble and learned Lord agree that if we accept immigrants to this country, and they are married according to the laws, customs and religions of the nationals of that country, we must, in the interests of racial harmony, accept those conditions over here.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think our present law, which lays down that whether we recognise a
1324
marriage as valid or not depends on the law of the domicile, is really the only practicable one.

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Hughes will be making a Statement on storm damage in Scotland.
I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I say that it is intended to adjourn the Committee stage of the Social Works (Scotland) Bill at a convenient moment around 6.30 this evening. It is then intended that we should go on to the Amendments to the first clause of the Theft Bill, and then adjourn the Report stage at that point. Dinner will be available, without an adjournment, from a quarter to seven until a quarter past eight.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask when it is proposed to continue the Committee stage of the Scottish Bill?
LORD BESWICK: On Tuesday next.

RENT BILL [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 [Powers of local authorities for the purposes of giving information]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1)(a), after the first "duties" to insert "under Part III of the Rent Act 1965 and". The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name, and the Committee will perhaps agree that I should refer also to the

1325
other three Amendments on the Marshalled List which, as your Lordships will see, are in substance exactly the same. These are drafting Amendments, due to an error which was discovered only after the matter had passed the Joint Consolidation Committee. It consists in the fact that in consolidating the minor and consequential Amendments in Schedule 6 to the Rent Act 1965, the fact was overlooked that paragraph 3, paragraph 5(3) and paragraph 7 of that Schedule have an effect on Part III of the Rent Act 1965, which is not repealed by the Bill, as well as on the main provisions of that Act, which are repealed by or consolidated in this Bill. I have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Upjohn, the Chairman of the Committee, and he regrets that this point was not observed by the Committee.
This is one of the largest consolidations there has ever been. It consolidates all or part of 24 different Acts dealing with rent, 12 of which it repeals altogether. Your Lordships may feel that as the field of law which the Bill consolidates is really unparalleled in its complexity, the effects of the consolidation will therefore be correspondingly great. Certainly to any lawyers, or anyone else who has to deal with our extremely tangled rent law contained in these 24 different Acts, it will be a great boon to have them all consolidated as they are in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 38, after ("duties") insert ("under Part III of the Rent Act 1965 and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 [Prosecution of offences]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is one on the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 20, after ("Act") insert ("or under Part III of the Rent Act 1965").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 109 to 115 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 14 agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Amendments of other Enactments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is on the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 38, after ("under'') insert ("Part III of the Rent Act 1965 or under").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment also is on the same point, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 45, after ("under") insert ("Part III of the Rent Act 1965 or under").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Local authorities for the administration of the Act
1.
(2) The local authorities for the purposes of this Act shall be county councils and the councils of large burghs within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947; and any small burgh within the meaning of that Act shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be included in the county in which it is situated.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out

1327
"large burghs" and insert "counties of cities". The noble Marquess said: This is the first of no fewer than 236 Amendments on this Bill, and I think your Lordships will agree—at least I hope you will—that it is one of the most important ones. I sincerely trust that the noble Lord will look at it in a sympathetic light. Its purpose is quite clearly, in dealing with the new administrative areas set up in the Bill, to exclude the large burghs. This matter was exhaustively discussed during the Second Reading, although owing to the lateness of the hour it was understandably not possible to have a very detailed or lengthy answer to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
Briefly, my colleagues and I who are moving this Amendment—and I am sure we have wide support for our view in many areas in Scotland, certainly among professional bodies interested in this matter—believe that the vast majority of these large burghs are simply not big enough to sustain an efficient and viable social work department of their own. They have not the funds to attract first-rate staff. Career prospects for such staff will therefore not be encouraging. For myself I feel that, as a result, the welfare of the community, for both young and old, is bound to suffer. I should like to read to your Lordships an extract from a letter I have had from a child care officer, which says very much the same thing. He points out that
"the inability to compete for good quality staff is an inability which is not just a matter of salary but of providing training officers, case work, consultation and staff development programmes which stimulate and attract staff to give the best service. Without these there is a real fear that the large burghs may become professional backwaters in which a person in need can only hope for an inferior service."
I personally agree with that, and I hope that your Lordships will also agree with it.
I cannot, I must confess, quite understand why the Government in this Bill on the one hand are opening the way for and encouraging the amalgamation of local authority functions, and thereby rightly, in my view, cutting down on costs and waste, and, at the same time, seem so keen to preserve in this particular respect the administrative independence of these burghs, which, with a few
1328
notable exceptions, one must agree, are not equipped to use it. In addition, as your Lordships know, we are expecting the Report of the Wheatley Commission on Local Government, and I myself suspect that what will come out of that Report is to a large extent a recommendation for larger and fewer administrative areas. This seems to be another argument in favour of not increasing the number at this particular moment. I recognise that if this Bill is altered in this way it may mean additional amending clauses dealing with the transfer of functions, and that kind of thing, but I feel that this is something which could be left for the experts to deal with. What I am primarily concerned with to-day is the principle involved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("large burghs") and insert ("counties of cities").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
3.29 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: In supporting the Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Marquess, I feel it is worth while mentioning the position of the County of Lanark, in which I live; and, as the noble Marquess has touched upon the question of cost, I think it is safe to say that in terms of cost, so far as Lanark is concerned, this splitting up of the authorities and increasing the numbers of the units of the social services, as this provision would mean, would entail increased cost. I touched on this matter in my speech in the debate on Second Reading [col. 834, 21/3/68] so will say no more than that.
However, there is another point I wish to raise. I feel, as many noble Lords said on Second Reading, that it is important that we should not move too rapidly in the face of the possibility of change ahead. An additional reason for disturbing existing arrangements as little as possible is the prospect of the publication of the Seebohm Committee's Report, which may be expected, I believe, in early June. Admittedly, this Committee's terms of reference are confined to England and Wales, but I have reason to believe its findings will produce a great measure of new thinking, and as such it will have, in its way, as important a bearing on the whole subject as the Kilbrandon Report had in Scotland. If,

1329
as I believe, your Lordships are all agreed that we should do our best to make something of this Bill, we should do as little as possible to upset existing arrangements, while at the same time not delaying the developments which are so urgently needed.
LORD SALTOUN: There is one thing that we should bear in mind in connection with the burghs. We are discussing places like Arbroath, and to an extraordinary degree the people there know all about one another. The knowledge that people in places like Arbroath, Peterhead and Fraserburgh have of their neighbours is out of all proportion to what usually occurs in the case of the larger cities, and I believe that to be a great advantage.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: The one thing that is a common factor among all the various bodies which have been at me—I do not know why, but they have—and the one thing they are all decided upon universally, is that they do not want the large burghs in this scheme in any form whatever. I should like to read part of a paragraph, and if the noble Lord tells me I am taking it out of context I am quite willing to read more. This is part of a letter which I received from the Aberdeen and North East Counties Social Workers' Group. I think that is a non-official group but it might be described as being rather like the teachers' unions, possibly as a social workers' trade union. So far as I know, it is not official; nevertheless, it represents the thinking of the men on the ground who have to carry out the provisions of any legislation that is passed.
What they say is this:
"while recognising that reorganisation of local authority areas is at present under consideration, we regret the proposal that the councils of large burghs in addition to those of counties of cities he local authorities for the purposes of the Bill. We accept the arguments advanced in the Government White Paper Social Work and the Community, viz., 'Small units do not provide satisfactory career opportunities for keen and progressive staff'."—
this is in the White Paper—
"'They can offer few opportunities for the professional consultation which is valued highly by social workers. With so few staff, they find it very difficult to release staff for training and to offer supervised practical training to students. In a small staff, the range of experience is usually limited, and there can be
1330
little flexibility in dealing with particular types of problem. Partly for these reasons, very small departments do not easily attract well qualified staff. This weakness and their limited financial resources aggravate their difficulties'. We regret this Bill does not follow the White Paper in this matter."
That is exactly the same as the sheriffs have said, and also the probation officers. I frankly admit that the Social Workers' Group has an element of Parkinson behind it, because the bigger the scope the bigger the job; but, taken at its face value, this is an honest appreciation of the position as the social workers see it.
May I just add a little more in regard to the difficulties of a small unit? Our particular county, of which I happen to have the honour to be Vice-Convener, is a good deal smaller in population than a large burgh. We have to overcome our problems by joining, on a voluntary basis, with Aberdeenshire, and we produce a service in that way. Under this Bill we could not do that. I see the noble Lord is shaking his head. I am not quit; sure about that and I hope he will tell us the position later on. However, I should like to point out one difficulty in regard to units, which is that in a large unit, particularly of probation officers, there will be representatives of both sexes. If there is only one probation officer that officer must be male or female—he or she cannot be both. I think that is apparent to everybody.
The difficulty I have in mind may be exemplified by a distressing case with which we have to deal. This case concerned a girl whose father was convicted of incest and put into gaol for four years. The week after next this man will come out on parole. The daughter is now 15 years of age. If this Bill were on the Statute Book, do noble Lord: consider it would be right that such a man, coming out with these obvious tendencies or disease or misfortune or whatever it may be, should return to this family, with the girl still there, and still fond of her father in spite of everything, but unsupervised by any really skilled person—in fact supervised by what I can only describe as more or less an amateur? Possibly that is a little beside the point, but it underlines the difficulty with regard to small units, and the problems one encounters in a county such as ours, with a population of 20,000. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, derided me the

1331
other day when I said that under the cuts in the Civil Defence we should be left with possibly three, but probably one Civil Defence officer. I checked up yesterday and we shall be left with one man.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I should like to support this Amendment which has been so ably moved by my noble friend. As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he was speaking on Second Reading put every point with his accustomed fairness. He drew our attention to the fact that the White Paper stated that the Government think that on balance it will be best to place responsibility on the counties, including, of course, the counties of cities. The noble Lord told us that we must recognise the existing welfare functions of the large burghs, and then, more or less to clinch the point that the large burghs should be entrusted with this responsibility in the future as they have been in the past, he continued by saying that it has been made clear from their comments on the White Paper that the large burghs want to retain those functions. That did not seem to be an adequate reason—just because the large burghs wanted to retain these functions—why, after the finding of the White Paper, they should be allowed to do so.
I would rather think, from my reading of the White Paper (which of course may be wrong) that, on balance, paragraph 52 is made rather wider by the concluding words, where it says:
"should encourage counties with the smallest populations to join with other authorities to form joint departments serving their combined populations."
It seemed to me that that brought in a larger population than was contained in at least some of the large burghs. I hope the noble Lord will be able to persuade his right honourable friend to reconsider this particular provision in what is otherwise an excellent Bill.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I should perhaps apologise for taking part at all in this debate, because in spite of my name I do not live in Scotland and have no personal experience of the ways in which the judicial and local authority systems differ from the English. But the National Association of Probation Officers does represent the interests of probation officers throughout Great
1332
Britain, and that is perhaps my excuse. It seems to me that this proposal, if it is as I understand it, will particularly affect the probation services, since in many areas they have already combined areas, and been formed into larger groups than is now proposed. If I correctly understand the proposals in the Bill, these combined areas will be broken down into smaller pieces than exist already. The new social works departments will be very much smaller than the existing combined areas in which the probation services work, and it will be a greater disadvantage for them than for other forms of social work.
3.42 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, concluded his remarks by saying that he hoped I should be able to persuade my right honourable friend to change his mind. On the contrary, I hope that I shall be able to persuade noble Lords who support this Amendment to change their minds. I do not put that forward as a jocular remark: I believe that what the Government decided on this matter is the right course to follow. It is true that the White Paper decided that, on balance, this matter should rest with the counties, and that of course includes cities which are counties of cities. But it was only on balance. The arguments were fairly finely divided. After the White Paper had been published there were many consultations, and in the course of those consultations very strong arguments were advanced in favour of continuing to entrust these welfare responsibilities to large burghs. I completely agree with the remark that that in itself is not a good reason for change, but while it is perfectly true that most, if not all, large burghs want to retain these functions, and most of the counties, if not all, wish it to be confined to the counties, the second argument is no more convincing that the first. It is only when one looks at all the arguments put forward that one can arrive at what seems to be the best conclusion.
Having said that, I cannot pretend for one moment that all the arguments in favour fall firmly on one side or the other. We have come to the conclusion that, given the fact that we are legislating in advance of the reorganisation of local government which one presumes will follow from the Report of the Wheatley

1333
Commission, we must inevitably, whichever way we do it, be creating an organisation different from that which will ultimately emerge. We have a very long debate in front of us, and I hope that the pattern will be for short speeches. But this is one of the more important subjects that will be discussed, and I want to make it perfectly clear that on this matter (I am not setting the pattern for my own remarks throughout the debate) I intend to speak at greater length than perhaps on any other item we may be discussing, with one possible exception.
I would remind noble Lords that the Bill embodies the decision in the light of all the comments that have been made by all the authorities who have been consulted, both statutory bodies and voluntary bodies, since the White Paper has been published. I would not pretend, and my right honourable friend would not pretend, that it has been easy to arrive at a decision on this matter. It would have been, I think, irresponsible to take the easy way out and just, as it were, sweep the problem under the carpet by deferring action until we knew the form which local government reorganisation was going to take. I expressed those views briefly during the Second Reading debate, and I think I can content myself with re-stating them briefly. It is not a problem which can be solved readily when the Commission's Report is received. That is only a stage of a very long journey. We shall not get the final answer within a few months of the Commission's Report. Their recommendations will require considerable discussion with the local authority associations and in public, and only after that stage has been completed will the Government be in a position to reach final decisions as to the form which reorganisation should take. After it is enacted, there must he quite a long period while the new authorities are formed. If I may refer to the reorganisation of London government, I would point out that the new bodies came into existence, if I remember rightly, a year before they assumed their functions; the new body and the old body were in existence for a year at the same time.
A Bill will have to be drafted and brought before Parliament. It is easy to see, therefore, that it may be 1973
1334
before the new authorities will be in a position to organise the new social work departments. The Bill to authorise this would necessarily follow the Local Government Bill, and it might well he 1975 before the new children's panels, which require the support of the new departments, could be set up. The problem of increasing juvenile delinquency was brought forcibly to the attention of Parliament in 1961. It was then stated that it urgently required attention, and to wait for the Commission's Report would mean we should in fact be accepting a delay of almost fifteen years before taking action; and that is something which we do not think would be justified. We therefore must proceed in anticipation of reorganisation and work on a basis which can be adaptable to the structure that will emerge. I think there will be fifty-six authorities under the Bill as it stands. If the Amendment were carried there would be thirty-five; that is, if we assume that every authority which has the power to set up a separate department in fact accepts it. This will be done only against the strongest advice of the Secretary of State. The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, pointed out that I was shaking my head at one point. That was when he said they would not have power under the Bill to combine with Aberdeen for this purpose. Undoubtedly they would have the power and one hopes there will be even more combination. It does not follow that because fifty-six authorities have a right to set up welfare departments they will do so.
May I deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, about probation committees? The fact is that in Scotland at the present time the burghs are authorities for the organisation of the probation service, but with the exception of the large burgh of Kirkcaldy no large burgh has ever organised op that basis. They have accepted the advantage of getting together with their neighbours, and that is an advantage which will exist just as much under this Bill as it ever did in regard to probation. The Secretary of State will feel that he has failed in his intention if there is not a voluntary get together. The important thing that the service should be organised in units sufficiently big to enable them to carry out their functions reasonably, and I

1335
think that is the point which has lain behind the remarks of all those who have spoken in this debate.
It is a fallacy to talk in terms of a large burgh being a small unit and a county a very big one. I wonder how many Scottish noble Lords are aware of the fact that the Burgh of Coatbridge, which for size is in the middle of the list of large burghs, has a rateable value which is greater than that of l4 of the 31 counties, and has a greater population than 22 of the counties. It is a mistake, therefore, to think that all the large burghs are small units. Arbroath is right at the bottom of the list. There was a special provision back in 1929 which enabled Arbroath to be made a large burgh. So we are in fact helping to create bigger units by making it possible for the large burgh to be a welfare authority. We think, therefore, that for the time being, until reorganisation reshapes the whole pattern, the comparison of size is not one which acts to the detriment of the large burghs.
I would repeat, however, that we think that in the long term the organisational units should be bigger. That is why, even under the Bill, existing counties are to be encouraged to combine; and we will give the same encouragement to burghs to combine with the counties, so that for this purpose there will not be any more separate authorities than are necessary to do the job. If time were unlimited, I could go into detail on a whole series of the arguments, but I think it is fair to say that the objection to the Bill is on the basis that the units will be too many, and will include too many which will be too small. I believe that under the Bill, even with the large burghs, with the encouragement to reorganisation we shall not have many authorities which will be providing an inadequate service because they are working from too small resources.
3.52 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation in this matter, but I must say that I think it will leave some of my noble friends, as it leaves me, distinctly puzzled. He says that we must proceed with this Bill. For my part—I think I speak on behalf of at any rate a number of my noble friends—I would not contest that. I
1336
think that at least we should get the structure going now. Then the noble Lord dealt with the question of the size of the unit. He has indicated, I think fairly clearly, that he would like to see larger units; and he said that the Secretary of State is going to give the strongest advice and encouragement to authorities under the Bill to combine. He thinks that there will be a good deal of voluntary getting together.
Perhaps I ought to ask the noble Lord this question. Is it not the case that some of the combinations that took place—for example, the combination of probation authorities in Lanarkshire—were brought about by compulsory order? I think that was so in 1945. I think we are also bound to ask him this question. Assuming that he does not intend to exercise compulsory powers in regard to combinations but is simply going to encourage them to get together, does he think that he will get these combinations under the Bill if large burghs are left with the responsibilities for social welfare? After all, presumably the purpose in opposing their inclusion is quite simply because the large burghs want to retain their responsibilities. Therefore, what reason is there to suppose that they will combine voluntarily? No doubt many of the counties will, as many of the counties have done already. If the noble Lord could persuade the Committee that the Government would be more likely to get combinations such as they want to see if the large burghs were to be left with their responsibilities than if counties alone were to be the authorities under the Bill, then I think that noble Lords would be inclined to agree with him. But I am bound to say that there is no evidence of that at all; and the very fact that the large burghs have opposed this proposal must be because they want to retain their own responsibilities in this regard.
I think we would agree with the noble Lord that the arguments are fairly evenly divided in this matter. On the other hand, the Wheatley Commission is sitting at the present time, and I should think that the Government must have some idea of the direction in which the minds of the Commission are working at present. I should also think, based on experience of previous White Papers

1337
which have been put out, that it is most unlikely that the outcome of their deliberations will be to recommend that at any rate some of the smaller of the large burghs should continue to exist as islands in a landward area. That seems most unlikely, and it is also something that is undesirable in the administration of social welfare in Scotland. Therefore, what I think my noble friends on this side feel, and certainly what I feel, is that under this Bill, so far as administrative areas are concerned, we ought to begin as we intend to go along; and if it is the case that at any rate the smaller of the large burghs will be extremely unlikely to remain as islands, then under this Bill we should see that they do not do so from the word "Go".
I have seen a statement that there is one large burgh with a population of 21,000, which had one part-time children's officer, one welfare officer and no children's home. That is the kind of situation that no one would want to allow to continue. If the only powers of the Secretary of State are to be powers of advice and encouragement to combine, then there is every chance that that situation will continue, and I think my noble friends on this side of the Committee feel that they have a duty to see that it does not. That is the view we take.
3.57 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: If I may briefly answer some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has made, may I say that I find it difficult to disagree with the general tenor of his remarks. There is nothing strange about that, because we are both seeking to accomplish the same object. All noble Lords who have spoken are seeking to achieve the same object as the Government; that is, to have the most efficient units. It is true that under the Bill the Secretary of State will have to rely on persuading authorities to get together voluntarily. But I would remind noble Lords that this is one pattern in which the Government have taken an example which the Opposition set during their many years in power, that the usual way in connection with local authority combinations is to endeavour in the first instance to do it by agreement. A combination which is agreed is generally much better than one obtained by using compulsion.
1338
It is not very long ago that we had a debate in your Lordships' House on the merits of compelling local authorities to get together for particular purposes, and it was not then argued that it was authorities which were large and viable which should be allowed to remain out. It was for other, perfectly good, reasons that they sought to keep out. I would agree that, on the face of it, it appear: to be against the Government's argument to give these powers to large burghs, some of whom the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggested will not survive the recommendations of the Wheatley Commission. I was in the company of Lord Wheatley yesterday at a meeting in Edinburgh but I did not discuss then—nor have I on the many occasions when I have met him—the Wheatley Commission. I am in no better position than anybody else to guess at what it is doing, and it would be wrong for the Government to act on what they think the Commission may do until the Commission itself decides what it is going to do. After all, it is not so long ago that the Commission heard the last of the evidence presented to it. Furthermore, perhaps it would be wrong far the Commission to say that it has finally made up its mind on what it is going to do. We all have our own ideas about what is desirable in this matter.
Without in any way claiming any knowledge on this matter, because I have none, it is just as likely that some of the smaller counties—and it might go a good deal further than that—have even less chance of surviving than some of the burghs. So in putting in the Bill only the counties, we are entrusting functions to local authority organisations which in some cases may not survive reorganisation. Therefore, we have a choice of giving it to bodies, some of which will survive and others of which will not, or of waiting until we know what the final pattern is going to be and doing nothing. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has joined with me in rejecting that last argument as a reasonable alternative, when we have waited all these years.
I would remind your Lordships that the Secretary of State will be bringing in different parts of the Act at different dates on appointed days. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that before any of these appointed days are fixed, we shall know the Wheatley Commission

1339
recommendations. There will be a fairly considerable inducement to some of the authorities to see "the writing on the wall" and from the beginning to get a good department organised, even on a voluntary basis. There is a big difference between a large burgh getting together voluntarily with a county on a basis on which they can ensure that they have a reasonable say in the way in which the combined service is going to be worked, and going into a compulsory scheme where they may have a limited representation through their members on the county council, as, for example, on the education side of a large burgh. I think that in some cases the large burghs have at the back of their minds the idea of a voluntary arrangement which they can work out and which will be much better than something which is forced upon them; the power is placed firmly in the hands of the counties.
I have done the best I can. If I have not been completely convincing, it is simply because of the fact that there is no answer which convinces entirely on one side. The Government's case is that, taking all the factors into account (the time factor of which is the most difficult), this is one which is most likely—I can put it no stronger than that—to give us the best working units. We are creating an entirely different welfare service from anything which has existed before in Scotland or anywhere else. The degree of willing co-operation between authorities will be a very valuable feature in this matter. We think that bringing the large burghs in is not necessarily taking anything away from the counties, but that in some cases it will make it easier for the counties to provide an even better service than if they had the burghs with them under compulsion.
I hope that in these circumsances noble Lords will not press this Amendment, but will take the opportunity to withdraw it, perhaps to think further about it, and then, if they still feel very strongly about the matter, they can retable the Amendment on Report stage. The Government have considered this matter for so long that I am not basing my request on the basis that the Government will reconsider the matter. We have come to a firm conclusion on this, and we must abide by it. We hope that a further period of reflection will persuade noble Lords opposite that, although the Government are not perhaps 100 per cent. right in this matter, they are certatinly not 100 per cent. wrong.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his fair and interesting arguments, and I should also like to thank the noble Lords on this side of the House who have spoken in favour of this Amendment. As the noble Lord quite rightly said, this is a question of balance. I am afraid that despite the eloquent plea by Lord Hughes he has not impressed me that the balance is on his side in this argument. I feel that it would be as well to put this Amendment into the Bill now. The Bill is at an early stage and, despite the noble Lord's remark that the Government will not consider this matter very much further, I hope that if we can amend the Bill in this way it might persuade him and his colleagues to reconsider it.
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Cromartie, E.

Gridley, L.

Albemarle, E.

Daventry, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Allerton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Hives, L.

Amulree, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Ashbourne, L.

Dudley, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Balfour, E.

Dundee, E.

Ilford, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ebbisham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Bessborough, E.

Effingham, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Blackford, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Jessel, L.

Conesford, L.

Falkland, V.

Kilmany, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ferrier, L.

Lambert, V.

Craigavon, V.

Forescue, E.

Lothian, M.

Cranbrook, E.

Greenway, L.

Loudoun, C.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Stonehaven, V.

Mar, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

St. Helens, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Merrivale, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Swinton, E.

Milverton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Teynham, L.

Molson, L.

Sanderson of Ayot, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sandford, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sandys, L.

Vivian, L.

Moyne, L.

Selkirk, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Windlesham, L.

Oakshott, L.

Somers, L.

Wolverton, L.

Rathcavan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville of Eye, L.

Morrison, L.

Beswick, L.

Granville-West, L.

Moyle, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hall, V.

Peddie, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Platt, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Raglan, L.

Burden, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Rowley, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Citrine, L.

Latham, L.

Segal, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Faringdon, L.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Fiske, L.

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Maelor, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mais, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs

Garnsworthy, L.

Mitchison, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
House resumed.

REPAIR OF STORM DAMAGE IN SCOTLAND
4.17 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat in his own words, a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about storm damage. The Statement is as follows:
"We debated in this House on February 7, the disastrous effects of the storm which struck Scotland on the night of January 14/15. I then promised to keep the House informed of the steps taken to rehabilitate the areas affected by storm damage.
"As soon as the effects of the storm had been assessed it was apparent that complete rehabilitation would inevitably be a long process. The Government's efforts have been directed first towards making temporary repairs, so that the worst hardships were quickly removed; and then to seeing that the work of permanent repair is finished as quickly as is humanly possible.
1342
"Unfortunately bad weather has hampered operations. There was a dry and calm spell immediately after the storm, but since then the West of Scotland has suffered three periods of strong gales accompanied by driving rain and snow. It has been necessary on these occasions to divert workmen from permanent repairs to replace temporary roof coverings which had been blown away or penetrated.
"Despite these difficult conditions a great deal has been achieved. All the damaged local authority houses, numbering nearly 200,000—over 70,000 of them in Glasgow—were made wind and watertight at an early stage, and over 63,000 of them have now been permanently repaired. Repairs to houses owned by the Scottish Special Housing Association and the four new town corporations are proceeding satisfactorily.
"Many owners whose houses are covered by comprehensive insurance are dealing with their own repairs. However, I informed the House on January 25 that I was arranging for local authorities to organise the repair of private houses where this was necessary to avoid delay. These arrangements rested on the provision of capital by the Government, the commissioning and

1343
payment of work by the local authorities, and the acceptance by owners of ultimate responsibility for the cost. The most intractable problem has been the repair of tenements in multiple ownership, many of which are inadequately insured.
"Outside Glasgow local councils have made themselves responsible for organising permanent repairs to the roofs of over 14,000 houses. Work on over 2,500 of these has been completed, and the councils assure me that all the roofs will be permanently repaired before the end of the summer.
"In Glasgow the storm damaged the roofs of some 10,000 privately-owned tenements: 5,000 of these were seriously damaged. This meant that some 80,000 households were, or could be, affected. Permanent repairs to those houses were proceeding fairly well until the weekend of March 16–17, when another bad storm struck the City, and the temporary patching suffered severely. A labour force of some 700 men, drawn from the Corporation's direct labour force, the Scottish Special Housing Association and the private contractors' labour force, was set to work.
"Under the direction of the general manager of the Corporation's building department this force has overcome the renewed emergency, and the Corporation and the master slaters have agreed to work together to ensure that all private houses in the City are fit to withstand next autumn's weather.
"To achieve this the methods of repair are being modified where necessary: strapping and roofing felt, durable enough to stand up to any weather for several years, will be used. My honourable friend, the Minister of State, who discussed these arrangements last Friday in the City, has been assured by all those concerned that the existing labour force is sufficient to ensure that by September repairs will be completed which will fully safeguard all the roofs. Labour and finance have been, and are, the two key factors in this whole operation.
"From the outset everything possible has been done by the local and central authorities to assemble and dis-
1344
pose to best advantage the necessary labour force. The Ministry of Labour have combed Scotland for men, and have brought some from England. For Glasgow's needs men have been drawn from the Corporation's staff, from local contractors and from the Scottish Special Housing Association. The men have all worked magnificently, often in very difficult conditions. The work has called for an outstanding degree of trained skill, because of the high-pitched roofs of the tenements. Let no one underestimate the danger of this work in the sort of weather we have experienced. I am sorry to say that six lives have been lost.
"As to finance, the arrangements which the local authorities have made, with the backing of Government advances, have been designed to ensure that no repair need be delayed because of lack of means. The private owners and factors have been assured that when local authorities are arranging to recover the costs of repairs they will examine each case individually and ensure that recovery does not cause hardship. Any deficit which a local authority incurs because of this will attract the special 75 per cent. Government grant. These arrangements are being administered flexibly: in urgent cases local authorities are giving instructions for repairs to be undertaken before all the formalities have been completed.
"Since the storm there has been close co-operation between the central Departments and the local authorities. I would like to pay a special tribute to the Lord Provost of Glasgow, who has shown outstanding qualities of leadership during the City's period of trial.
"If I deal more briefly with the damage to agriculture and horticulture it is not because the Government underestimate the severe losses these industries have suffered, but because fewer complications have arisen in helping farmers and growers to overcome the difficulties. As an indication of the severity of the damage I can tell the House that the estimated cost of the work covered in applications made to my Department under the various improvement schemes is now over £1 million.

1345
"However, I now expect that the restoration of damage to farm buildings will be completed within three months: in many instances farmers are taking the opportunity of making improvements under the schemes of assistance rather than restoring existing buildings. Repair work to horticultural properties is virtually complete. Where rebuilding of glass-houses is involved some delay has taken place because of the need to concentrate on seasonal work at this time of the year. I am glad to say that labour and materials are not presenting any serious problems, either to farmers or to horticulturists.
"As regards forestry, I have now considered the Forestry Commission's advice on the report of the Action Group. I am indebted to the Group for the speed with which they did their work.
"As I announced on March 26 we have urged local authorities and wood-using industries to give preference to home-grown timber whenever possible in the next two years. We are also appealing to private woodland owners to exercise restraint in felling meanwhile, and the Forestry Commission is giving a lead in this direction. In addition we propose to offer assistance in two ways.
"First, an allowance for extra cost will be made to assist in the dispersal of sawmill timber to potential markets in other parts of the country. This will help to ensure that there is no glut in local markets which might result in valuable timber being allowed to rot. This assistance will be administered by the Forestry Commission, and will be payable to those bearing the transport charge. The Forestry Commission is working on the details and an announcement will be made early next week.
"Secondly, we have given a good deal of thought to the provision of additional heavy machinery which will be needed to extract and handle the windblown timber. The timber trade will no doubt meet some of this requirement themselves. But in view of the temporary need for the plant the Government recognise that the trade may not be able to find all the capital for short-term investment on the neces-
1346
sary scale. We are therefore arranging for the Forestry Commission to hire out machinery to owners and timber merchants at commercial rates. Full details will be announced by the Forestry Commission."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement made by my right honourable friend.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement, which I think is too long to be discussed in detail—and I certainly do not want to add to the difficulties of the noble Lord in the middle of a rather vigorous and, perhaps, lengthy Committee stage of a Scottish Bill. I should like to pay a tribute to the fine work which has been done by these improvised squads of labour in such difficult conditions, and with the loss of life about which your Lordships will have regretted to hear.
There is a question I should like to ask about the damage to houses The Statement which the noble Lord repeated has given some general figures about the numbers of houses damaged, some of which were no doubt almost destroyed and some of which were no doubt only very slightly damaged. I should like to know what is happening about the families who are homeless. We were told two months ago that about 800 families were completely homeless in Glasgow alone, and an unascertained number elsewhere. I wonder if the noble Lord could tell us whether it is the aim of the local authorities eventually to put all these families back in the houses which they previously occupied, and what it happening to them meanwhile. Are they living in rest centres, or are they being crowded in with relations? And if it is going to take a long time to rehabilitate their former homes, or if in some cases it is impossible to rehabilitate them, will these people be given any priority on the waiting list for new houses?
On forestry, I am very glad it has been recognised that the chief obstacle to clearing up the mess is the difficulty of marketing and transport; and we shall look forward with interest to the Forestry Commission's announcement early next week. I do not know whether the noble Lord can say anything about

1347
the allowance for extra cost—whether it will be a fixed, fiat-rate proportion of the difference between the cost to the neighbouring markets which are clogged up and to the more distant market which is able to take the timber, or whether it will be on some other basis.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement we have just heard. I do not wish to make any detailed comments, except that I would associate myself with what has been said about the men who have been working so hard to get the damage repaired and express the sympathy which we must all feel for the families of those who unfortunately lost their lives while carrying out this very fine work.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, as second priority, he will consider with the position of the churches, which also suffered considerable damage. Clearly, people's houses must come first; but the churches did suffer a great deal of damage—and one can hardly expect the ministers to insure against an act of God.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, can something be done, if necessary beyond the letter of the law, for any of the widows or dependants of the six who lost their lives in the repair work in Glasgow?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I had the advantage of seeing this Statement an hour or two before your Lordships heard it, but that is the only advantage I have had. In these circumstances, you will appreciate that it is not possible for me to answer any points that were not within my knowledge before to-day. The one question I can answer is in relation to the rehousing of the homeless. I was in Glasgow on the day following the disaster, and I was also in a number of other parts of the county on that day. I was in other burghs of Scotland on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of that week. One thing which had already emerged clearly was that each of the local
1348
authorities had accepted it as a proper exercise of their responsibilities that all the priorities in housing should be set aside in favour of giving accommodation to those rendered homeless by the storm. In some cases, at the wish of the people concerned, that re-accommodation was of only a temporary nature. There were other cases where houses were badly damaged, or alternatively, where psychological factors entered into it, where a house could be repaired and was in fact perfectly safe but the circumstances were such that a widow said, "I will not in any circumstances go back to live in that tenement." The local authorities looked with the greatest kindness on this; and I can say without hesitation that this is the part of the problem which was most speedily and most satisfactorily resolved.
The other questions I will draw to the attention of my righ honourable friend. It may be that, as a result, I shall be writing to some noble Lords. What I hope is that the very kind expressions of sympathy with those who lost their lives which were made by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, will be adequately reported by the Scottish Press; because I am sure that the building industry in Scotland and the families of those men will very much appreciate that sort of comment by your Lordships.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in the light of the fact that a great deal of the damage was done in Glasgow by the cement-bound brick chimneyheads falling into the tenements, may I ask the noble Lord whether the authorities will ensure that, as that form of construction is certain to be used in putting back the chimneyheads, they are adequately anchored to the stone building? Perhaps, also, when repair work is completed there might be a check of the chimneyheads which may not have fallen but which may have been shaken by the gale, lest they need anchoring against the possibility of a similar wind in the future.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am quite certain that both these points are being acted upon by the authorities, public and private.

SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.35 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
The social work committee
2.—(1) Every local authority shall establish a social work committee for the purposes of their functions under this Act.
(2) Except as otherwise expressly provided, all matters relating to the performance of their functions under the following enactments—

(a) this Act,

(b) section 12 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958.

shall stand referred to the social work committee, and before exercising any of the said functions the authority shall, unless the matter is urgent, consider a report of the social work committee with respect thereto.
(3) The social work committee, or any subcommittee thereof, may include persons specially qualified by reason of experience or training in matters relating to the functions of the committee, notwithstanding that they are not members of the local authority:
Provided that at least a majority of the members of the committee, or any sub-committee thereof, shall be members of the authority.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after subsection (2)(b), to insert as a new paragraph: "( ) Part I of the Children Act 1958,". The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 2, may I, with the permission of the Committee, associate with it Amendment No. 3? These Amendments are necessary because the clause makes it a duty of every local authority to set up a social work committee for the purposes of their functions under the Bill. It also lists functions under other enactments which are to stand referred to that committee because their nature is such that it is appropriate for them to be a responsibility of the new social work department. The Amendments would add to the list of functions which are to stand referred to the social work committee responsibilities contained in Part I of the Children Act 1958 and in Section 101(1) of the Housing Act 1964. The first of these is primarily concerned with placing responsibilities and duties on persons who foster children for reward. But Section 1 of the Act places a general duty on local authorities to secure the well-being of privately placed foster children, and it is
1350
clearly appropriate that this duty should be placed upon the social work department.
Section 101(1) of the Housing Act 1964 enables counties and large burghs to contribute to expenditure incurred in connection with the provision, maintenance and management of housing for elderly, infirm or handicapped persons. This power, which is exercised at present by welfare departments, is also one which would appropriately be placed with the social work department. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Part I of the Children Act 1958,").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord with respect to the second Amendment he spoke to, how this will affect the housing responsibilities of local departments in regard, among other things, to finance and the method of financing; because, as II understand it, the method of financing under this Bill will be different from the method of financing, the calculation of rates and so on, in the question of housing.
LORD HUGHES: I have no direct information about that point but I suspect that it will not alter the financial responsibilities of the authorities. I am quite certain that if any of the chamberlains or town clerks have reason to fear that it will, they will soon draw our attention to the fact.
LORD HUGHES: I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, leave out (" and ') and insert—
("( ) section 101(1) of the Housing Act 1964, and").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD FERRIER: My noble friend Lord Balerno greatly regrets that an important engagement in Scotland prevents his being here to move this Amendment himself. It therefore falls to me to move it. I need hardly say, as your Lordships know from the speech I made on Second Reading, that I fear that this Dill is so "half-baked" that no amount of re-cooking in Committee seems likely to

1351
result in a digestible product. However, I am absolutely persuaded that the need for some enactment to improve the situation in Scotland is so great that we must do as much as we can to make the Bill workable and acceptable. This is certainly the view of my noble friend Lord Balerno, and we feel—and we can see by the Amendment that follows that we are not alone—that it is essential that the terms of the Bill should be mandatory in respect of the inclusion of experienced personnel in the Committees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Ferrier.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: Would it be convenient if my Amendment, No. 5, were discussed along with this one?
LORD HUGHES: Yes; and I think No. 8 is consequential upon No. 4 and that is also Lord Ferrier's Amendment. It is on the same point.
LORD FERRIER: I may say that Lord Balerno would be prepared to withdraw No. 4 and for us to associate ourselves with No. 5. But if it is your Lordships' wish I will go on to No. 8. I have already mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, is unable to be here. Amendment No. 8 is in two parts. Both of those Darts make a whole which will bring the Bill in line with the existing conditions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1945, which is based on the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929. These conditions are that representatives from the Churches have a statutory place on education committees. I need not elaborate on my belief that such representation is advisable. There is, of course, no suggestion that any particular Christian Church should be singled out for selection in this way. The point is that in work of this type ministers of religion have a particular contribution to make by virtue of their dedication and experience. What is more, they are part of a network with unique contacts throughout any community which fact can be only an asset to such a committee. The second part of the proposed subsection speaks for itself and is in line with the existing practice under the Education Act, whereby it is mandatory on committees to submit regular reports to keep the Secretary of State in touch with progress.
4.41 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I hope that my noble friend may be able to accept Amendment No. 4. I am not bothered, if I may say so with the greatest repect, about Amendment No. 5 any more than with Amendment No. 8. I should prefer to leave the choice of personnel to the new social work committees. I do not think that any particular body has any special right to be represented. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said that there ought to be a representative of the universities and the churches. One could argue that there ought perhaps to be a representative of members of the medical profession who are in daily touch with these problems. I should have thought the most important persons to have on such a committee would be people with a wide experience of professional social work.
The clause as drafted says that:
"The social work committee, or any subcommittee thereof, may include …"
and so on. "May" is permissive; it also means that if the committee does not wish to do so, it need not. Therefore I ask my noble friend whether he feels able to accept the word "shall" in place of "may", because, having regard to what the Bill, envisages, which is the co-ordination of a good deal of social work to be undertaken by the local authority, it would mean that the social work committee would have constantly under its review standards of work; the question of selection; the training of personnel and, I would hope, the question of in-service and further training. Those of us who have been members of county councils and borough councils know that not all members of committees (and sometimes none of them) have special knowledge of the work for which the committee is responsible. Therefore I feel that if the word used could be "shall", there would be an obligation on the social work committee and the local authority to bring on to the committee people from a fairly wide field of representation. They would be able to bring to the committee a certain wealth of experience and fund of knowledge which would help to develop a really first-class social service. They would have regard to such things as selection and training, in-service training and further training. That is why I should

1353
like to see the word "shall" used, because then this would be obligatory.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I may add a word or two about our approach to Amendment No. 5. I put down this Amendment because I thought that in particular areas there would not be people sufficiently qualified by reason of experience or training to be worth considering for membership of a committee: it would give a small degree of latitude. But I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, about the word "shall". My information is that not a great deal of use has been made of Section 39 of the Children Act in co-opting on to the committees people of this kind. I do not know the reason for that, but if it is so, and if it is thought desirable that they should be members, there is a strong case for making the wording at any rate more positive.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and my noble friend Lord Ferrier would go the whole way and make it an absolute duty. I felt it better to modify it a little, in case in certain areas it was not possible to find the kind of person envisaged, for example, in Amendment No. 8. We have to bear in mind that the reasons for which Churches are represented on education committees are not the same as those for which they are required to be represented on this kind of committee. The Churches have their pastoral duties, but I think it is more with regard to their teaching duties and the regulation of religious instruction that they are represented on education committees. Nevertheless, I think it would be most valuable, because of their pastoral functions and because so much voluntary welfare work is associated with Churches, that appropriate ministers might well become the hub of this kind of activity and prove most useful on this kind of committee.
Those universities which carry out training for social welfare courses would, I am sure, inevitably be represented on the social work committees. I am thinking particularly, in this connection, of Glasgow and Edinburgh, but the same may apply to the other universities. I commend my noble friend's Amendment No. 8, and I will leave the noble Lord to choose between Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
LORD INCHYRA: My Lords, this Amendment gives me an opportunity to make a short reference to the position under the Bill of the voluntary organisations in Scotland. These organiations have a very wide experience in many aspects of welfare work. I am sure your Lordships will agree that they have done valuable work in a number of directions, and that the last thing anyone would wish would be for these activities to be curtailed or made more difficult because of the provisions of the Bill. I do not for a moment think that that is likely to happen or that it is the intention behind the Bill. On the other hand, I must admit that in the only society for which I am entitled to speak, the British Red Cross Society, I have heard apprehensions expressed that the provisions in the Bill might result in voluntary societies being pushed to one side, or that the work which they do for children and old people, or people who have recently left hospital, might be made more difficult.
In several clauses in the Bill there are provisions for co-operation with voluntary organisations. I am sure it is the intention that the voluntary organisations should be brought fully into the picture. What will matter, however, is not so much the terms of the Bill but the way in which it is administered, and I hope that we need have no concern about that aspect of the matter. But I think that anything which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can say to emphasise the part which the voluntary organisations can play in the new set-up will be very welcome.
LORD HUGHES: Yesterday in Edinburgh I had the opportunity of seconding the motion for the adoption of the Annual Report and Accounts of the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and in the course of my remarks I pointed cut the many ways in which voluntary organisations were expected to continue to play their part in this work. If I remember rightly, the words which I used were of this order. Without the continuation of the co-operation which had been given by voluntary organisations in the past, it would not be possible for either the local authorities or the central departments to satisfactorily carry out the duties which are being laid upon them by this Bill. If the noble Lord wishes me to send him a copy of the full remarks which I made,

1355
which I think were generally acceptable to the members of the Society, I shall be glad to do so.
Of course, my remarks apply with equal force to the many other voluntary organisations who have been so helpful in welfare operations and without whose work this Bill could not possibly be before us. It has been the voluntary organisations who have been the spearhead of this new development and who have so often pointed out the need for it. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, intervened on this point emphasises the difficulties of attempting a selection by naming the organisations who will have places on the committee by statutory provision. Who is to weigh up the merits in any particular area of a choice between the local minister or the county director of the Red Cross or an officer of the R.S.S.P.C.C.—the man who is so regularly known in Scotland as "the cruelty man"? It is impossible. If we had to accept everybody who could make a contribution as a member of the committee, there would be no question of a majority being members of the local authority. Their representation would turn out to be a mere drop in the bucket.
The Government are going the other way in these Amendments. As the Bill stands, the majority of a committee will be members of the local authority, but the Government are prepared to accept the Amendments of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, suggesting that this should be a two-thirds majority, because we are strongly in favour of the principle of co-option. It may seem that we are going the wrong way about it. But in many authorities there is strong objection to co-option. If we include in the Bill anything that at the end of the day may make it possible that they will have only a bare majority, they will regard any co-option as being the thin end of the wedge and dig in their heels against any co-option whatever. Even the words "where practicable" would lead to difficulty. If the local council do not want to co-opt, they will find the most ingenious reasons for not having other people on the committee, and who is to decide whether their reason is a practicable one or not?
We think that this is a case where the best co-option will be obtained by
1356
leaving it as it has always been. Outside the Education Acts, the principle of co-option by local authorities has always been a voluntary one. If we are to have non-elected members sitting with the good will of the elected members, we shall get a good committee, who will work well, and the committee will regard themselves as having been strengthened by the experts brought in from outside. They will feel that they have done this themselves; the Secretary of State or Parliament has not compelled them to do this. The committee benefit in the result.
The Government think that the acceptance of these Amendments, which would confine the number of co-opted members to one-third of the committee, is likely to lead to more co-option and bring in more voluntary people, some ministers and perhaps some university people. We are going to emphasise in every way we can that we think that the committees should co-opt outside help in a field which is being widened and in which, let us accept it, there will be a fair amount of difficulty in getting schemes working well. From this point of view, I would sincerely urge your Lordships not to accept Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 8, and in due course I shall be advising your Lordships to accept Nos. 6 and 7. I am sure that the result will be to produce a greater degree of co-option than the three Amendments would bring about.
LORD FERRIER: I think it is a little misleading to bring in Amendment No. 8 to cloud the issue raised by this Amendment. Nevertheless, there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, and with your Lordships' permission I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has indicated that he is prepared to accept this Amendment and Amendment No. 7, and has really done my arguing for me, I do not think that there is any need for me to do anything more than formally move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("a majority") and insert ("two-thirds").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("or") and insert ("a majority of the members of").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
("( ) Each social work committee shall include persons nominated by the authorities of the Churches and, where appropriate, by a University and each local authority for the purpose of this Act shall submit to the Secretary of State for his approval a scheme for the constitution of the committee.")
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to talk any more about this Amendment because I should like time, as no doubt will my noble friend Lord Balerno, to study what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said in the discussion which has just taken place. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord who spoke from the Cross-Benches, who emphasised the need for an absolute assurance that voluntary bodies are properly represented on all committees and sub-committees tinder the Bill. I may not wish to proceed with this Amendment, but on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who has spoken in support of this Amendment, may not wish me to withdraw it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 43, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ferrier.)
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: If I am allowed to speak at this stage, I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrier will withdraw this Amendment, because now that the Minister has accepted Amendment No. 6, which will put an obligation on local authorities to have two-thirds of their social work committees as members of the council, the number of people they will be able to co-opt will be reduced. For example, in a committee of 15 there will be 10 members of the local authority, so that the number of co-opted members cannot exceed five. I think that it will now be unnecessary to have an Amendment which seeks to determine who shall be on the committee. I would sooner leave it to the committee to have the widest possible field of choice.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask one question on this clause. I am not certain what the position is as regards school attendance officers. I know that there is nothing said about this matter in subsection (2) of Clause 2, or, for that matter, in Clause 1. The noble Lord said at an earlier stage that the powers are expressed in very wide terms, so that not everything that is covered needs to be mentioned specifically. I wonder whether he can tell me what has been decided about school attendance officers—or, to put it in another way, whether the staff of the social work committee would serve as school attendance officers, or could so serve. I am told that in some cases janitors of schools serve as school attendance officers.
LORD HUGHES: I must confess that I was told about the position of school attendance officers, but, for the life of me, I cannot remember what I s told. Perhaps at some inappropriate time later on I can give the noble Lord an answer.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged. I shall wait for the "inappropriate" time.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
The director of social work
3.—
(3) Any vacancy in the appointment of director of social work shall be advertised by the local authority and, unless and until the Secretary of State prescribes qualifications under the last foregoing subsection, copies of all the applications received for the vacancy shall be forwarded by the local authority to the Secretary of State who shall compile a list of those applicants whom he considers qualified for the appointment.
5.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to subsection (3)
"and if he considers none of the applicants to be qualified for the appointment he shall require the local authority to re-advertise the vacancy, and the local authority shall comply with the requirement with or without any change in the terms and conditions of service offered."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is a simple one. It is simply that it is quite possible that the Secretary of. State may find nobody with

1359
the qualifications that he thinks necessary on the list of applicants submitted to him. Alternatively he may find only one person. As the local authority are really to choose their director of social work, it does not seem to me that it would be suitable for the Secretary of State to send a list down containing only one name. Yet, as the clause is drafted, it appears that this would be perfectly permissible.
Taking this and the next Amendment together, I think there are two points: first of all, that the local authority is to choose from among those on the list, and not just a person on the list; and secondly, where no name is submitted to the Secretary of State of a person whom he thinks qualified, then he shall require the local authority to re-advertise the vacancy. It may well be that one of the reasons why there is no suitably qualified person on the list is because the local authority has not offered a sufficiently high salary or sufficiently good terms and conditions of employment. It is for that reason that I have indicated that it will be possible in that case, when the local authority re-advertise it, to state the conditions clearly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I must admit that the Government have no strong objections to offer to this Amendment. It is more a matter of the susceptibility of local authorities than anything else. The only objection we have is that we do not want to make the procedure for selecting a social work director look too involved or to have too much appearance of interference in a section of our relationships with local authorities, which is always tender—the question of saying whom they may or may not appoint; and this is particularly so after the appearance of the Maud Report. If, however, the noble Lord thinks that these rather intangible disadvantages are worth suffering for the advantages of spelling it out in so many words—which, frankly, we think is what will happen in any event—I have no strong feelings against it. I do not think it will help relationships. I do not think it will alter very much the procedure that is due to arise, in any event. On the other hand, I must admit that,
1360
except from the possible psychological view of relationships with local authorities in this field, it cannot do very much harm.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. The difficulty is that it is spelt out in so much detail already, but perhaps not quite enough. The point here is not so important as in the case of a reporter, because this, as I understand it, is only a transitional arrangement. This will apply only until subsection (2) comes into operation; that is, until the Secretary of State has prescribed the qualifications. I think that if we decide to bring in these words in regard to the reporter, they could quite easily be brought in here, too. Perhaps we might leave the point to be discussed in relation to the reporter, and by then the noble Lord may have taken more soundings from the local authorities and may know whether or not they would like to have this.
LORD HUGHES: I think that is a helpful suggestion. Whichever way we do it, there is probably advantage in having the same sort of wording in both cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has suggested, perhaps the more important case is that of the reporter. If we should decide that there is advantage in bringing it in, this proposal could perhaps be brought in on the next stage of the proceedings.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (8), after "1947" to insert:
", so far as these provisions are not inconsistent with any of the foregoing provisions of this section,".
The noble Lord said: This clause provides for the appointment by each local authority of a director of social work and adequate supporting staff. The Amendment would insert a necessary qualification in subsection (8) of the clause, which deals with remuneration and tenure of office. The provisions of Sections 82 and 92 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 are to apply to directors of social work and their staff, but in relation to tenure of office these provisions are simply that office

1361
is to be held during the pleasure of the council. The director of social work, however, is to have the additional safeguard enjoyed by other local authority chief officials that he shall not be removed from office (or required to resign) except by a resolution of the local authority passed by not less than two-thirds of the members present at a meeting, notice of which specifies as an item of business consideration of his removal from office. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, after ("1947") insert the said words.—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Provisions relating to performance of functions by local authorities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to put one short point on this clause. I take it that the word "arrangements" in line 4 means, and includes, arrangements on such terms and conditions as may be agreed. These will be arrangements for grant, and so forth.
LORD HUGHES: Yes; I would say so. May I regard this as the inappropriate moment and say that school attendance officers are not affected?
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Powers of Secretary of State]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (3)(d), after "if" to insert "(but only if)". The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to subsection (3)(d) of this clause and, in particular, to the removal of persons from places in which they are boarded out
"if their welfare appears to require it."
I looked up Section 23 of the National Assistance Act, which is repealed in Schedule 7. That empowers the local authority to require persons to leave premises in which accommodation is provided
"where by reason of any change in a person's circumstances"—
1362
among other things—
"he is no longer qualified to receive accommodation under this Part of this Act …".
It seems to me that this represents a quite different attitude from the attitude that is adopted in this Bill, and that the sole test is to be the test of need as defined in the Interpretation Clause, Clause 93. Therefore, if the person is in need he ought not to be removed unless his welfare requires him to be removed: that should be the only case in which he should be removed while he is alive. That being so, I think the words, "but only if" are a useful addition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, after ("if") insert ("(but only if)").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: The Government feel that this would not be in all cases a helpful Amendment to the Bill. I think it must be accepted that if there are no other circumstances which have a cancelling-out effect persons should not be removed from a place where they are boarded out unless their welfare appears to require it, and I think this would be a principle generally followed by local authorities. But there might be circumstances where the general advantage of a group of people might require one person to be removed from a place, even though it could not necessarily be shown that it was for his welfare that this should be done.
It is difficult to envisage actual cases, but the sort of case we had in mind, and which might be precluded if we accepted these words, is this. There might be a place in which handicapped children were boarded out and which was suitable for a particular child, for whom a place could be found only by removing another child for whom it was not essential that he should remain in that place. It could not be argued that it was for the welfare of that child to be in this place, rather than in another one which would suit him equally well. But if the local authority had to comply with this Amendment they might in fact be unable to place the handicapped child in the only suitable place which they had for him, because the alternative place available might not be suitable. I know I am making this sound terribly complicated, but we think that this proposal would be an inhibition on the powers of

1363
the local authority to make the best use of their resources, which could lead in some cases to unfortunate results.
Having said that, however, I would add that I should like time to go into this matter a little more fully. We have a while between Committee stage and Report stage, and if the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment now I will look at it in more detail to find out just how likely it is that there might be circumstances in which the local authority could not do the job as they would want to do it if these words were in the Bill. One thing I want to avoid, if at all possible, is this. If someone were boarded in a place where things were working very well, one would be loth to disturb that arrangement unless there were reasons which were overwhelmingly in favour of doing it that way; and I accept that the balance should be loaded against unnecessary movement. But if the noble Lord will agree to withdraw this Amendment now, I will go into this matter reasonably early and let him have my conclusions after more mature consideration of the matter, and he may then decide whether or not he wishes to resubmit the Amendment at the next stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am again very grateful to the noble Lord. I thought, if I may say so, that his explanation was extremely lucid, although it was bound, in the nature of the case, to be slightly complicated. In the light of the offer he has made, and in view of his sympathetic approach to this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Supervision of establishments providing accommodation for persons in need and inspection of records etc., relating to persons in need]:
5.15 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1) after "may" to insert:
"on producing, if so required, some duly authenticated document showing his authority".
The noble Lord said: This is another point that can often give rise to difficulty—the sort of point we often have to discuss on Bills. It is the extent to which duly authorised officers of the Secretary
1364
of State may enter premises (and perhaps I may take Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 together) at any time and without producing some duly authenticated document required showing their authority to enter. My Amendments relate to subsection (1). The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has down an Amendment to subsection (2), which deals with the question of entering offices of a local authority or a voluntary organisation, to include the words "at all reasonable times". I quite see that there is a difference between entering offices and entering, let us say, houses where foster children are boarded out, or inspecting residential accommodation where it might be very necessary to inspect it at times when offices are not open. But of course "reasonable" is a relative term. What is reasonable in one case might not be reasonable in the other.
What I think is important is that here we are dealing with homes; not just residential establishments, but individual homes, where foster children or children under supervision, children boarded out and so forth, are; and in these days we are constantly being warned against the possibility that people may abuse authority, or use authority they do not possess, in order to gain entrance. I think that this is something we have to be particularly careful with in this kind of case. So the purpose of my Amendment is not to deny to duly authorised officers of the Secretary of State the right to perform their functions in any way, but to ensure, first, that they are always able to establish who they are, and, secondly, that it shall be open to anybody to challenge the reasonableness of the time.
Subsection (4) says:
"Any person who obstructs the exercise of any such power … shall be … liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds …"
Of course it would be considered at that point whether the time was reasonable or not. If the officer of the Secretary of State was not entering at a reasonable time, he would not be convicted; and this is exactly what my Amendment seeks to secure. It will give the courts the final decision as to whether entry was really necessary at the time when it was required, and I think that this is right. We want some restriction on unlimited power to enter private homes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, after ("may") insert ("on producing, if so required, some duly authenticated document showing his authority").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I am so accustomed to finding the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, picking up points which the Government appear to have missed that I take it as almost axiomatic that that will be the case. But on this occasion this is not the position. The first Amendment is in fact already covered by Clause 6(3), on which, for once, the noble Lord appears to have overlooked something, because it says exactly what is in his Amendment No. 13. Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to speak also to our Amendments 15, 16 and 17, which are on the same point.
We have put our Amendment down at line 25, to subsection (2), because we accept that duly authorised officers need enter the offices of a local authority only at a reasonable time. However, we do not accept that an officer should be under the same requirement to enter only at a reasonable time in respect of visits to the places listed in subsection (1). It is, of course, unlikely that the power would be used at an unreasonable time, but the very nature of a complaint about the running of an establishment might make a visit at, say, midnight essential. Not to act at the time might completely prevent the taking of the necessary remedial action. It might be something which could be discovered only by a visit at that time. If it was alleged that certain things were taking place in an establishment during the night, there would be no point in visiting that establishment during the hours from 9 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
So we believe that there is a clear case for having a distinction between the times when offices may be visited, for the purpose of examining records, and so on, and when establishments may be visited for other purposes. For clearly, what would be a wholly unreasonable time to seek to look at office records might be a completely reasonable time to pursue that particular object. For this reason the Government have sought to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, as fully as possible, and this means we have to do it in the way we propose by our Amendments
1366
Nos. 15, 16 and 17. I hope that the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw Nos. 13 and 14 and that he will concur in Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am afraid that I am not entirely convinced by what the noble Lord has said. I started by saying that I agreed that there was a distinction between these two cases, but the fact is that what is reasonable in one case is not reasonable in the other. It is perfectly reasonable at night, if that is the only time at which one can get the particular result. It is quite reasonable that there should be a visit at midnight in order to check up on a residential establishment, but the noble Lord was rather careful to gloss over the fact that this involved the visiting of private houses as well as commercial establishments. While the distinction could be maintained, a little more protection could, I think, be given to the visiting of private homes. Will the noble Lord consider this further before the next stage of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I will do so but I would point out that to visit either a public establishment or a private home at other than ordinary time would be an exceptional circumstance. From time to time it happens that some of the most severe complaints about conditions are in cases where people are boarded out privately, and it would be a dreadful position if it were not possible to investigate these conditions; because the guilty person may well be the one who just slams the door and says, "This is not a reasonable time to come and visit anybody." In these circumstances the conditions which are suspected may continue, perhaps, for another two or three months, or something may happen in the interval to cause people to say that it was just through a piece of red tape that a complaint could not be dealt with at the moment when it was first brought to the authority's notice. Having said that, I should like to look at the matter again with my officers, to find out whether there is any way in which we can give reasonable protection to the individual without defeating the object of this clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has been extremely reasonable this afternoon, and I thank him for his

1367
approach to this matter. I fully appreciate his point of view, and if he can meet my point of view in some way I shall be grateful. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, after ("may") insert ("at all reasonable times").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 26, after ('authority") insert ("or of a voluntary organisation").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
Amendment moved —
("(2A) The power conferred by subsection (1) of this section may be exercised in respect of any place which an officer has reasonable cause to believe to be used as an establishment to which the provisions of that subsection apply.")—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Advisory Council on social work]:
5.26 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: This is quite a small point concerning the new Advisory Council which is to be set up to advise the Secretary of State on matters connected with the performance of his functions with local authorities in relation to social welfare. We feel that the words "under this or any other Act of Parliament" would make the position somewhat clearer, and therefore I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5. line 42, after ("social welfare") insert ("under this or any other Act of Parliament").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: I do not think I shall have much difficulty in persuading the noble Lord not to press this Amend-
1368
ment, because the effect of it would be the opposite of the general line which he has taken on this Bill. I think it would be correct to say that he regards this as a widening of the general position. In fact it is not; it is a narrowing of the position. The note I have on this Amendment is quite brief, but it is so good that I will read it as it stands.
The effect of this Amendment would be to restrict the consideration by the Social Work Advisory Council to matters of social welfare so far as they were provided for under this Bill or any other Act of Parliament. This seems unduly restrictive. The Council may under subsection (4) raise with the Secretary of State of their own accord matters mentioned in subsection (1). This provision as drafted enables the Advisory Council on Social Work to be forward-looking in its considerations and put up suggestions about matters that might be legislated for the first time—new aspects of social work that have not hitherto appeared on the Statute Book. The effect of this Amendment would seem to be to restrict the Council to considering matters that are already in Statute, therefore confining them to considering improvements to existing provisions.
We have in fact found, and I think all Governments have found, that some of the most useful legislation to be brought on the Statute Book has arisen as a result of advice of this kind which has been given by bodies which points the need for new legislation, and we think that this Social Work Advisory Council may well turn out to be a body which, not immediately but at some time ahead, may well point the way to future Governments embarking on other legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I thank the noble Lord for that reply and for explaining so clearly what he envisages the functions of the new advisory councils to be. Of course I agree; I do not want to restrict their activities in any way. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Research]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to raise a point on subsection (2) of Clause 8, which says:
"Any local authority may conduct or assist other persons in conducting research into any matter connected with their functions in relation to social welfare ".
I presume that that subsection is not limited by subsection (3) of Clause 10. It has been felt that local authorities might wish to use the services of a voluntary organisation the purpose of which might not be solely or primarily to promote social welfare. It might be a voluntary organisation dealing with a number of matters. It was thought that this was perhaps too restrictive, and I wonder whether the noble Lord could see that, so far as conducting of research is concerned, the powers of the local authority will not be limited in this way.
LORD HUGHES: Clause 8(2) contains a very wide power and it stands on its own. The heading to Clause 10 is:
"Financial and other assistance to voluntary organisations etc., for social work".
That also stands on its own. Clause 10(3) does not qualify Clause 8(2).
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Financial and other assistance to voluntary organisations etc. for social work]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 32, after ("things") insert ("belonging to the local authority").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I accept this Amendment.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
General social welfare services of local authorities
12.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to promote social welfare in their area by making available advice, guidance and
1370
assistance on such a scale as may be appropriate in their area, and in that behalf to make arrangements and to provide or secure the provision of such facilities (including the provision or arranging for the provision of residential and other establishments) as they may consider suitable and adequate, and are in accord with any guidance which the Secretary of State may give to the local authority in pursuance of subsection (1) of section 5 of this Act.
(3) Assistance in kind or in cash may be given to, or in respect of, a person where the withholding of assistance in that form would cause the authority greater expense in the giving of assistance in another form, or where probable aggravation of the person's need would cause greater expense to the local authority at a later date.
LORD HUGHES: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 10, after second ("and") insert ("as").—(Lord Hughes.)
5.34 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in accord" and insert "not at variance". The noble Marquess said: I hope the noble Lord will not consider this is a restricting Amendment in this case, because it is designed to give local authorities somewhat greater scope and flexibility in the manner in which they go about promoting social welfare in their own areas. The Bill as it stands gives me the impression at any rate that the local authorities are restricted to acting solely within the strict guidance of the Secretary of State. That is what I take the words "in accord" to mean. Our Amendment seeks to give them greater flexibility and freedom in this matter, which I believe to be of great importance in the field of social welfare, at the same time giving them the possibility of not departing from the general framework of the Secretary of State's guidelines. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 11, leave out ("in accord") and insert ("not at variance").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: It is a little difficult to argue against this Amendment because basically "in accord" and "not at variance" would appear to be two ways of saying the same thing. Unfortunately,

1371
from my point of view, I cannot argue that "in accord" is hallowed by precedent and that the words "not at variance" would present us with difficulty. I am told that both phrases, "in accord" and "not at variance", are in fact thought to be new, and whichever way we do it we are making a precedent. I should like, however, to have another look at these words. I must admit that the noble Marquess has turned the tables on me, in that by substituting the phrase "not at variance" he is accepting the argument I was advancing to his colleague at a previous stage, that we do not want to appear in too many cases to be telling the local authorities what they are to do.
If the noble Marquess will withdraw this Amendment I will look at it along with the others, but I would say that I must come down consistently on one side or the other. I cannot have more interference with the local authorities on the previous Amendment and less on this, so if I take "not at variance", then it follows the Government will have to insist on their view on the other Amendment. If, on the other hand, I am prepared to concede what' the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wants on the other Amendments, the Government, to be consistent, will have to insist on this remaining "in accord"—not that the matters are related, but at least the attitude should be consistent. If this Amendment is withdrawn it will be looked at at the same time, and I will advise the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, in ample time for them to decide what they should do at the next stage.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.37 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment relates to subsection (3), which says:
"Assistance in kind or in cash may be given to, or in respect of, a person where the withholding of assistance in that form would cause the authority greater expense in the giving of assistance in another form …"
This is a new provision which we very much welcome. At the same time, it seems to me that the expense to the
1372
authority should not be the only criterion—there is also the question of the persons themselves and what they would like to happen. Therefore the words I suggest are:
"where the withholding of assistance in that form would cause the person greater distress or the local authority greater expense"
if the assistance were given in another form. It seems to me that this is perhaps an improved criterion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, leave out from ("cause") to ("in") in line 26 and insert ("the person greater distress or the local authority greater expense if the assistance were given").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has indicated that the power which he seeks to amend is one which he very much welcomes. I can assure him this was not a very easy power to get in. It is a very useful addition to the local authority's powers. The noble Lord is seeking to widen it in the most difficult circumstances, because, after all, if we have to compare only the cost to the authority of one form of assistance as compared with another, it is a purely objective matter and it is relatively easy to arrive at the answer. But the introduction of assessment of the client's distress, which is subjective both to the client and to the social worker, would complicate the issue and give the local authority power to give assistance in cash or in kind on grounds which would be entirely subjective and not really open to any effective control by auditor or anyone else.
This Amendment probably reflects a feeling among social workers that the giving or withholding of assistance would depend entirely on the cold-blooded assessment of relative costs. This impression is unjustified, because subsection (3) of the clause does not override the other powers of this clause. It offers an additional criterion on the giving of assistance. To be quite honest about this matter, we feel rather pleased with our selves that we have achieved this big step forward, and I should not like to be subjected to the risk of importing into it this rather vague definition. I hope that the noble Lord will not press me on this Amendment, because I think it is a much too difficult field to venture into at this stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. From my experience at the other end of this particular pole, I think I understand exactly the difficulties that he has had in getting this particular provision. But I am not certain that this subsection is going to be easy to operate in any event. The onus of proof in regard to the withholding of assistance seems somewhat "steep". I think that the noble Lord will have to reconsider this clause and try to temper it down a little. He has been talking of objective proof. That is an extremely difficult thing to achieve in one way or the other. I think that he will probably have to modify that a little.
I am sorry that he cannot meet this point. I see the difficulties. I realise that this is a matter of demarcation between one department and another; but it may be that proper liaison between the two departments will get over the difficulty. There is, of course, always the time factor, which is one thing that I had in mind in regard to the greater distress. I do not wish to press this Amendment further, but perhaps the noble Lord and I could have a further word about it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Domestic help and laundry facilities]:
5.43 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), after "presence" to insert "or the imminent or proposed presence". The noble Lord said: Here, again, it is thought that perhaps the phrase
"where such help is required owing to the presence of a person in need"
is unduly restrictive. I am informed that on occasions help has been withheld because the person was not there yet but was going to be there quite soon, when he was released from hospital or something of that kind. It seems to be a fact that this has happened, and it appears to me that, if so, we ought to alter the drafting of this subsection so that it need not happen. Therefore I am asking for the insertion here of the words "or the imminent or proposed presence" before the words "of a person in need", so that domestic help may be present when there
1374
is going to be a person in need in the house as well as where there is already one there. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 16, after ("presence") insert ("or the imminent or proposed presence").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I must admit that I am most sympathetic to the object of this Amendment. In fact, to wait, as the Bill would appear to require, until the person was actually there might complicate things considerably. It nay be that a home help turning up four hours before the person arrived would make things move quite smoothly, whereas in turning up a couple of hours after the person had returned home the home help might have a condition of chaos to deal with. But it is not an easy matter to resolve, and I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment. We should like to look at it sympathetically, but the drafting may well be a most complicated matter. I should like to take the opportunity, after having had some further discussion on the matter, of having a talk with him about it, in ample time for the next stage. He has my sympathy, but whether it is possible to translate sympathy into suitable drafting is a difficulty with which I am faced at the moment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to subsection (3) "or any other committee of theirs,". The noble Lord said: This subsection can be read in two ways. It says:
"It shall not be a requirement that any matter relating to the discharge of their functions under this section by a local authority shall stand referred to their social work committee."
Clause 2(2) says that
"Except as otherwise expressly provided, all matters"—
in this subsection
"shall stand referred to the social work committee."
I am not clear whether this is one of the express provisions that it shall be dealt with otherwise, or whether it was intended to indicate that this was a matter which could be dealt with by

1375
the officials in the first place, without referring the matter to the social work committee.
Even in my own experience, domestic help is not always given as promptly as it might be. It is not given as soon as it is needed. Quite often, the matter has to go to a committee first. To me, that seems undesirable. The officials ought to be given more authority to supply domestic help without having to submit the whole of the case to a committee in the first place. That is what I hoped the subsection meant. To prevent its being submitted to some other committee I am moving to insert the words "or any other committee of theirs".
If, on the other hand, this was supposed to be the express provision and something different from what is in Clause 2(2)—that is, where something is not to stand necessarily referred to the social work committee—then I think it should be made rather more clear by giving such words as enlarge the provisions of Clause 2(2) of the Bill. I do not know which of the two meanings is supposed to be given. If it is the first, I should like to press the Amendment. If it is the second, I suggest that the clause be clarified. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 29, at end insert ("or any other committee of theirs").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: So far as I can see, the effect of this Amendment would appear to be not to alter the subsection. Clause 13 makes it a duty of local authorities to provide domestic help and laundry facilities. Subsection (3) provides that these services do not have to stand referred to the social work committee, unlike the position with respect to the other provisions in the Bill. The Health Services and Public Health Bill at present before Parliament will repeal Section 28 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, which placed somewhat more restricted duties on local health authorities. The position, therefore, now is that this service is not referred to any particular committee of a local authority.
The aim of the clause is in fact to allow local authorities complete discretion either to carry out their expanded duties under Clause 13 through the ex-
1376
isting machinery of the medical officer of health, or to have the new duties on "social grounds" carried out by the social work department; or to have the whole service carried out by the social work department. We know that there has on occasion been a tendency for local authorities to have done by committees far too much work which could be much more expeditiously and just as satisfactorily carried out by their officials working under general rules and guidance which the local authority would lay down. The Bill, as it stands, allows either of those possibilities to be worked out.
Personally, long experience in local government and limited experience in central government have brought me to the point of believing that if there could be any general criticism of local authorities, it is that their machinery tends to work too slowly and that they could accomplish equally satisfactory results for the ratepayers by appointing the right officials and then trusting them to do the job under any general guidance which they may require. One hopes that in this case the authorities will devolve the maximum amount of responsibilities on their officers.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he is saying that although the intention of the Bill as a whole is to bring a great many of the services under one social work authority, domestic help is not necessarily to be referred to the social work committee. Personally I regret this, as I feel it is an essential part of the work of a social work committee and is the kind of thing which should be brought under such a committee. However, this is not the right moment to press this matter; possibly we can come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Assumption by local authority of parental rights]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "Where, after" and insert "If, at the time whe". The noble Lord said: This is an important Amendment, since we come now on to

1377
the clauses relating to the Children Act 1948 and to certain changes in that respect. I think I am right in saying that subsection (4) of this clause is a new provision. It reads as follows:
"Where, after a child has been received into the care of a local authority under the last foregoing section, the whereabouts of any parent or guardian of his have remained unknown for not less than twelve months, the parent or guardian shall, for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this section, be deemed to have abandoned the child."
I agree that there may be cases where it is both necessary and desirable that these powers should be exercised, but one must think very carefully about depriving parents of their children. One could envisage a case where the parents have left a child in what they believe to be good hands. It is not always a case of a lack of sense of responsibility, since the parents may be at the other end of the earth at the time. The person with whom the child is living may die and, owing to the circumstances, the parents may not he informed. The local authorities have an interest in locating the parents if only to enforce their liability to maintain under Clause 16(6). What I am trying to achieve is that a positive duty should be put upon the local authority to locate and notify the parents, if at all possible, and if necessary with the assistance of the Ministry of Social Security or the Foreign Office, or whoever it may be.
Subsection (2) seems to be far too cavalier when taken with subsection (4). The step which is indicated in this subsection may well be necessary and desirable; that is to say, that the parent should be deemed to have abandoned the child. But this deeming that the parent has abandoned the child, with the consequence that the local authority takes over the duties of a parent, should be taken only after the most positive efforts have been made to find the parent. That is what this Amendment is designed to achieve. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("Where, after") and insert ("If, at the time when").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 are not acceptable to the Government for a variety of reasons. First, it may not be necessary or appro-
1378
priate for a local authority to assume parental rights in every case where the whereabouts of a child's parents are unknown at the time when the child is received into care. The Amendments assume, however, that the local authority will take parental rights in every case, since they require the local authority to serve on the parent as soon as they discover him notice that they have passed a resolution under this clause.
Secondly, the drafting of the Amendments is faulty in that the parent is deemed to have abandoned the child only if his whereabouts have remained unknown for more than twelve months after the passing of the resolution. But in fact the local authority could not pass the resolution assuming parental rights, until after the parent's whereabouts had remained unknown for twelve months unless they had some reason, other than the parent's abandoning the child, in terms of Clause 15(1)(b) for the assumption of parental rights. Thirdly, the subsection as amended would mean that a parent could not he deemed to have abandoned his child if his whereabouts were known at the time when the child was received into care, but he subsequently disappeared. The present provision (which is a re-enactment of Clause 48(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963) enables the local authority to assume parental rights whether the parent abandons the child before or after the child's reception into care.
However, I accept in principle the noble Lord's point that it is reasonable that the local authority should take all reasonable steps to discover the whereabouts of the parent. I am advised, however, that this point could be better met by an Amendment to the previous clause dealing with the reception of children into care, perhaps with a reference back to this duty in the clause presently under discussion. Therefore, if the not le Lord is disposed to accept what I have put forward, I can arrange to have tabled a suitable Amendment on these lines for the next stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I willingly accept that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Duration and rescission of resolutions under section 15]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to put one question on Clause 17 in relation to the rescission of resolutions. I wonder whether resolutions should not invariably be notified to the parent. There does not appear to be express provision for this in all circumstances.
LORD HUGHES: I should like time to have a look at that point.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Duty of parents to maintain contact with local authorities having their children in care]:
6 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (3). The noble Lord said. I believe I am right in saying that subsection (3) is a further new provision which is not in the 1948 Act. It says:
"… the appropriate local authority shall be the authority in whose care the child is for the time being"—
and then it continues with this proviso—
"Provided that where under subsection (4) of the said section 14 a local authority have taken over the care of a child from another authority, then unless and until a parent is informed that the care of a child has been so taken over the appropriate local authority shall in relation to that parent continue to be the authority from whom the care of the child was taken over."
The point is really quite a small one, and it lies in the words "is informed". It seems to me that the parent may well have already found out for himself of the transfer of the child, and there does not seem any reason why in such circumstances he should not deal with the authority into whose area the child has been transferred. I do not really see any point in these words, but if there is a point then I think they should be qualified so that they will not apply in all cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, leave out lines 30 to 35.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I think the noble Lord will find my explanation in this case acceptable. Clause 18 requires the parent
1380
of a child who is in the care of a local authority to keep the local authority informed of his, the parent's address. Where the care of the child is transferred from one local authority to another, the first authority are required to tell the parent, if possible. But if for any reason there is delay in telling the parent, then the obligation remains on the parent to keep the first authority informed of his whereabouts.
The effect of this Amendment would be to render a parent liable to a fine for failing to keep the new local authority informed of his address, even though he did not know that the local authority had taken over the care of his child, and even though he kept the first local authority informed of his address. It seems wrong to render the parent liable to proceedings in these circumstances. As the clause stands, the parent can still be fined if he fails to keep either local authority informed of his whereabouts. We thought that when we were imposing penalties we had to be reasonable, and that we ought not to fine a man for not giving information to an authority which he had no reason to believe had anything to do with his child.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Power of local authorities and voluntary organisations to arrange for emigration of children]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Under the Bill as it stands, the Secretary of State may consent to arrangements for the emigration of a child, even if the child is too young to express an opinion about whether or not he wishes to go, in order to join a friend, relative or parent. We feel that there are possible dangers in the wording as it stands, in that one cannot invariably guarantee that relatives or friends, or even parents, are desirable characters. When the child is in no position to judge this matter for itself we feel that our Amendment would safeguard it further, in that it places an additional responsibility on the local

1381
authority to approve of the person to whom the child is going to emigrate. I hope the noble Lord will feel that this is a useful safeguard. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 16, leave out ("relative or friend") and insert ("or relative of his or a person approved by the local authority")—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: I appreciate the motive which the noble Marquess had in moving this Amendment, but its effect would be to enable local authorities to arrange, with the Secretary of State's consent, for the placing of young children on emigration with people who had no previous connection with them. The clause (which is a re-enactment of Section 17 of the Children Act 1948) does not place any restriction on the type of arrangement which may be made for the emigration of a child in a local authority's care, where the child is old enough to understand what emigration means and gives his consent. The arrangements for the child's reception and welfare in the country to which he is going must be accepted as suitable by the Secretary of State, but are not limited to arrangements for the child to live with a relative or friend.
Where the child is not old enough to understand and give his consent, however, the 1948 Act limited the power to arrange emigration to cases in which the child is to travel with a parent or relative, or to join a parent, relative or friend. We think that this limitation is right and that it should not be possible for a local authority to send a child in their care abroad to live with a stranger until the child is old enough to consent to such an arrangement. In fact, the noble Marquess has argued the other way, but his Amendment would give too wide a latitude.
I would remind him that the local authority have to put these proposals to the Secretary of State, and it is inconceivable that they would put up a proposal to permit the emigration of a child who was too young to decide for itself to a parent, relative or friend of which the local authority did not approve. After all, if the local authority are not going to approve they are not going to put up the proposal in the first instance. Therefore we think that the arrangements are properly tight and that, given the need
1382
for the approval of the local authority in the first place and the Secretary of State in the second place, we are taking all reasonable steps to ensure that no child emigrates in circumstances which, at the end of the day, could prove to have been wrong.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [After-care of children formerly in care of local authorities or voluntary organisations]:
6.7 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Perhaps I ought to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the absence of my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. As I think he knows, she is very sorry not to be here, because she wished to speak to these Amendments. The purpose of this group of Amendments—that is to say. Nos. 31, 32 and 37—is to extend the duty of the local authority to befriend, advise and assist persons over the age of 18 years whom the local authority considers need such attention. I feel it is right that young people in need of this type of after-care should not be ineligible just because they happen to have reached the age of 18. I hope the noble Lord will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 11, leave out ("child") and insert ("person").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: I hope the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press these Amendments. We think they would place an unduly onerous responsibility on local authorities, because if we do what he suggests it really means that we are placing a duty on a local authority to do this indefinitely. They might start with a child of 12 and finish up with an old-age pensioner of 85. It is really unreasonable that such a continuing duty should be placed on a local at thorny, given the fact that the general responsibilities of the authority require them to give assistance where necessary. If after

1383
the age of 18, when the child had departed from the responsibility of the authority, something else emerged or there was an immediate need for action, it would be possible for responsibility to be assumed under the powers given to the authority under the Bill, but to insert it in this form might in fact "lumber" an authority with somebody for the rest of his lifetime. There are a few people of that kind about, and we ought not to go out of our way to encourage them by such an intention. I am quite certain that that is not what the noble Marquess intends. What I am sure he has in mind to ensure is that, where there are circumstances in which a child is in need of care, that care does not automatically disappear just because he has reached his 18th birthday. I assure the noble Marquess that the powers which the local authority have under the Bill generally enable them to take care of that situation.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40 and 41 are all on the same subject. The purpose of these Amendments, and their effect, is to import into a local authority's duties under Clause 12, Clause 25 and Clause 26 a certain consistency in that they will be required to give advice, guidance and assistance to the persons or categories of persons mentioned in each clause. Although the substantive effect was intended to be the same, the variations in Clauses 25 and 26 from the basic advice, guidance and assistance in Clause 12 might give rise to doubt about the meaning. We have therefore decided that we should stick to exactly the same form of wording throughout. I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 18, leave out ("befriend,").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 18, after ("advise") insert (", guide").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 24, leave out ("befriended,").— (Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 24, after ("advised") insert (", guided").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 36, leave out ("befriending,").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 36, after ("advising") insert (", guiding").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Supervision and care of persons put on probation or released from prisons etc.]:
LORD HUGHES: There are a series of Amendments to Clause 26, some in my own name and some in the name of the noble Marquess, but your Lordships will notice that there is also a Motion to leave out Clause 26. It seems to me that it would be wasteful of your Lordships' time to discuss a series of Amendments to Clause 26 if your Lordships were then to decide to take Clause 26 out. I hope your Lordships will not arrive at any such mistaken decision; nevertheless I cannot guarantee that your Lordships will always arrive at a correct conclusion. I would therefore propose—and I would suggest this course to the noble Marquess—to seek the leave of your Lordships' Committee to withdraw my Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 and 49; and then, if Clause 26 survives, I will re-table them on Report stage. Perhaps the noble Marquess would care to do the same with his Amendments Nos. 46 and 48.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: That idea commends itself to both my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and myself. I think it would be rather silly to proceed

1385
with these Amendments in view of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell; so we are quite agreeable to the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has made.
On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.16 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I will be as brief as I can, because many of the things that I could say I have already said, during the Second Reading of this Bill. The thing that concerns me most, and I think concerns a number of your Lordships, is that whatever merit this Bill has—and it is not denied that there is a good deal of merit in it—it in fact puts an end to the probation service in Scotland as we understand it at the present day. It may well be that what happens in Scotland to-day may happen in England to-morrow, and this causes some of us some concern. As I say, I do not want to repeat the speech that I made on March 21, but I want to refer to some of the things I said then, as there were very few Members of your Lordships' House in the Chamber at that particular time.
As I said a moment or two ago, I do not deny that the general intention of the Bill, the co-ordination of the social services, is good, and in some respects—in fact, in many respects—quite desirable. But I think it is a mistake—and I am bound to say that I regard it as a grave mistake—to involve the probation service. I cannot regard the scope and function of the probation service as being a proper function of the local authority. The responsibilities and duties of the probation service, and in particular of the probation officer, involve dealing with delinquents—in other words, the supervision of boys and girls and men and women who are on probation; the aftercare of former inmates of approved schools and borstal institutions; prison welfare and prison after-care and, as we know, from the 1st of this month, the supervision of those who have been paroled from prison. Your Lordships and your Lordships' House have long been concerned with the problems, both personal and social, stemming from delinquent behaviour, and I would hazard a guess that in the last three years we
1386
have probably given more time and attention to this particular problem, this growing problem, than to many other social problems.
The problem of delinquency (and I am not now talking about the problem of juvenile delinquency) is just as acute in Scotland as it is in England. I believe that the treatment of delinquents is a highly specialised matter, and cannot be considered alongside or dovetailed into the normal run of local authority social work. While I recognise that all social workers, if they are properly and adequately trained—and this is not so at the moment in Scotland. I do not say this out of any sense of criticism; I think it is generally accepted—have many of the basic skills in common, not all social workers are competent to deal with delinquents and their problems. I am only concerned with maintaining an efficient, effective service to deal with this rather serious social problem. Many people may feel that the probation officers are concerned merely with retaining an empire. This is not so. I think I can say that every organisation and all who are familiar with this particular field have taken the view that it would be very much better if the probation service remained independent.
Some of your Lordships may wonder why the probation service should remain independent. I think we have to face the fact that local authorities have to measure against financial considerations all the actions they take. We have to face the fact that local elections—possibly also national elections, but certainly local elections—are often won or lost on the question of whether the rate is too high and whether the local authority can cut it down. It seems to me in these circumstances that the welfare services of the local authorities become the Cinderella. Having regard to the important contribution to the community interests which the probation service can make in dealing with this growing social problem, I do not think we ought to put the service under the local authority. I would go so far as to say that the 4uality of the probation service, if we put it under the local authorities, could vary from local authority to local authority, since the effectiveness of its work would depend on what each local authority was

1387
prepared to do to further and enhance the contribution of the probation side.
It was said by the Morison Committee in 1962 that the probation service in Scotland had not made the rate of progress it should have made simply because it had been treated as a minor, local authority social service. But that is not so to-day, and it has not been so for some years. The Scottish Home Department, which has had the responsibility for developing and maintaining the probation service, has been responsible for the selection, training, overseeing and inspection of the probation service and the probation officers. I think everybody will agree that it is now perhaps one of the best organised, if not the best organised, and most effective services in Scotland. I think that a strong argument for independence is the fact that probation officers have frequently to submit reports to courts on persons who are in the care of the local authority. Can a probation officer do this frankly and objectively if he is an employee of the local authority? I believe that it would be extraordinarily difficult for him to do it. This is another reason why I think there is some merit in keeping the probation service as part of the court service.
This is not going to be a comprehensive social service within the control of the local authority. There are several aspects of social service—those dealing with the educational side, certainly the psychiatric social workers and hospital medical social workers—which are not going to be included because the hospital service is something quite separate. With the greatest respect, I believe the criminal courts of this country and of Scotland are also something quite separate; and that, therefore, their social work should remain with them. Paragraph 6 of the White Paper [Cmnd. 3065] says:
"One of the main reasons for reorganising the services is to enable them to make a more rational and more effective deployment of staff."
If this were the case there would be some merit in it; but I know of one court area in Scotland—and I am told that it is by no means the only one—where the sheriff's court covers several local authority areas. And yet that court is served by one probation officer.
1388
If Clause 26 remains in the Bill and the probation services become part of the local authority responsibility, then each local authority will have to send a representative to the court when the court is sitting. I do not feel that this will make the best use of social workers. The White Paper, as I have said, talked about the deployment of staff. In some respects, this causes me a little concern, because I can see a situation arising—as it has arisen in some parts of England when the social services have been brought together—where there will be a probation officer with a probationer in one area and another local authority social worker with a case also in the area, and where the local authority may say to the social worker, who is not trained to deal with delinquents, "You are going into that area; you might just as well deal with both cases."
I say—and I think noble Lords on both sides will accept this—that dealing with delinquents, dealing with, if you like, maladjusted minds, requires people who have been specially selected and specially trained in that kind of social problem. Therefore I conclude by saying this. I believe the independence of the probation services and their special relationship to the courts should be preserved, so that in the case of Scotland a sheriff and a probation officer can work together daily, discussing the various delinquents who are under the supervision of the court. I believe that the probation officer and the magistrates, the probation officer and the probationer, have a special relationship. I believe it to be an important part of the treatment of delinquents that the probationer should see the probation officer not as the servant of the local authority but as an officer of the court.
It has been suggested that the White Paper was born of the Kilbrandon Report. It may be that I have misread the Kilbrandon Report; but my reading of it was that the Kilbrandon Report never envisaged incorporating with the local authorities' welfare departments the probation service dealing with adults. When we were discussing the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno quoted from the Kilbrandon Report a passage which made it quite clear that the probation services

1389
dealing with adult delinquents should remain quite independent, should remain part of the court service. That is why I feel that it is a mistake—and perhaps nothing can be done about it—to put the probation services who deal with adult delinquents under the control of the local authority.
LORD HUGHES: It was the intention of the Committee that we should adjourn this debate at about 6.30 p.m. It is obvious that we cannot conclude the discussion on this clause to-night at anywhere near 6.30. I think, therefore, it would be proper that I should now move that the House do resume. I think this would be fairest to those who are against the clause, because it means that on Tuesday, when we resume, the other two noble Lords who have placed their names to this Amendment may, if they wish, have the opportunity to continue the debate; and we should then start with at least some of the points against the clause being heard by those who heard the arguments in favour. So while I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, will have to come back a second time, I am certain that they would be coming back on Tuesday in any event, so that no great hardship has been done. With that explanation I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to say that I came here this afternoon for no other purpose than to vote against this clause, and I cannot be here on Tuesday because I cannot get here. Therefore I should be grateful if some noble Lord behind the Government Front Bench who is in favour of the clause would abstain from voting on Tuesday and so redress the balance.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

THEFT BILL [H.L.]
6.32 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 1:
Basic definition of theft
1.—(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM) moved, in subsection (1), after "intention of" to insert "permanently". The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that the word "permanently" was removed during the Committee Stage, and that, at the first opportunity afterwards, in announcing the Government's intention to ask your Lordships to restore it to the Bill at a later stage, I suggested that we should consider the remainder of the Bill on the assumption that the word "permanently" was still in it. You readily assented to that procedure and I think we can all be satisfied with the fruits of the helpful co-operation which then ensued.
There are some 35 Amendments on the Order Paper in my name, and all except one are designed to meet assurances which I gave that I would consider points of criticism or objection raised during Committee. I think this is an example of the open-minded attitude which the Government have pursued with this Bill and proof, if proof were needed, that we wish the decisions to be made on the basis, not of Party, but of fact. It is on that basis that I ask you to consider the Amendment I am now moving which the Government regard as fundamental to the Bill.
My Lords, if it is accepted, its effect will be that a person will be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of "permanently" depriving the other of it. This means that, subject to certain exceptions dealt with later in the Bill, temporary dishonest deprivation will not be theft. Your Lordships' first thought may be that anything dishonest must be criminal, and any dishonest deprivation must be theft; and this indeed is the effect of the Bill as it now

1391
stands after the Amendment successfully moved in Committee by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I will endeavour to satisfy your Lordships that not all forms of dishonest deprivation ought to be treated as theft and that you would not wish them to be so treated. Certainly, this was the view of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in framing this fundamental clause; and certainly it is how the law stands at present.
May I remind your Lordships, first, what the law of theft now is. Section 1 of the Larceny Act 1916 defines theft thus:
"A person steals who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently, and without a claim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen, with intent, at the time of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof."
So "permanently" is in the existing law. This definition, including "permanently", did not start with the 1916 Act, because on that point that Act reproduced the old Common Law of theft. My first major point, therefore, is that it has never been theft in this country merely to take something temporarily, even if the taking is dishonest. My Amendment seeks to preserve that position; those who oppose it seek to destroy it. They thought that the Criminal Law Revision Committee had not gone far enough and that an even more drastic change in the law of theft was required.
Before I deal in detail with arguments on both sides, I ask your Lordships to address yourselves to a fundamental question which we must consider whenever we seek to extend part of the criminal law. That question is: what is the criminal law for? I am not competent, as you know, to deliver a lecture on jurisprudence. I am speaking as a layman to a majority of laymen, and I suggest that we devise, or revise, our criminal law, in order to protect society against types of conduct which are so offensive or serious that those who so conduct themselves should be liable to be punished or controlled by the State. We do not invoke penal sanctions to deal with everything that may be morally reprehensible or harmful or a nuisance, and we should debase the currency of the criminal law if we tried to do so.
Still less, with our empirical tradition of law-making, do we frame our criminal law to deal with theoretical mischiefs. I suggest that, in framing a particular provision of the criminal law, our task is to identify the real mischief, the conduct of which should be subject to penal sanctions and to relate our law to that conduct as closely as we can. If you accept that premise, my Lords, then you will agree with me that it is for those who desire a fundamental extension in the law to prove the need for such extension, not in terms of theoretical concepts, but in terms of hard realities. The onus lies on those who oppose this Amendment because they wish to see the word "permanently" kept out of this clause.
My Lords, the Bill acknowledges that there are some forms of temporary dishonest deprivation which are criminal and must be punished, and punished severely. For example in the new Clause 11, which I shall be moving later, we not only take care of offences like the taking of the Goya portrait of the Duke of Wellington, but protect a whole range of buildings to which the public are admitted to view the buildings or articles in them, either regularly or on occasions. And, again, in Clause 12 we deal with the most numerous of these offences; namely, the taking away of motor vehicles and vessels, and we go further and create a new offence of taking away pedal cycles.
It may be argued that these two clauses are complicated and that they could be dispensed with by keeping "permanently" out of Clause 1, but I do not think anyone will accept that this is a decisive argument for so extending Clause 1 that every form of temporary deprivation would be a criminal offence which would put perhaps a great number of citizens in this country at risk of prosecution and loss of liberty.
At this point I ask what types of conduct would not be criminal if my Amendment is accepted and "permanently" goes into the Bill. I can think of none which would be a cause for public concern. Some lawyers take the view that all dishonest borrowing should be stealing, but what evidence is there that that view is shared by any general body of public opinion? What evidence has the

1393
noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that people whose lawnmowers are borrowed by neighbours are demanding the prosecution of the neighbours and, if necessary, their fining and imprisonment?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord always omits the word "dishonestly". I have never suggested that borrowing a lawnmower should lead to a criminal prosecution. If the noble Lord persists in omitting the word "dishonestly", he is really misrepresenting the case.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have no intention of misrepresenting the case, as the noble and learned Viscount knows very well. I certainly refer, and have referred at all times until this moment, to dishonest appropriation. I repeat my question. What evidence has the noble and learned Viscount that people whose lawnmowers are borrowed by neighbours are demanding the prosecution of the neighbours and, if necessary, their fining and imprisonment? I shall be interested to hear, because the onus of proof is on him.
If my Amendment is not accepted, it will be theft dishonestly to appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of depriving the other of it. Let us consider what that means. When my neighbour is out, I sneak into his garden and borrow his lawn-mower or garden roller or step-ladder, although he has told me that he does not like my borrowing them and therefore it is dishonest deprivation—theft, as the Bill now stands without my Amendment. I am allowed three books from the public library, but I sneak out a fourth without permission, intending to return it. That is dishonest deprivation. Or perhaps I am a student off to a dance; I borrow my room-mate's dinner jacket, without his permission, although I strongly suspect that he would not like my wearing it. Or perhaps a girl borrows a dance frock from her sister, knowing that she would not wish it. Do we really want these things to be theft, punishable with a penalty of up to a maximum of ten years' imprisonment? Those who oppose this Amendment have not only to explain what serious mischiefs they want the extended subsection to deal with, but also to defend making it a criminal offence with a ten-year
1394
penalty to do the sort of things I have mentioned. They may say that these trivial types of misbehaviour will not be prosecuted, just as trivial thefts ere not prosecuted now. Can they guarantee that? We all know only too well that dishonest borrowing is a frequent source of neighbour and family squabbles, which unfortunately sometimes go to bitter lengths. Do we really want these translated to the courts? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, said in Committee, do we want to give "theft" and "stealing" meanings entirely different from those which are understood by members of the public?
During the Committee stage the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, pointed out that an intention permanently to deprive is not part of the Canadian law of theft, and he challenged me to say whether the extension of Canadian law to temporary deprivation had had undesirable social consequences. He is quite right; the words "with intent to deprive temporarily or absolutely" have teen in the Canadian criminal code since 1892, and there is no evidence that then have had any undesirable social consequences. I discovered the reason why. The law has had no undesirable social consequences in Canada because there appear to have been no prosecutions—certainly there are no reported cases—for taking with the intention of temporary deprivation, except cases involving motor vehicles, which we are, of course, covering separately in this Bill and for which, indeed, the Canadians themselves have found it necessary to have a separate provision. In fact, except for such cases, the Canadian extension of theft to temporary deprivation seems to be a dead letter. Does the noble and learned Viscount want a dead letter provision on our Statute Book also? The provision also causes uncertainty in the Canadian courts. As recently as 1964, a young man, just for a joke, jumped into a police car and drove it round the block. He was charged and convicted of theft. The conviction was quashed on appeal, but only by a majority, and a dissenting judge held that, on the construction of the code, it was theft.
I continued my Commonwealth tour to New Zealand, because I found that their Crimes Act of 1961 retained the requirement of permanent deprivation. They,

1395
too, have had an expert Committee considering the criminal law over a long period. I am informed that they did not at any stage of the draft consider seriously the omission of the word "permanently" in the definition of theft. Apparently the question was raised in an academic way, but everyone thought that it would make such a serious change in the law that it would not be justified.
Finally, since some play was made of it in Committee, I must mention the draft criminal code prepared for Jamaica in 1877, which was referred to, in a different connection, in the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. This code included a definition of dishonestly appropriating without the word "permanently". But the code was not enacted and to-day the law of Jamaica requires an intention permanently to deprive.
My Lords, under this Bill theft is essentially a violation of ownership, but it does not follow that every violation of ownership ought to be theft. I suppose that I might violate your ownership if I used your hairbrush, knowing that you would object to it; but you would not suggest that that conduct should be criminal. The requirement that there should be an intent permanently to deprive limits the concept of violation of ownership or dishonest appropriation just as it has always limited the concept of taking out of possession, and for the same reasons. This requirement has stood the test of time and is still apt.
There was an argument in Committee that keeping the word "permanently" involved difficulties in qualifying that concept by Clause 6 of the Bill. But Clause 6 does not introduce temporary deprivation by the back door: it simply gives a partial definition of "with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" in terms which make clear that there is permanent deprivation (so that there may be theft), if what is done amounts to a complete usurpation of the property against the owner, even if the owner finally gets the property back. This, in effect, preserves for the purposes of the Bill the old Case Law about what is an intent permanently to deprive. It is desirable, because if the Bill is to be part, as we intend, of a criminal code, we
1396
want it to be as complete a statement of the law as is practicable. The sort of case which is covered by Clause 6 is for instance, one in which something is taken and abandoned in such circumstances that the possibility of its return to its owner is, to the taker's knowledge, extremely remote. It cannot be argued from this sort of extension of the notion of permanent deprivation that mere temporary deprivation ought to be theft; and, of course, that is not the intention of Clause 6. You may feel, my Lords, that these are all lawyers' arguments, and I would not disagree: but this is a lawyer's Bill.
So I will conclude my case with a layman's argument. I ask your Lordships to support my Amendment for three simple reasons which appear to me to be completely convincing. The first is that this provision, including "permanent", was devised after long and most careful consideration, which extended over a period of years, by a Committee of the most eminent lawyers of our day. They are completely firm about the desirability of having the word "permanently" in this clause. My second reason is that the inclusion in the clause of the word "permanently" preserves the substance of the law as it is and as it has been for centuries. Thirdly, it satisfies common sense by refusing to label as criminal all the little petty actions of which most of us at some time or another may be guilty. I ask your Lordships to support that common sense by voting for this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("permanently"). (Lord Stonham.)
6.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I have listened carefully to all that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I remain entirely unconvinced that it would improve this Bill and the criminal law for the future to make the change in it that he now proposes. Before I deal with the arguments that he has advanced in any detail, I should like to say this. We discussed a great many questions in Committee. I think—and I hope the noble Lord will agree—that those discussions were worth while. I think that that is proved by the fact that after consideration of some of them the Government

1397
have tabled some 35 Amendments, some of them very important Amendments, including an entire redraft of Clause 11 and the insertion of a completely new clause, Clause 15A, to meet points raised. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for what he has done, and done, I am sure, after careful consideration of the arguments advanced.
I regret that it would not appear that the same consideration was given to the question whether or not the definition of "theft" and of "stealing" should include an intention permanently to deprive. We removed the word "permanently" on March 5. Two days later, on March 7, the noble Lord announced the Government's decision to seek to reverse the decision reached in Committee. The noble Lord cannot, therefore, have taken very much time in considering what had been said in Committee. Yet—and here I agree with the noble Lord—the correct definition of "theft" is of the greatest importance. It is fundamental, so far as larceny or theft is concerned, and as important, if not more important, than any of the questions arising on the Bill.
I hope that, despite the fact that I made a rather long speech in Committee, your Lordships will bear with me when I seek to refute the arguments now advanced and advanced in Committee for the inclusion of the word "permanently", and to explain the reasons why I think it is right and better that that word should be left out. First, I should like to say a word about the arguments advanced in Committee.
First, it was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, whom I am glad to see here:
"Who are we … in a matter of minutes to say that it would have been better if they"—
that is, the Criminal Law Revision Committee—
"had recommended something else?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/3/68; col. 1307.]
I should like to make it clear that the fact that I express a view in a matter of minutes (and I try to keep my speeches as short as I can) does not mean that I have not thought about the matter a good deal. Of course, one may come to the wrong conclusion. But I was, I must confess, somewhat astonished by the proposition that we in this House should not
1398
consider and move Amendments to a Bill produced by a Committee of such eminence as the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Anyway, that argument, which really amounts to claiming that we should delegate our functions and duties, now falls to the ground, for the Government, by the Amendments they have tabled, have recognised that we were right to raise the points on this Bill; and the Government have recognised, also, that there were defects in the Bill.
That has to be borne in mind when one considers the first of the three reasons the noble Lord advanced at the conclusion of his speech, when he said that this clause had been devised after long consideration by this eminent Committee. So had the whole of are Bill, apart from, I think, two clauses. Yet our action is now proved right by the fact that the Government seek to make no fewer than 35 Amendments to it. Apart from advancing that argument, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice did not advance any argument against the Amendment in Committee, other than saying that he was not convinced that that Amendment was a good one. I shall still try to convince him. Then, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, based himself, as he has again to-day, really on the Report of the Committee. They dealt with the matter in one short paragraph to which I shall refer later.
My noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, whose speech has been quoted by the noble Lord, also opposed the Amendment. He opposed it on different grounds. He based his opposition on the ground that if an intent permanently to deprive was left out, the result
"would be to give the words 'theft' and 'stealing' not only meanings entirely different from those they have always possessed, but meanings entirely different from those which are recognised by members of the public."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/3/68, col. 1313.]
I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, quoted that passage. With the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend, I do not agree. Those of your Lordships who are not lawyers can judge of the matter. I doubt very much whether a member of the public would take the view that a person only stole something if he took it with the intention permanently to deprive. If that is how the

1399
word "permanently" is understood by the general public, then I suggest that the word is frequently misused.
The view I am expressing about the ordinary English meaning of the word is, I think, fortified by reference to the dictionaries. The word "steal" is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as:
"To take dishonestly or secretly."
Then follow the words:
"to take away dishonestly portable property, cattle, et cetera, belonging to another."
A little later one finds the words:
"To take or appropriate dishonestly anything belonging to another."
There is nothing I can find in that dictionary to support the proposition that in the ordinary meaning of the English language a person steals only if he intends permanently to deprive. And so, if the Bill is left as it is and this Amendment is rejected, the word "steal" will be defined in accordance with the meaning given to it in the Oxford English Dictionary and, I suggest, within the ordinary meaning of the English language. I wonder very much whether my noble and learned friend, before he started to read law, ever thought that a person stole only if he appropriated dishonestly with an intention permanently to deprive.
To-day again the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has really based his argument on the grounds advanced by the Committee, and they dealt with it in one short paragraph, paragraph 56. There are pages of the Report dealing with subjects like stealing wild flowers and animals, but one short paragraph is devoted to this important subject. The Report says—and I quote the words—that
"the Committee generally are against extending theft to include temporary deprivation of property".
I infer from the use of the word "generally" that some members of the Committee were in favour of that extension and that the Committee were not unanimously in favour of keeping in the word "permanently". The Report goes on to say that it seemed to the Committee wrong to extend it because—and I ask your Lordships to mark these words:
"an intention to return the property, even after a long time, makes the conduct essentially different from stealing".
1400
I agree that it does, if you give the lawyers' interpretation to the word "stealing", but I pose this question—and it is really this question that I suggest the House has to consider. It is an important question of policy on which I would also suggest your Lordships are fully competent to pronounce and which should not be left to lawyers, however eminent, alone to decide—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would not the noble and learned Viscount feel it would be fairer if he read the next immediately following sentence in the passage he quoted?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am coming on to the next sentence; I cannot deal with it all at once. I am putting this question, if I may, which I think is the fundamental question for decision: whether it is right that a person who dishonestly appropriates property, who steals it, if the definition of the Oxford English Dictionary gives the correct meaning of that word, should not be guilty of a crime if he took it, and I quote the words of the Report,
"with the intention to return the property even after a long time"?
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, posed the question: What is the criminal law for? And he said, among other things, "to protect society". I agree. I have never suggested that the criminal law should extend to cover any dishonest conduct. But surely there are some forms of dishonest conduct which deserve the criminal sanction. Surely it is a man's conduct which should determine whether he should be convicted of a crime. If he dishonestly appropriates the property of another and keeps it for a long time, the effect upon society, upon the owner of the property, will not depend on whether there was an intention permanently to deprive, and I would suggest that the conviction of the taker should not depend on the prosecution's being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt such an intention.
It is, of course, a fact that in many cases no difficulty arises as to proof of that intent. But in some cases it does, and where there has been dishonest appropriation of something—we had one example in the Goya picture—it is necessary to prove that intent; and unless it is proved, as the law now stands there can

1401
be no conviction. I know that the Government seek to remedy this position by Clause 11 in relation to taking things from certain buildings. Surely that clause erodes the principle which the Government by this Amendment are seeking to retain. If you make that exception, if it is right to do that, why stop there? Why not apply the principle of Clause 11 to all property? And, again, the principle which the Government are seeking to restore to this Bill is eroded by Clause 12. There are two examples of erosion of this principle which has, as the noble Lord so rightly says, for long been part of the Common Law and the Criminal Law, and I know that the change I am suggesting is radical.
Then the Committee go on to say—and I think this is the next sentence to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was referring—that the effect of the Bill as it is altered now
"might have undesirable social consequences".
I posed the question to the noble Lord in Committee, and he said he would write and tell me as soon as he heard the answer, and has now said, for reasons I have not been able to examine, that although this requirement is not part of the Canadian Code, there are no prosecutions for temporary dishonest deprivation. It cannot he said, then, that there are any "undesirable social consequences". But then the Committee go on to indicate, as the noble Lord did to-day, what kind of consequences which are not desirable they thought might ensue. They say:
"Quarrelling neighbours and families would be able to threaten one another with prosecution".
There is nothing to stop that now. So long as we have the present system in England, as opposed to the system in Scotland, subject to certain limitations anyone can institute a prosecution. And I really should not have thought that the possibility of a prosecution being instituted in unwarranted circumstances really is a governing consideration in considering what the law ought to be.
Then the Committee say:
"Students and young people sharing accommodation who might be tempted to borrow one another's property in disregard of a prohibition by the owner would be in danger of acquiring a criminal record."
1402
Again, that was repeated by Lord Stonham to-day, when he said that they would be running the risk of prosecution and loss of liberty. Again I ask: Is that sort of argument really a compelling argument and an adequate reason for not applying the criminal law to a person who dishonestly appropriates—and I again use the words of the Committee
"with the intention to return the property even after a long time"?
Should students and young people be led to suppose that dishonest appropriation by them of property against the will of the owner is all right so long as they have no intention permanently to deprive? The reasoning in paragraph 56 of the Committee's Report should be contrasted with the reasoning in paragraph 47. There the Committee are dealing with stealing wild flowers and things of that sort, and they say this:
"It might he reasonable to let the law of theft apply in all cases. For in trivial cases (as in trivial cases of other kinds of theft) there might be a defence under Clause 2(1)(a) that there was no dishonesty: landowners and prosecuting authorities would presumably be sensible enough to prosecute only in the exceptional cases where this would be reasonable and cases would usually be tried summarily and only a minor punishment, if any, imposed."
So it would be here, my Lords. If there was a prosecution for dishonest borrowing of a trivial kind and the court did not think the prosecution was warranted, the court would no doubt grant an absolute discharge.
Now I put this case to the House, and I should be grateful if, in due course, it could be answered. If this Amendment is not made, is not the position this: that the men who go to a man's house, attack him, beat him and tie him up to obtain from him the keys to a safe in art office building elsewhere, whose object is to obtain those keys to go to the safe and open it, will be liable, will they not? to be convicted of robbery? I believe that that kind of case does occasionally occur, and if the Amendment which the Government seek is made, then in such circumstances there could be no conviction for robbery, although the conduct of the accused would be the same, and the violence would be the same. There could be no conviction for robbery because of the absence of an intention

1403
permanently to deprive. They would take the keys only to open the safe; they would not want to keep them.
Surely it is wrong that conduct of the kind I have described should not be treated as robbery. If this Amendment is not made it can be treated as robbery.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not agree.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he does not agree, but he has also said a good deal with which I am afraid I do not agree. If he will study it, he will find that what I have said is the case, because it cannot be said that merely taking the keys away to open the safe could be with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of those keys. The noble Lord will presumably have an opportunity of replying; unfortunately I shall not, but the mere fact that he says he does not agree with me does not establish that he is right and I am wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to Clause 6, and I listened with interest to what he said. I take the view that Clause 6 completely destroys the Government's case for this Amendment. It is a clause which the Government, despite the criticism made of it in Committee, are not seeking to amend. As the marginal note shows, that clause is intended to define the meaning of the words:
"With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".
Indeed, if one looks at subsection (3) of Clause 1, one is referred to Clause 6 to see what is meant by those words. One cannot read Clause 6 as if it was in some way subject to, and affected by, the inclusion of the word "permanently" in subsection (1), because it seeks to define what is meant.
I suggest to the noble Lord that subsection (1) and subsection (2) of Clause 6 read together surely mean that a person who appropriates property, intending a complete usurpation as against the owner of that property, is to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. I can read that clause only as meaning that. Although by this Amendment the Government seek to retain the intention permanently to
1404
deprive, the operation of that clause would seem to me to provide that a person may be convicted of theft without it being proved that he had any such intention. All that it is necessary to prove under that clause is that he intended complete usurpation of the property, not that he intended to deprive the owner of it permanently. Do the words "complete usurpation" mean anything more than "wholly appropriates"? I should like to know. If I am right in my interpretation of Clause 6, then the retention of that clause by the Government fortifies my case for resisting this Amendment. If this Amendment is not carried, Clause 6 cannot, on any view, be necessary; nor will Clause 11, nor will Clause 12. So I think I can maintain that rejection of this Amendment will simplify our law.
I believe that the change we made in Committee was a change for the better. "Receiving", or as it is now called "handling" stolen property, is often regarded as more serious than the actual theft, and yet proof of that offence does not require proof of an intention permanently to deprive. Nor did the offence of criminal deception created by Clause 15(3) of the Bill, which we took out in Committee. Contrary to the belief that this would have undesirable social effects, I believe that not only will it greatly simplify our law but that in practice it would lead to the conviction of those who should be convicted but who now escape because it cannot be proved that, however reprehensible their conduct, there was an intention permanently to deprive.
I believe I have now covered most of the arguments raised. The case for leaving the Bill as it is at present is strong and, as I have said, in my view it is a question of policy that is involved. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is a fundamental question, and I cannot believe that if this change is made to abolish a principle which has been so substantially eroded, it will be followed by any serious consequences.
7.16 p.m.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, it would be a dull world if lawyers agreed. I came here with no intention of speaking, but the noble

1405
Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has attacked me on what I said at the Committee stage. I said that this was the Report of what I called a really high-powered legal committee sitting for seven years. I said that because I thought the general presumption would be that they were right unless they were glaringly wrong, but I am sure the noble Viscount will acknowledge that I began my remarks by saying that we must get this right, and it is our function to get it right. I have put down an Amendment to a clause later in the Bill, and I say again that we must have this right.
Having said that, without taking up the cudgels one way or the other I should like to put to the House what really are the questions to be considered to-day. The first question is this: Is a case made out for what in effect is a new offence? It has always been the law of this country that there is no offence unless there is an intention permanently to deprive. I do not think reform is merely for the sake of reform; it must be only if a case is made out for it. Therefore ore asks oneself whether a case has been made out for creating what, for the first time, is a new offence. Is it necessary? Apart from motor cars, which are dealt with, and have been dealt with for some time, and now the possibility of pictures in a collection, is the case made out for the need for a new offence? I am not saying one way or another. I do not myself think that the case is made out for it, but if it is, so be it. The second question is this: If a case is made out for creating a new offence of, in effect, borrowing, is it a fit place to come in as theft?
With all due respect to the noble and learned Viscount I have always thought that dictionary meanings were the last resort of the lawyer. This is a Bill dealing with larceny—now called "theft"—carrying a penalty of ten years' imprisonment. Assuming the new offence is to be dealt with, is it right that it should appear as "theft"? Is the domestic servant, or perhaps the au pair girl who borrows a dress or a coat from her mistress to go to the local dance, guilty of theft carrying a penalty of ten years' imprisonment? The answer surely is, "No". If there is a case for finding her guilty of an offence, surely it is not of
1406
this offence of theft carrying a ten-year penalty.
To return to the first point, as to whether there really is a case for constituting a new offence, it rather appals me. The police are occupied, and should be occupied, in dealing with really serious crime, and they should not have to deal with the au pair girl borrowing her mistress's coat. It may be a case for dismissal, but is it a case for the police? That is the point I think the Committee have made. It is a matter for your Lordships. Has the time come when that sort of conduct is a criminal offence; and, secondly, if it has, is it proper to treat it as theft with a 10-year penalty?
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I add a few words apropos of the theft of cars? Let me put a case to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Imagine a man taking somebody else's ear with tie firm intention of returning it in five years' time. He might even go to the length of putting a note through the owner's door saying, "I have taken your car, but I will return it on the same date in 1973." By the time he brings fiat car back, provided he has used it fairly hard, it will be in a state of complete—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to answer him straight away, I suggest that he reads subsection (1) of Clause 6 which says:
"A person is to be regarded as permanently deprived of property belonging to him by any dealing with it that amounts (or substantially amounts) to a complete usurpation …"
I should have thought that keeping somebody else's car for five years would amount to complete usurpation.
LORD SOMERS: I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's word for that, naturally, but I wish there was something in the Bill which made that clearer.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
My Lords, I know that it is inevitable that the criminal law should make assumptions about the secrets of the human heart which cannot in the nature of the case be validated, but I think it is desirable to keep those assumptions to a minimum. The assumption that we are asked to make here is that you can divine whether an intention is permanent or not. I should like, if I may, to quote one actual case which came within my knowledge. At a juvenile court

1407
of which I was then Chairman, a boy of 15 was accused of having stolen a book from the publishing house in which he was employed. The book in question gave the history of the firm, and the defence was that he intended to return it. A number of sentimental magistrates, headed by myself, fell for this picture of the ardent young apprentice looking forward to his future in the firm with which he identified himself, and he was acquitted. Unfortunately, the next three cases on the list were also boys from the same firm who had taken, and alleged they intended to return, books of a character very much more likely to appeal to the average young man of their age.
My noble friend Lord Stonham asked what evidence there was that the public regard temporary appropriation as stealing. I should have thought there was a good deal of evidence in regard to certain articles. I have heard a great many people say "Someone has stolen my car". I have never heard anybody outside a court say, "Someone has taken and driven away my car." The public, certainly in relation to motor cars, does not distinguish between "taking and driving" and "stealing".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said that if we do not have the word "permanently" in the clause we are really making a lot of new offences. I would submit that we are obliged to make other new offences if we have "permanently" in. We have been obliged to make a new offence of taking and driving a car. We are still in some difficulty about bicycles. We are also making a new offence of removing pictures from a public building where they are displayed, and it seems to me that we shall have to go on making new offences to cover cases where there has been deprivation but not with the intention that the deprivation should be permanent.
May I say in passing that I find something very odd in this Bill. It says that stealing is dishonest appropriation, and "dishonesty" is nowhere defined; all that is defined is what "dishonesty" is not. It seems to me a very curious omission. I should like to ask one question about the wording of this clause which seems to me
1408
ambiguous. In the Larceny Act 1916, it was made perfectly plain that the intention to deprive permanently must be coincident in time with the taking. The words "at the time of taking" appear in the relevant section. Those words have been omitted, but as the Bill now reads it seems to me not at all clear whether this condition still obtains.
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of depriving the other of it permanently. That is how it would read if this Amendment were accepted. If I take, without her permission, my neighbour's necklace to wear at a particular dance, meaning to put it back when this occasion is over, and when I get it home I think it is rather attractive and decide to keep it, does that mean I have stolen it or not? Under the present law, I think I am right in saying that I have not stolen it, but as the Bill would stand if this Amendment were accepted it seems to me quite ambiguous whether the depriving permanently and the taking must be coincident in time or not. I hope this point may be clarified.
7.27 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in his speech this afternoon put the case most fairly, and he pointed out what I think is true, that this House has to make a difficult decision. I agree with a great deal of what he said, but I still support the action taken by this House when it was in Committee on the previous occasion. May I mention one passage in the actual words used by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that seemed to me to show how far he was from facing the actual problems that we have to face? He talked about the Amendment that this House made in Committee as if it dealt with some theoretical mischief. Well, whatever the truth may be, that cannot be true. We now know from the Goya case that this is not a merely theoretical mischief. The words to describe what happened appear in the Committee's Report, at page 28:
"A striking recent instance is the removal from the National Gallery of Goya's portrait of the Duke of Wellington. The portrait before being returned was kept for four years, during which there was evidence that the man who took it tried to make it a condition of his returning it that a large sum should be paid to charity."

1409
As the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has put a question to the representatives of Her Majesty's Government, perhaps I can put one, too. Is the noble Lord under the impression that What now appears in Clause 6, had it then been the law, would have been sufficient to enable the man who took the Goya portrait to be prosecuted to conviction? If he does not think that he could, then I suggest that the law still has a great gap. If, on the other hand, he thinks the effect of Clause 6 is that the man who took the Goya portrait could have been prosecuted to conviction, had Clause 6 then been part of the law, that strongly supports and strengthens the case made by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne. Whatever we do, we are not dealing here with some theoretical mischief. We are dealing, as we all know, with an actual and growing mischief. I will deal in a moment with my allegation of a growing mischief. I thought that it cast ridicule on the law of this country when the man who, in the circumstances that I have described, took a valuable acquisition of the National Gallery could not be convicted of the criminal offence. It proved the urgent need of a revision of the law.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Does he not think that almost any jury would have convicted? And are we not dealing with just the odd case where a jury, perhaps perversely, refused to convict? I do not think that from that one can say that it was the law of this country that there was no offence. It was just that that jury did not convict.
LORD CONESFORD: Well, if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice says he was surprised by what happened in that case, so was the public and so, I think, was all Europe. But I think it brought the law of England into considerable disrepute. Anyhow, he was acquitted because of this requirement of the law which my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has succeeded in eradicating, and which it is now proposed to restore.
The other matter to which I would draw attention is that the Committee itself, in I think the last sentence of paragraph 56, said:
1410
"If cases of temporary deprivation should become common, or if it should become too easy a defence to a charge of theft that the intention was to return the property in the end, it might be necessary, notwithstanding these formidable difficulties, to create an offence of temporary deprivation with a high enough maximum penalty for serious cases."
I say that there is every indication that cases of temporary deprivation are becoming very common indeed. I happen to know from my own experience of the sufferings of certain public libraries and libraries of scholastic institutions, in schools and universities, where the losses of books are quite appalling. If we can so change the law in this first clause as to impress upon the public that this is a serious matter, I think we shall have done something most valuable.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and indeed the Committee, have said that if we restore the word "permanently" we shall have to have such special pro visions as are made at present in Clauses and 12. But I am influenced in favour of the Amendment which your Lordships in Committee put in and which the Government now seek to reverse, by the extraordinary convolutions through which Clause 11 has passed. Clause 11 was wholly unsatisfactory in the way in which it came before the Committee. I must not deal in detail with the clause in advance, but I think it is still unsatisfactory after all the attention which the Government have now given it.
There is one matter raised, both by the Criminal Law Revision Committee and by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, which I should mention. If one were going to make temporary deprivation an offence, it is arguable, of course, that it should be a separate offence. But I think it is for the Government, if they take that line, to prove it. I admit, of course, that we are making a proposal of sufficient novelty, and sufficiently radical, for it to be possible that there will be consequential changes which the Government will have to introduce to guard against trivial and unnecessary prosecutions. But I support my noble and learned friend and what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, who, after all, has great experience as a magistrate. Ancient though it is, I believe that this requirement of an intention permanently to deprive is today productive of considerable mischief.
7.38 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I venture to say a few words about this matter before all these legal experts, not to make a legal point but rather a neutral, historical one. But I would say, with great diffidence and respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, that even if the word "permanently" goes back into the Bill, I think a boy who steals an apple will still be liable to a sentence of 10 years. The Criminal Law Revision Committee devote an interesting couple of pages to the sentencing policy of our courts. On the question whether "permanently" should be left out of the Bill, I do not think that that would make trivial crimes liable to heavy penalties in the courts.
When the noble and learned Viscount originally moved his Amendment to delete this word from the Bill I thought what a curious word it was, because, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Viscount and my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, permanent appropriation is not quite the common conception of theft. If one of your Lordships went outside this House and found someone, in the words of the Bill, "dishonestly appropriating" a bicycle, he would not cry out "Stop, borrower!", or "Stop, temporary depriver!". He would cry out, in a rather old-fashioned way, "Stop thief!" And if the thief was not stopped, he would go down to the nearest police station and report the bicycle as having been "stolen". In other words, although permanent deprivation is the Common Law it is not, I think, common usage. If one reported to a policeman that one's bicycle had been borrowed, I think he would probably wonder what all the fuss was about.
So I wondered when it was that the word "permanently" was introduced into the Common Law. I looked it up in a legal dictionary which gave it as being first used in a case in 1837. When I looked up that case I found that the word actually used was not the word "permanently" but the word "wholly". So I looked at the evidence then given before the Joint Select Committee on the Larceny Bill of 1916.
I will not take up your Lordships' time by quoting from that evidence, but according to my understanding of it the
1412
word derives from a saying or a ruling by Mr. Justice Manisty somewhere in the 1870s. The suitability of the word was questioned and criticised by members of the 1916 Committee, but the matter does not seem to have had the amount of threshing out in regard to the very important qualification which it imparts to the definition. However, it was included in the 1916 Act because it was the Case Law.
If the Government feel that some qualification is needed, perhaps they would ask their experts to consider further whether "permanently" is really the right word, or whether the old term "wholly" would not be better. It might mean redrafting the sentence, but it seems to me to be most important that the law should be codified so that its meaning is nearer to the common conception and the common usage.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but this matter is almost irresistible to a lawyer. I apologise to the House, but I did not hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in moving this Amendment. My speech is largely directed at making an inquiry of him. I consider that principle is strongly against this Amendment. I speak as one who was trained in the Roman law and in the English law. So far as Roman law is concerned, this is a decided issue. The Roman law avoided the necessity of a complete catalogue of other crimes so far as the principle is concerned. One had one category of "dishonesty" which covered every aspect of the matter. As a matter of principle that seems to me to be right.
Nobody could fail to be affected by what was said, with characteristic humanity, by the Lord Chief Justice about the possibility that by rejecting this Amendment one is going to allow an alteration to the law whereby au pair girls and such people will be subject to a penalty of ten years' imprisonment for borrowing the gowns of their mistresses. I would regard it as a serious matter if that change came about. I am not sure that her mistress, wearing her underclothes and frenziedly searching for her ball gowns, would regard it as such a serious crime or that ten years' imprisonment was necessarily an adequate penalty, and if we were to introduce a change of

1413
this kind by chance I think that it would be wrong.
I am not sure that in this Bill we have not already made this change. I wonder whether Clause 6 does not achieve precisely that effect. This is really where I address my query to the noble Lord. If one reads Clause 6, it is true that the words "permanently deprived of property" appear there, but later on the definition of "permanent deprivation" makes it clear that it need not be permanent in any temporal sense, because the loss of the actual property is not a requisite. It need only be permanent in the sense that there is a complete usurpation of the property. This appears to suggest that it is sufficient if there is such a usurpation at any point of time. If I see somebody at Ascot wearing my grey silk hat at the moment when I precisely need it, that is a classic example of a complete usurpation of my silk hat, and this would come clearly within the terms of this particular definition. I venture to think that if we have already done this, this argument goes by default; and that unless one can be persuaded that this definition does not produce precisely the result about which the noble Lord is arguing we ought not to permit this Amendment, but to accept what in principle appears to me to be the right course.
7.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, about the law of Canada interested me very much. I am quite certain that nobody who wishes to oppose this Amendment, or anybody else in the House, has any idea in their mind that they want the law under this Bill to be a dead letter. I do not think that is in issue at all. If the law of Canada, without the adverb "permanently", is not very unsatisfactory, then I suppose that it may well be that it is because the police in Canada, or private prosecutors, if there be such in Canada, use their common sense and do not bring ridiculous charges for minor and insignificant offences. That may be one explanation why the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, finds nothing in the Law Reports. One wonders whether it is better to have the law of Canada where by a majority on appeal the boy who took the police car round the block was acquitted, although the law could have convicted him—
LORD STONHAM: It did convict him in Canada.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The conviction was quashed on appeal—they let him off in the end. Or is it better to have the law of England where the person who took the Goya could not be convicted of taking it at all. The only thing of which he could be convicted is of taking the frame. To deal with that situation, the best that can be done—I do not criticise it, because now that it has been considered it may have been put right—is to produce ad hoc new criminal offences for each one of these things which are found to be outside the law and particularly shocking to the public.
The noble Lord said that those who want to make a fundamental extension of the law in the way that we have done, who have tried to justify leaving out the word "permanently", must in fact justify it; but I doubt whether the argument over the word "permanently" is really the crux of the matter. Such researches that I have been able to make leave me in the most extreme doubt as to what the word has turned out to mean in English law. I am certain that if this Amendment is carried all the case lam, about what "permanently" has been thought to mean will have to be resumed and carried on as before.
I entirely agree with the nobly Lord, Lord Raglan, that this seems to be a fairly novel word to find in the definition of "larceny". I think that "wholly" came in about 1815 in a case involving a gentleman who rejoiced in the name of Mr. Cabbage; and I think that "permanently" was first used in 1848 in the case of Holloway, but I may be wrong. At any rate, it is not much more than 100 years old in the judge-made definition of larceny.
LORD STONHAM: A reasonable period.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, but I think it was said at one stage that it went hack into the dim and distant past and has always been part of the Common Law definition of larceny. I do not believe that this is so. What really worries me is what it means. Looking at some of the Case Law, it is very

1415
strange indeed. The noble Lord said that those who oppose this Amendment are saying that any dishonest deprivation must be theft, and that never has theft in this country consisted of taking something temporarily even if the taking was dishonest. I should like to tell the noble Lord about the case of Cockburn. This was a case that was decided on December 19 last year in the Court of Appeal.
It involved a man who took some money out of the till in the shop where he worked—something which he apparently did quite frequently. What he used to do was a put a chit or a note into the till and then replace it with a cheque, if he did not immediately put in the cheque. And his daughter used to give him cheques to put in, and sometimes he used to pay those in as well. He did this for quite a long time, and on the occasion in question he was caught before he had put the cheque back. Lord Justice Winn said this:
"If coins, half a crown, a 10s. note, a £5 note, or whatever it may be, are taken in all the circumstances which I have already indicated with the intention of spending or putting away somewhere those particular coins or notes "—
and these are the important words—
"albeit not only hoping, but intending and expecting reasonably to be able to replace them with their equivalent, nevertheless larceny has been committed because, with full appreciation of what is being done, the larcenous person has taken something which he was not entitled to take, had no claim of right to take without the consent of the owner, and is in fact trying to force on the owner a substitution to which the owner has not consented."
What is the difference between borrowing those coins or notes and borrowing the noble Lord's step-ladder? I have been able to think of only one difference, and that is that in this case Cockburn did not put back the same coins or the same notes; whereas in the case which the noble Lord used as an example, that of the step-ladder which was taken while the neighbour was out and which the neighbour had said was not to be taken in those circumstances, it was the same step-ladder that was put back. This is a very fine distinction and this is what "permanently" has turned into under the present law. Therefore, if we put it back we are perilously close to the situation
1416
where theft in this country is to take something temporarily and dishonestly, and exactly the contrary of what the noble Lord said.
How does Cockburn compare with what the Criminal Law Revision Committee said in paragraph 56? They said:
"The former course"—
that is, to take out the word "permanently"—
"seems to them wrong because in their view an intention to return the property, even after a long time, makes the conduct essentially different from stealing."
But it was found by Lord Justice Winn in Cockburn's case that the accused not only hoped but intended and reasonably expected to be able to put the money back. The only difference was that it was not the self-same note or coin. So we have gone a very long way from the purity of permanence which the noble Lord was talking about.
Then take the other cases in which "permanently" is used as a defence. The Goya case, mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, was one of them; but there was another. There was a man who took some despatches from a Government office where he had a friend. They were despatches of secrecy concerning the Ionian Islands, when those were a British Colony, and he wanted to get them into the newspapers. So he sent them to a newspaper. It was completely dishonest; the despatches were in due course published and, so far as I can make out, he left them with the newspaper. The rule of the court was that the documents were clearly the subject of larceny. The only question which the jury had to decide was whether the evidence established to their satisfaction that at the time the prisoner took the documents away from the Colonial Office he intended to deprive that Office of all property in them, and to convert them to his own use. The jury said that he did not, and they acquitted him.
Those are very remarkable cases, and one would think it a strange law which allowed people to use "permanently" as a defence in situations of that sort. But it does. On the other hand, as I have tried to tell your Lordships, when it comes to insisting upon proving the degree of permanence, on the borderlines, on the

1417
margins of what one would expect it to mean, the law manages it. I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was saying the same when he suggested that in the Goya case many a jury might have found the necessary degree of permanence in the intention, and might have convicted. So it is really a very strange word, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said, and it may be that we ought to be considering not the question of whether "permanently" should or should not be there, but whether we ought to have some other concept altogether.
May I just touch upon the question of Clause 6? I, too, should like the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Conesford, but perhaps in a slightly different way. If Clause 6 does not cover the Goya case—if we leave out Clause 11 for the moment and assume that it is not there—I would ask: why not? It is interesting to look at a work written on this matter by one of the members of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, Professor Glanville Williams, in 1961. It includes the reckless taking, which he describes as the foresight of a possibility that the chattel may not get back into the hands of its owner, which he says is not generally sufficient to larceny, and compares it with what I think Lord Stonham said Clause 6 was for, which was to cover cases where someone takes property and abandons it in circumstances in which it is unlikely that the owner will get it back.
The extraordinary thing is that this Bill does not make this clear. In his book, Professor Glanville Williams expressly mentioned this as being one of the things that a redraft of the criminal law ought to get clear, and I refer the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to paragraph 32 of that book. Incidentally, the other point which he said the new Bill ought to get clear—and it does not—is the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. Yet one of the members of this distinguished Committee said as long ago as 1961, when no doubt he was engrossed in this very matter, that the Bill ought to make it clear. Nor, I think, is "usurp" a new word. It was used in Holloway's case, in 1848. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, must deal with this.
1418
Is he prepared to face that, if we put back the word "permanently", it is going to be followed with all the Case Law? (I have mentioned Cockburn, and, of course, there is Thorpe which has to be specially covered in Clause 6), and that all these gradations of permanence will have to be brought up again? Would he not rather try to get away from all the tremendously difficult and controversial legal and academic difficulty which arises out of the use of this word? The other question that I should like the noble Lord to answer is this. If he says that Cause 6 is somehow overruled by the use of the word "permanently", not only in Clause 1 but in Clause 6 itself, how on earth does he suppose that this is going to cut down the width of Clause 6 so that it does not knock the bottom out of the word "permanently" altogether?
7.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may reply on behalf of my noble friend Lord Stonham, he said that he was addressing the House as a layman, but now that he is a Doctor of Laws I hope we shall not let him get away with that. So far as I am concerned the position is this. It is common ground that for over a hundred years it has been one of the ingredients of our law of larceny that there must have been at the time of the taking an intention permanently to deprive the owner of it. As your Lordships know, there is no Member of your Lordships' House who is more keen on law reform than I am, but not, I think, simply to change things for the sake of change unless if ere is something wrong which ought to be put right.
Dishonest borrowing has never constituted larceny, so I asked myself, "During the hundred years has experience shown that there is a form of dishonest conduct which is not criminal, but which amounts to such a public nuisance that it ought to be made criminal?"; and I answered that question, "Yes". It has been found from experience that young men take cars for joyrides and then bring them back. This became such a serious public nuisance that it needed to be a criminal offence, and so it was made in the Road Traffic Act—not larceny, but a separate criminal offence.
Then I asked myself, "Is there any other class of actions which in the last

1419
hundred years has grown to be such a social nuisance that it ought to be treated as a criminal offence? "; and I said, "Yes; the Goya." I am not at all an enthusiast about the Goya class. It seems to me quite unnecessary, and I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. Why on earth the jury "fell for" the accused's explanation, I cannot think. We have had pictures in museums for the last hundred years. If anybody "pinches" a picture from a museum, what does he do it for unless it is to "flog" it and get the money? He does not do it in order to take it back. We have managed perfectly all right for a hundred years without a special law for Goya cases. The only trouble with the Goya case was that, as sometimes happens, the jury acquitted when they ought to have convicted. There are differences of opinion about Clause 6. I personally regard Clause 6 as unnecessary. I consider that the cases for which it will provide would be covered even if we did not have Clause 6. But there is a difference of view about this among the lawyers, and if that is so, no doubt it is sensible to cover it.
My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger asked at what time the intention had to be formed. From a reading of Clause 1, I suggest that it means that the intention must be there at the time of the appropriation and, with great respect, I should not have thought that it could be read in any other way. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said, "There is a growing public nuisance in the stealing of books." This may be so, but I do not know whether, if it is so, it is because the owners cannot catch the thieves or because, although they prosecute them, they cannot prove an intention permanently to deprive.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, put a theoretical case in which, if I understood it rightly, some men break into a house, beat up the owner and gag him for the purpose of taking the keys of his safe. I wonder why they take the keys of his safe if they do not intend to use them. Of course, on the facts as the noble and learned Viscount told them, if what they did amounted to grievous bodily harm they could be prosecuted for that; and, if not, for an assault. I should not have thought that they would give the keys back to the owner,
1420
having robbed his safe. I should have thought that burglars like keeping safe keys, and that there would have been no difficulty in proving a charge of burglary.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said—and these things are no doubt a matter of opinion—that there was no real difference between borrowing somebody's stepladder and stealing money, and then saying, "Oh, well, I really intended to replace it by some other money". I should have thought those were two entirely different kinds of things. Then the noble Viscount mentioned a case about despatches in which the jury apparently acquitted. Nobody can stop juries acquitting, and they sometimes acquit when they ought to convict.
I am not very good at theory—I am a practical man—and when, at the end of the day, I came back to asking myself the question, "Dishonest borrowing never having been larceny, have certain forms of it grown to such a serious extent that there are forms of dishonesty which ought to be criminal?", I will tell your Lordships what I did. I went and had a long talk with the Director of Public Prosecutions, because he is the man who obviously knows. If the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or any of the chief constables of counties find that there is some growing malpractice for which there does not seem to be any possible prosecution, and if they think there ought to be, then the Director, of course, is the man to whom they go. So I asked him how many representations he had had since he had been in office to the effect that our law of larceny was not wide enough, that it was too restrictive because of the necessity to prove an intention permanently to deprive, and he said that he had never had any such representations made to him at all.
Where does this come from? I would respectfully agree with the Committee that, while dishonest borrowing is wrong, it is really something which most people would think quite different from theft. Take, for instance, the case which has been given, that of four girls in a flat and of one borrowing another girl's dress to go out with her young man for the evening, she not having asked permission because she knew jolly well that if she asked she would be told, "No". This is wrong; this is not the right thing to

1421
do; this is dishonest conduct. But I do not think any ordinary person would say, assuming the dress was back on its peg later that night, "That girl stole the dress—this is larceny".
In general, I believe two things, if I may say so. First of all, larceny always has been, and I think rightly, very serious. And, of course, when one is thinking of dishonest borrowing, one has to include sons and daughters, and perhaps grandsons and granddaughters. If one of them is convicted of larceny, they are not likely to get into Parliament, they are not likely to be able to enter any of the professions, they will not get elected to a West End club, and all their lives they will find it very difficult to get insured. I remember a family company which had a very large burglary and where the insurers repudiated on the ground that one of the directors, a quarter of a century before, when he was at university, had been convicted of stealing something. I had to decide this as arbitrator, and I was bound to decide that, in law, the insurers were right. The company could not say that they did not know, because one of the other directors was the father and another a brother. So, of course, the company knew about this conviction. The insurers said, "We never insure any company where any of the directors has been convicted of larceny, and we should never have taken the risk if we had known."
LORD RAGLAN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but may I ask him this question? What about the case of a boy stealing an apple? Does he not deprive the owner of it permanently? Is he not subject, theoretically, to a sentence of ten years?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I think theoretically that is quite so. But I do not think this is in itself a good reason for extending this provision to unlawful borrowing. The other thing which affects me particularly is that this is very largely a difference of view between, on the one hand, theoretical cases—very properly so, but cases which are thought-up-and, on the other hand, the practical experience of seven of our most experienced criminal Judges on this Committee. There was also the Director of Public Prosecutions, himself a member; the Chief Magistrate; and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice—who, if I may respectfully remind the House, has been a Judge for 17 years and has been Lord Chief Justice for about 10 years, during practically the whole of which time he has been either trying crime at first instance or hearing it on appeal. For my part, while I am perfectly prepared—and more prepared than most—to change the law if there is something wrong with it, I should have thought that when you have had a particular law for 100 years there was a very strong onus on those who say it ought to be changed, particularly when, for the first time, it is going to make criminal something which, however morally wrong it may be, has not been criminal in this country so far. For those reasons, I would respectfully ask the Committee to support the Amendment.
8.8 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents 39; Not-Contents 37.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville-West, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Rowley, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Shannon, E.

Brown, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Shepherd, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Silkin, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Fiske, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stonham, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Noel-Buxton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Norwich, V.

Tangley, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Parker of Waddington, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Oakshott, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Falkland, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Barrington, V.

Ferrier, L.

Sandford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Foot, L.

Sandys, L.

Brentford, V.

Fortescue, E.

Selkirk, E.

Chelmer, L.

Goodman, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gray, L.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Teynham, L.

Craigavon, E.

Lucan, E.

Vivian, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Monson, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L.

Moyne, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope it will suit your convenience if with Amendment No. 1, I speak to the two following Amendments which are consequential. These Amendments propose minor alterations to subsection (2). They would make it read:
"It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit."
During the Committee stage the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, suggested that the subsection as originally drafted gave room for argument, contrary to the intention of the subsection, that it was material, in order to establish theft, to show that the appropriation was made with a view to gain or for the thief's benefit. Although the Government think it doubtful that such a construction could be put on the subsection, I am moving the Amendments so as to remove any doubt that there might be upon this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("that") and insert ("whether").—(Lord Stonham.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Lord. I do not think this makes a very important change. It may be that subsection (2) is not strictly necessary; but I think the language is an improvement.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("not").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("not").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, other business is to come. There was general agreement through the usual channels that, once through Clause 1, we should adjourn consideration of the Report stage of this Bill. I would suggest that we do so now.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I would support the noble Lord in that suggestion.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES RULES 1968
8.20 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Matrimonial Causes Rules 1968 [S.I. 1968 No. 219], laid before the House on February 29 last, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Prayer standing in my name on the Order Paper and, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak on the first Prayer and the second Prayer, because they are interrelated. Indeed, in the second set of Rules against which I am praying it is stated that these Rules shall be considered as one of the Principal Rules—the Principal Rules being the Rules referred to in the first Prayer. Perhaps I ought to explain what this is all about. The House will remember that some months ago we passed the Matrimonial Causes Bill, which became an Act, designed to give jurisdiction in undefended divorce cases

1425
to the county court instead, as had hitherto been the case, the High Court.
Under Section 7 of that Act, provision was made for a Committee to be set up, the Rules Committee, under the chairmanship of the Lord Chancellor, with not fewer than four other members, at least two of them to be solicitors. The purpose of this Committee was to make rules for the administration of the Act and also to make provision for the costs that would be payable to solicitors in respect of the undefended divorce cases which henceforth they were going to handle. I have no objection at all to the Rules relating to administration or what are called the Principal Rules, and I propose to devote myself therefore to the substance of the second Prayer and to say nothing more about the first of the Rules. Those Rules were agreed to by all the members of the Committee and there is no criticism of them; at any rate nothing of such a nature as would require me to say anything this evening.
As regards the Rules referred to in the second Prayer, the decision there was not unanimous. The two solicitor members of the Committee refrained from signing, and I am given to understand—I do not say this with complete authority—that certain other members of the Committee signed with reservations, and that these reservations have been minuted. No doubt my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, if he wishes, will be able to say whether that is correct or not. Perhaps I might summarise the whole substance of the objection to the Costs Rules, as I am going to call them, by saying that it is the opinion of the whole of the legal profession that the provision made for solicitors' costs is quite inadequate.
In 1966, and prior to that, the Law Society, which is the governing body of the solicitors' profession, had made representations to the Lord Chancellor, in whose hands our fate lies, regarding the inadequacy of the then existing scale of costs in the county court. These had not been changed since 1956, and I think it was agreed on all sides that they were quite inadequate, even at the time when the representations were made in 1966. My noble and learned friend referred this matter of the costs to the National Board for Prices and Incomes in order that they might consider not merely the question of the adequacy or otherwise
1426
of the costs in the county court but also the whole question of solicitors' remuneration, which was going very much wider than the solicitors' profession had asked. At any rate, the Board did make this investigation. So far as I know the only other professional body which has been investigated regarding its profits, not as regards fees, is the architects.
The National Board for Prices and Incomes had before them a sample of solicitors' remuneration in various categories: firms that were being conducted single-handed, those with several partners, those with more than five partners, and so on. Out of all that, the Board came to two specific conclusions one was that on average the remuneration of solicitors was not unreasonable in comparison with that of members of other professions. The remuneration was rather lower than that of doctors and a little higher than that of architects, but on the whole the Board expressed no dissatisfaction with the remuneration of solicitors, taking the average figure. But they came to the conclusion that costs in connection with county court matters ought very definitely to be reviewed.
I think I can best tell the House about these county court costs if I read out the actual recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes which are contained in paragraphs 65 and 66 of their Report. They explain that:
"nearly two-thirds of all the firms of solicitors transact an insignificant volume of county court work. It would be wrong if the new level of charges were determined by reference to the work of those solicitors who incur high expenses because they do not specialise"
They go on to enlarge on this, but in the end they come to the conclusion that they could justify an increase in county court costs of 93 per cent. in the case of certain solicitors, and a lower percentage in the case of others. But they come down to the conclusion that a compromise would be an increase of 55 per cent. on the then current scale of costs of solicitors. The reason for that, of course, is that since 1956 the overheads of solicitors have increased enormously. Rents, rates, cost of staff, services and of course the selective employment tax, to which solicitors are particularly vulnerable because they tend to employ a greater number of staff than members of

1427
other professions—all these have established that the scale of costs fixed in 1956 was hopelessly outdated and the recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board was that there should be a compromise increase of 55 per cent. on those costs.
This Report was published last month, and I should imagine that the facts in the Report were not present in the minds of the Rules Committee over which my noble and learned friend presided, because they reported early in February and this Report was published at a later date or at about the same time. Unless they had private knowledge of what was going into the Report they must have come to a decision without reference to it. I wonder what conclusion they would have come to if they had known that there was this recommendation from the Prices and Incomes Board for an increase of 55 per cent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend and I do so only in order to clear up the point. I heard that the Prices and Incomes Board Report was about to be published. We had three meetings of the Rules Committee and I think that this was after the second meeting. The third was deliberately put off for a week so that both the Bar Council and the Law Society could consider the terms of the Report before we came to any conclusion on the Rule.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if that is so, I am shocked—completely shocked—that the Rules Committee should have so completely ignored the recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board, put forward in such a strong form. If that is so, I think that it makes our case all the stronger.
I ought to point out, in addition, that prior to the coming into force of the Matrimonial Causes Act undefended divorce cases have been conducted in the High Court and solicitors were entitled to, and received, High Court scale costs, which are considerably higher than the scale which is laid down in the Report of the Rules Committee. The work they are now to do in the county courts, under the Act which comes into operation on the 11th of this month, will be exactly the same. They will still have to receive
1428
instructions from petitioners, whether the petition is on the ground of adultery, cruelty, desertion or any other reason. They will still have to take careful instructions from clients. They will still have to put in all the same kind of attendances at court. There will still be the same standard of proof required; and, as those noble Lords who are members of the profession will appreciate, where a case is undefended a judge will insist on a much stricter standard of proof than he would if the case were being contested. Then there are the ancillary matters which solicitors have to deal with, as they do now in the High Court—alimony, custody of the children and settlements. Yet not only do these Rules provide this inadequate scale of costs as remuneration but there is actually a reduction of some 15 to 20 per cent. in the costs which solicitors are at present receiving for exactly the same work.
I have explained about the overheads which have increased so dramatically in the legal profession. They have increased all the more among solicitors because or the high rents which they have to pay, the larger amount of accommodation they need relative to other professions and the larger staffs required. The fact is that the Prices and Incomes Board came to the conclusion that the county court fees at present payable to solicitors were not sufficient to meet the overheads—in other words, that solicitors carrying out work in the county courts were carrying it out at a loss, not even recouping themselves for their outgoings. That is a position which is really not maintainable. It may be said, as I have heard one of my friends say, that solicitors can make up on the swings what they lose on the roundabouts. The kind of solicitors I am speaking for have few swings and few roundabouts, whichever is the more advantageous.
The Report refers to conveyancing costs. It says that the conveyancing costs, on which solicitors also depend, are inadequate in the lower ranges and ought to be increased. Of course, this is not before the House, but it is an indication of what those members of the profession in the lower income range are going through at the present time. I hope that my noble and learned friend will not argue that all is well in the profession because the average income is nearly equal

1429
to that of doctors, architects, accountants and so on. The fact is that there is a considerable number of solicitors who have very high incomes, because they are practising in the City of London and specialising in commercial work or company work and other well paid work of that kind. Some of them, I understand, are making £50,000 a year or more, and all that comes into the average, but it would he quite wrong to ignore the very much larger number with small incomes who go to make up the average. In fact, the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board is quite definite on the point: that there is a large number of solicitors, working single-handed or with one or two partners, who are in receipt of very low incomes and are undertaking work for which they are not even getting a proper compensation for their outgoings.
When this Bill was introduced in another place the question of solicitors' costs was raised and an assurance was given by the Attorney General that costs would be fixed on a fair and reasonable basis. Can anyone suggest that costs which involve practitioners carrying on at a loss can be fair and reasonable? I wonder how the Government or my noble and learned friend can expect solicitors to undertake work on which they are going to lose.
After all, the success of this Act depends upon there being a sufficient number of solicitors ready and willing and with the requisite skill and knowledge to undertake these cases. If solicitors will not come forward—and I can assure my noble and learned friend that there is already a strong movement in the profession that will involve quite a large number of solicitors not undertaking the work—the whole purpose of this Act will be frustrated and there will be great delay and heart-burnings among petitioners who have applied for divorce.
There is only one other thing I want to say, and it is this. I hope that the position as set out in these Rules does not represent the Government's last word. I am aware that paragraph 51 of the White Paper, Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy, gives us a ray of hope that possibly this matter will be reexamined. It mentions the fact that the Government have referred to the Prices and Incomes Board the remuneration of
1430
solicitors, and architects' costs and fees, and then it says:
"The Board's report on solicitors' remuneration was published in February"—
that is, February of this year—
"and its recommendations are being considered by the Government."
If that is really a statement of the Government's intention; and if my noble and learned friend can give an assurance that that consideration will be objective and speedy, and in the light of the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board, then I shall feel that something has been achieved by this debate. But I can assure him that we shall not be satisfied with any lesser assurance. The legal profession is not content to let matters rest as they are; nor will the general public be, if they are aware of what is to be the likely outcome. I am hoping that my noble and learned friend will be able to give us the assurance that is set out in broad terms in this White Paper, and which I am seeking this evening. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Matrimonial Causes Rules 1968 [S.I. 1968 No. 219], laid before the House on February 29 last, be annulled.—(Lord Silkin.)
8.43 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I should like to add just a few words in support of Lord Silkin's Prayer. I spent 28 years of my life in the Council of the Law Society, and it taught me many things. Perhaps the most vivid thing it taught me was that it is impossible to get laymen interested in lawyers' fees at all, except in a negative sense, So I want, first of all, to remind your Lordships to-night that this is just not an argument about lawyers' fees; there is something much more deeply involved in this than a mere question of fees.
I had some doubts—and I am sure many other noble Lords shared my misgivings—about the idea of divorce going to the county court at all. To put divorce into a court which deals with small debts, rent collecting, hire-purchase and matters of that kind, was, I thought, a dangerous thing to do; and I know that many other noble Lords thought the same. After all, divorce is a serious thing, and there is no branch of the law which puts more

1431
responsibility upon lawyers acting for people who are thinking of getting divorced. They are officers of the court. They have to see to a great many things which have to be brought before the court if the court is properly to decide upon the matter and, particularly, to exercise discretion in those cases where discretion has to be exercised. This is a serious and difficult matter, and personally I think it was a mistake to send divorce to the county court. If I had known that it was the intention to send it to the county court in circumstances which made it impossible for the county court properly to deal with these cases, then I think the opposition to the Bill would have been much stronger. That is what is happening now.
The situation is that all these matters will go to the county court. What is being offered to lawyers is a fee of £40 for the complete conduct of an ordinary average divorce case in the county court. That is not much more than half what solicitors are being paid for exactly the same work and the same responsibility in the High Court. That means that the solicitor who has the ordinary, normal overheads will either make no profit—that is to say, he will not be remunerated at all—or else he will get only an absolutely nominal remuneration. In those circumstances, there is no doubt in my mind that the system will break down. It will be impossible to get people to do the work on these terms. That is my first point.
The second point I want to make is that it is utterly wrong to take the ordinary county court scale and apply it to this new jurisdiction of the county court. It is quite wrong to say that because a solicitor can get up to £40, or in certain circumstances £45, for conducting a little action involving £300 or £400 damages, that scale should per se apply to the far more difficult and responsible work of conducting a divorce case. In those circumstances, I am afraid it is quite clear that what we have done is to send divorce to a second-rate tribunal, with second-rate representation, at cut prices. And that is not, as I believe, what we thought we were doing when we passed the Bill.
It is on those grounds—not only the petty squabble about whether a man should be paid £40 or £50—that I
1432
earnestly support the plea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I share his shock at the behaviour of the Committee. When it was urged in the other place that this Committee should be given some directions, here is what the Attorney General said:
"The Rule Committee is not specifically required to have regard to the principle of allowing fair remuneration. It is unnecessary to require it to have regard to that principle. As the fixed costs will be related to the amounts which might be expected to be allowed if the costs are taxed, regard will in effect be paid to the principle of fair remuneration. I do submit that it would not be appropriate that the Rule Committee should be told to have regard to this principle. I am quite confident that, in practice, it will have due regard to it."
In face of that undertaking given in another place by the Attorney General, the Rule Committee, knowing apparently what the Prices and Incomes Board was going to say (we have had that assurance to-night from the Lord Chancellor), expressly enforced a Rule 13 years old, which the Prices and Incomes Board committed to their knowledge and said was 55 per cent. too low. In these circumstances, it is quite impossible, in my submission, to go ahead with sending this work to the county court unless this proper provision is made for seeing that it is done properly when it gets there.
8.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I should like to declare a personal interest in this matter, as other noble Lords who have already spoken have done, in that I am a member of this profession. I wish to support the Prayer moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, very strongly indeed. I rather tend to share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, with regard to the Matrimonial Causes Act itself. But that has been decided by Parliament and, therefore, I am prepared to accept it, although I may not be feeling exceedingly happy about it. However, I take serious objection to the Matrimonial Causes Rules relating to costs. I consider that they are grossly unfair.
It may possibly be of interest to your Lordships that in my own firm the managing clerk in charge of the department came to the partners and said that we must give up doing all legal aid work in divorce cases because it was going to be run at a dead loss. The partners

1433
said that they considered we had a public duty to perform and we could not arrive at that decision straight away. But how long they would be prepared to continue and how much they would be prepared to expend in order to support their attitude towards performing a public duty, I do not know.
We have been told that the trouble stems from the fact that the Rules Committee have decided to base the remuneration of solicitors and of lawyers in divorce cases in the county court upon Scale 4 of the county court scales of 1955. They, as we have been told, have been unaltered for 12 years, and since 1955 practically every expense of a solicitor has risen out of all recognition. Not only have we had, in common with many other people, selective employment tax imposed upon us, but the contributions which we have to make under National Insurance have risen astoundingly. All salaries and wages have risen—and that we cannot regret in our own case because, generally speaking, the standard of salaries and wages in the legal profession was very low. I recall very well that when I first entered my firm, upwards of forty years ago, the standard salary of a typist was £2 10s. Now, of course, the standard salary of a comparable typist is about £15. The salaries of the secretaries run up to £20 plus. I do not say that that has all happened since 1955, but certainly I think that since 1955 the standard of those salaries and wages has risen by about 33⅓ per cent. And, of course, the standard of salaries of the clerks who carry out their duties has risen comparably.
In addition to that, all postages, telephone charges and charges of that sort have gone up; and stationery and printing charges have also gone up. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, in a great many cases rents have gone up, and in every single case rates have gone up. All those additional charges have to be borne by the solicitors, because if the 1955 scale was fair in 1955, it certainly can no longer be remunerative to solicitors at the present time.
The seriousness of this situation with regard to county court charges has been kept before the notice of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and his predecessor, for it was as long ago as 1963, nearly six years ago, that the Law
1434
Society submitted a memorandum proposing an increase in county court costs. That did not achieve any satisfactory result, and so two years later, in 1965, further amended proposals were submitted on account of the increased jurisdiction of the county courts which by then had taken place. But even that, my Lords, was not the end, because as recently as July last year further proposals for a general revision of county court costs were submitted by the Law Society to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
In view of the Government's statements, to which my noble friend Lord Tangley has referred, which were made during the course of the passage of the Bill in another place, it really is quite incredible that the Rules Committee should have failed to take into their cognisance the inherent duty to prescribe costs which would reflect fair remuneration to the profession. That was an undertaking twice given by the Attorney General. In fact, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack himself expressed his very serious recognition of the state of affairs when he was speaking in 1966, and he made it quite clear that the profession had been so strongly hit by the additional charges which had been laid upon it that it was incredible that it was alone of all the professions and of all other businesses in that it had not been allowed to increase some of its charges for 11 years. So the noble and learned Lord was fully seized of the seriousness of the situation to our branch of his profession.
In addition, there are the statements which have been made by the Prices and Incomes Board, to which reference has already been made. But it is quite clear from them that contentious business is unremunerative, and if, as they say themselves, Supreme Court work is excluded from the remuneration the position is very much more marked. They recommend, as we have heard, that there should be an increase of 55 per cent. in all the county court charges for work which is done there. And in paragraph 66 of their Report, to which I think my noble friend referred, they mace this clear. They said, after referring to the fact that they by then knew it was intended that these divorce cases should be referred back to the county court:
"Determination of the charges for divorce work in the county court which have yet to

1435
be fixed should be consistent with our recommendation for an increase in the level of the county court income."
That recommendation has been completely and utterly disregarded, unless, as Lord Silkin intimated, it is possible for the noble and learned Lord to give us an assurance to-night that the recommendation for the increase of 55 per cent. will be accepted by the Government and will be applied to the scale which we are now being asked to pass. It certainly cannot be argued that a new scale based on a 12-year-old scale, which is already hopelessly out of date and which it has been recommended should be increased by 55 per cent., can in any event fulfil the recommendation made by the Prices and Incomes Board.
We feel that a good deal of this difficulty has come about as a result of the statement made by the Government during the passage of the Bill, that in consequence of the Bill when it became an Act there would be a saving of £400,000 per annum to the Legal Aid Fund. That is a very desirable thing to bring about if it is possible. But it ought not to be brought about at the expense of under-remunerating the people who do the work. The increased cost on the Legal Aid Fund has not been caused by increases in rates of remuneration to the legal profession; it has been caused entirely by the increase in the number of aided cases. In 1956 27,750 petitions for divorce were filed. In respect of 12,981 of those 27,000, certificates for legal aid were granted; that is to say, of the total number of petitions which were issued, 44 per cent. were legally-aided cases. Ten years later, in 1966, the total number of petitions filed had risen to 45,610, of which 31,188 had legal aid certificates granted, showing a rise to 69 per cent. in the proportion of petitions which were supported by legal aid. That is the reason for the tremendous increase in the operations of the Legal Aid Fund: that more people have become legally eligible for legal aid.
Therefore we feel strongly that this is something which is quite outside the responsibility of the legal profession. It is something for which the Government and Parliament are responsible, and for which they should pay the cost. The cost should not be forced upon the legal profession itself, for if that is so, only one
1436
of two courses can possibly be open to the profession: first, that they shall skimp the work in order to try to avoid making a loss on it. That would be quite disastrous, not only from the point of view of the reputation of the profession, but, more important, from the point of view of the welfare and happiness of the public who consult the legal profession in these cases. It would mean that work which is of the most serious and responsible character that the profession has to undertake would not be dealt with in a proper, right, reasonable, thoughtful and responsible manner.
The other alternative is that the profession would simply decline to accept legal aid divorce cases at all, and that is a very real possibility, as I have indicated, bearing in mind the feeling in my own firm at the present time. But for the smaller solicitor who specialises in the workings of the county court above all, it is a very likely thing to happen, and representations have been received by the Law Society from a great many of the local law societies in opposition to these new Rules. Therefore, my Lords, I hope your Lordships will agree with the mover of this Motion and that these Rules will not be passed.
9.3 p.m.
LORD CHELMER: My Lords, your Lordships may feel that, after the careful deliberations you have given to the niceties of the definition of the law of theft, to devote as much time as this to a consideration of the cost of administering the law is, so to speak, a surfeit of legal riches, but I make no apologies for detaining your Lordships for one moment to make what I think is a useful point.
First, in the current economic context solicitors are no strangers to a prices and incomes policy, because they have been subject to some form of statutory limitation since 1883. My second point is this. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and others have said, the Prices and Incomes Board made it quite clear that the costs in these matrimonial causes—so-called "divorce", in common parlance—should be increased, and indeed recognised that by the increase of 55 per cent. which they proposed in other county court matters.
The Prices and Incomes Board is by no means animated by any sense of bias

1437
towards the solicitors, because in another field, that of conveyancing, they have proposed quite substantial reductions in their fees. They reached their conclusions without taking into account the operation of the selective employment tax or the more recent increase, and they defined the rewards for professional work as follows:
"Solicitors' remuneration is a price for services rendered. The proper criterion for looking at the price of a product is whether it adequately covers costs…and in addition produces a profit which makes for adequate investment and for an efficient allocation of resources."
One can almost hear the convolutary rumblings of the late Sir Edward Marshall Hall, wherever he may now rest, on this definition of the rewards for professional skills. So I think it could not truthfully be said that the Prices and Incomes Board was prejudiced in favour of solicitors. In fact they came out with this recommendation to which noble Lords have referred, and which was ignored by the Rules Committee.
The point which follows from that is that in 1939 the average party and party costs of an undefended divorce action was £46. In that year the average weekly wage of a wage earner was approximately £3 12s. In 1968, the Rules Committee propose that the party and party costs for an undefended divorce action shall be £40, and in 1968 the average weekly wage of a wage earner is something like £21. It may be said by many who argue against this proposition that this is represented by the change of jurisdiction from the High Court to the county court, but I do not believe that noble Lords can accept that in a period when weekly wages have risen by something like 600 per cent. it is a proper appreciation of the difference between those jurisdictions, bearing in mind the considerable responsibility which lawyers bear in this regard and which has already been referred to. I cannot believe that the increase of 600 per cent. in wages is properly measured against a decrease of 13 per cent. in the remuneration proposed in these undefended divorce actions, which represent the great bulk of such actions.
As has been said, it is not just what may be the brief formality in the divorce court which is the summation of the
1438
work done by the solicitor. That is the culmination of a great deal of preparation, of careful administration by Her Majesty's Judges and their staff, and preparation by the lawyers involved, which produces the brief formality. That represents countless hours of work done, including listening, very often, to the irrelevant outpourings of people who are deeply concerned about this critical period of their lives upon which advice is needed, and, very often, the counselling to prevent such a break-up taking place. Your Lordships will appreciate that work such as this requires skill and judgment of the highest order, and I suggest very sincerely to your Lordships that support for the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will make sure that that skill and judgment is maintained.
9.8 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: My Lords, although I would not support my noble friend Lord Silkin if his Motion were taken to a Division, I nevertheless feel, like the other speakers, that the Rules that have been made in connection with the solicitors' branch of the profession provide totally inadequate remuneration for the work they have to do. Indeed, I think one could say as a provincial solicitor that county court work has rarely ever paid. I might mention that even though at the present time I am prepared to accept the Rules as they are, the remunerations which will be received under the existing Rules are inadequate and in due course are bound to create great resentment throughout the profession. My desire not to support my noble friend in the Division Lobby is simply due to the fact that this is not the time for a professional body to seek an increase immediately in the remuneration which is proposed, when at the present time the workers of the country are being restrained in their wages. Nevertheless, I feel that there will in due course be a strong case for a revision of the scale which is proposed in connection with the county court costs as a whole, as well as a revision of the scale which is proposed for divorce costs in the county court.
Perhaps I should mention that as a member of the profession in my early days, in the days of depression in the 1930s up until Legal Aid was introduced, I know that solicitors and counsel, in

1439
order to assist poor persons, undertook divorce cases for nothing. We expected no remuneration at all, either counsel or solicitors, because we regarded it as a social service and we were content to play our part in the social services of the country. I think it can be said that in the Provinces much work is done by solicitors without thought of remuneration. But, of course, conditions in these days are different from what they were in the early days. As has been stated, rents and rates have increased, salaries have gone up, and it is indeed a very difficult time for provincial solicitors.
We have come to the conclusion that the county court scales cannot be accepted or worked in the future. We find that many of the young solicitors whom we article and train in the profession are leaving the practice of the profession and taking appointments with companies, with the national boards, with industry, because they realise that the prospects and the security in such occupations are far better than they can expect as practising solicitors. I would therefore urge the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to give very careful thought to the difficulties that provincial solicitors, in particular, will suffer as a result of the application of the Rules now before the House. Speaking for myself and, I believe, for many of the members of my profession, I say that we have the best will in the world to try to make this work, and to try to see that the unhappy and unfortunate people are well served; their their difficulties may be overcome by proceedings which we have to take. But unless these Rules are reviewed and these scales reconsidered, I am afraid that many of the provincial solicitors will have to give up county court work altogether.
9.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I think it would be rather regrettable if this debate were concluded without one person who did not belong to the honourable profession of solicitor making his comments. I will therefore, very briefly, say that I very much hope that the strong case that has been made out by noble Lords will receive Government attention. I know that there are some firms of solicitors, very respectable people, who do not take divorce
1440
work. That seems to me very regrettable. I know well that solicitors who do take divorce work are quite often able to reconcile the parties and prevent the break-up of marriages. I know, too, of the good work that solicitors do on marriage guidance councils; and I am not ignorant of their work as "poor man's lawyers", and of the help they give, without remuneration, to deserving cases. I share, therefore, the hope of other noble Lords that their case will receive most careful consideration.
9.15 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, as we draw towards the conclusion of this debate I should like to add a few words in support of this Motion. I would say to your Lordships at the outset that I do not relish the opportunity of speaking on the subject matter of the remuneration of solicitors, because it might appear that I am engaging in a piece of special pleading on behalf of my own profession. I do not like doing it, but this debate has been largely carried on by members of my profession, because, of course, this question of legal fees raises considerations which are quite specialised and esoteric, and only solicitors and people who have some knowledge of the profession can understand the issues that are involved. However, I should like to approach the matter briefly from what might be the layman's point of view. It seems to me that if it is looked at from that point of view, the history of these Rules has in it some elements of farce or low comedy which may have an entertainment value appealing to a wider public than solicitors and lawyers themselves.
How did all this start? How did it all originate? It originated in this way. The Government woke up to the fact that there was this increasing burden upon the Legal Aid Fund and upon the State, by reason of the expenditure on legal aid in matrimonial cases. That that was the origin of these Rules is made perfectly clear in the correspondence that took place between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Law Society. In the course of one letter the noble and learned Lord said this:
"I am bound to say that much of the criticism of the Government's proposals, both in Parliament and outside it, seems to me to have been pretty wide of the mark, if it is accepted, as I think it must be, that something

1441
has got to be done to reduce the total cost falling on the Legal Aid Fund in matrimonial cases."
So that the way in which the argument proceeded was this: that something had to be done to cut down this increased burden in legal aid in matrimonial cases.
If, of course, it could have been contended that this increased burden was due to the fact that the scheme was ill-administered or uneconomically administered; or if it could have been said that there was some waste of public money which ought to be stopped; or if this had been another of those scandals that ought to be brought before the Accounts Committee; or if it could have been said that this increased burden of cost was due to the cupidity of the legal profession, that would have been one thing. But it was not due to that. Inquiries were made, and they disclosed that the reason why the burden of legal aid in matrimonial cases had increased was that there were more of them.
What was the Government's reaction to this? One might have thought that the Government would say, "Well, if more people are in a position to take advantage of the Legal Aid Scheme, if more people can bring themselves within its ambit, if more people want to take advantage of it, then we must accept the increased burden." After all, it must have been within the contemplation of the Government, must it not? when legal aid was introduced in the first place, that the burden falling upon the Fund would vary according to the number of people who took advantage of it or who might be in a position to take advantage of it from one time to another. But that was not at all the Government's attitude. They said "No; this is intolerable. Something has got to be done to reduce this burden".
If they wanted to reduce the burden of legal aid in divorce cases, what steps might they have taken? They might have tightened up the divorce laws, so as to make divorce more difficult. But that would have been contrary to all the trends of the time. As an alternative, they might have tightened up the legal aid regulations, so as to make legal aid not available to the less indigent applicants or to increase the amount of the contributions. These were things which they might have done. Instead, the
1442
solution which they hit upon was to say, "We will take it out of the lawyers." I said earlier that the matter had in it some elements of farce. The title of this farce is, "How to win friends and influence people without actually paying for it."
The machinery to do this lay to hand because, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has explained, from time immemorial the remuneration of the legal profession in matrimonial cases has been on the High Court scale. That is a scale which attaches a particular sum to particular items of work but, for the most part, leaves the decision as to what remuneration is to be paid to the legal profession, both solicitors and barristers, to the discretion of the taxing master or the registrar, who looks at the amount of work done and decides what is a fair remuneration for that work. If it was contended that the scale was too generous, then the solution would have been to scale it down. But it could not be contended that the scale was too generous because it has recently been found by the Prices and Incomes Board that in general terms litigation—that is to say, contentious business—is unremunerative to the legal profession. Therefore it could not be said that this scale is too high.
What did the Government decide to do? They said, "Well, we cannot get away with that, so we will transfer the matrimonial causes—at any rate undefended divorces and ancillary matters—to the county court, which will enable us to pay the lawyers on the county court scale." This had two effects. In the first place, under the county court procedure there is no need for counsel to be engaged. In the county court solicitors have a right of audience, and therefore the expense of counsel can be got rid of, and the burden, obligation and responsibility—a burden which previously was carried by the Bar—can be thrown on to the solicitors. Secondly, the county court scales have always been lower than the High Court scale, and therefore one will be able to bring the matrimonial business within the lower scale of the county court.
This transfer of matrimonial causes to the county court had two great advantages from the Government point of view. First, it threw additional burdens and responsibilities on solicitors; and, secondly,

1443
the Government were going to get all the work done at cut rates—at rates which have been declared by the Prices and Incomes Board to be quite unremunerative and inadequate. This affords an interesting commentary on the White Paper which appeared to-day, in which the Government reaffirm that they are prepared to reconsider an increase of remuneration if it is strictly tied to an increase in productivity. What is being done under these Rules, however, is something quite different. What is being done here is that the legal profession, the solicitors, are having required of them an increased productivity, and the consideration for it is an enforced reduction in their remuneration. The increased cost of Legal Aid to the State is to be met by requiring solicitors to accept a scale which has been found by an independent body to be wholly unremunerative.
That, no doubt, is what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, had in mind when he was speaking at Cambridge in October, 1966, on the occasion to which another noble Lord referred earlier. I think he was addressing the Labour Party and he said, speaking of solicitors' fees in general and referring in particular to the county court scale:
"Show me any other body of men in the country who, with rising overheads and staff on whom they now have to pay selective employment tax, have not been allowed to increase some of their charges for eleven years."
I imagine that the challenge there was rhetorical. If he wants to find any other body of men who are in that plight, I can only suggest that he might direct his inquiries to the Charity Commissioners.
I should like to conclude—and I am sorry that I have detained your Lordships for longer than I intended—with a footnote to what the noble Lord opposite was saying just now. I should like to speak now as one of those general practitioners in the law, and a provincial practitioner at that. We do not claim to have any excess of virtue or sense of public duty, and I should lose your Lordships' patience if I claimed any such thing. But the fact remains that, in common with all other reputable professions, we from time to time have
1444
to do work for nothing or for inadequate remuneration because of the particular circumstances of the case, because we are confronted with a client who is without adequate means and does not come within the ambit of the Legal Aid scheme. We are faced with the alternative of doing the work for that person or turning him away, and I like to think that the great majority of my profession do not turn people away in such circumstances. There is nothing remarkable about that. There is nothing greatly to our credit about it. It is something which is done by members of all reputable professions.
But these Rules confront us with something which is quite different. They are writing into an Act of Parliament, and writing into Orders made under that Act of Parliament, that over a wide range, a not insubstantial part of the business they do, solicitors are to be required from now on to accept a remuneration which involves them in an actual loss. That is a very different matter indeed, and I respectfully submit to your Lordships that as a matter of public policy it is wrong that a Government should handle a matter of that kind in that way.
9.29 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, after the very persuasive and eloquent speeches which your Lordships have heard on this subject, which I think we must all agree, whatever importance we attach to it, is not the most important subject in the world, you might conclude that no further arguments could conceivably be devised on the matter; or that if human ingenuity, and even solicitors' ingenuity, could devise further arguments you would tolerate being deprived of them even permanently. But there are one or two things which I should like to say quite briefly on this subject, in support of the Prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
The first point I should like to make is this. I would hope that a profession which has a very honourable record of public service, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, may have said —and I do not think he was saying anything to the contrary—will not over-stress the suggestion that it will not participate in these matters on account of questions of remuneration. I do not believe that, in the end, lawyers in any

1445
category, and solicitors in particular, will be deterred from rendering public services by any selfish consideration arising from their remuneration. But if I may say so, to my mind that makes it doubly important that solicitors should not be penalised in this fashion, because they will, I think, undertake the work whatever may happen. Solicitors have an exceptionally fine record in the way of organising the whole of the Legal Aid Scheme, which is a very splendid social feature of the services we now provide in this country. The Law Society in particular—and I can speak in praise of the Law Society without any suggestion that I am praising myself, since I have had no formal association with it except as a mere solicitor member—has, I think, carried for years the brunt of the administration of the whole of the legal aid system, and was very actively and primarily engaged in devising the system. I think it is fair to say that but for the activities of the Law Society and the activities of solicitors as a whole the legal aid system would not have been a success and would not be shaped as it is to-day.
The second point I want to make is this. I find myself unusually in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Tangley on the question of the transfer of divorce cases to county courts. This is something which I personally welcome very much. I thought it was an important sign of the democratisation of our legal system. If I may say so, it was a development introduced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in key with the many reforms which he is introducing. I think it is an important reform, and I think it is extremely important that it should work. I think, therefore, that it behaves the people who have made this change to see that it works, and one of the requisites for making it work is that no one should have the feeling that this is justice "on the cheap", or that any litigant concerned in having his matrimonial affairs adjudicated upon in the county courts is having a less careful, less accurate and less meticulous trial than would have taken place in the High Court.
I have on previous occasions alluded to what I have myself regarded as the excessive arguments addressed to the question of retaining matrimonial causes in
1446
the High Court, because the nature of the administration of justice in the High Court in relation to matrimonial matters did not invest it with any particular dignity. Lawyers who practised in those courts will remember the hastily contrived, nissen-type huts and quarters in which cases were conducted. They will remember that the cases were admirably conducted by county court judges—the self-same judges who will conduct them now. It seems to me that to have devised a rate of remuneration which is demon-strably inadequate—one has only to mention the amount to see how, by current standards, it is inadequate—gives rise to something more than an apprehension that people coming into those courts to have this most important matter dealt with, this most vital matter in relation to their personal lives, will have a very distinct suspicion that they are not receiving the same service, that they are not receiving the same care and attention, that they would have received previously. I think it is on these aspects of the matter, and not on the narrower question of the remuneration of solicitors, that the real importance of this debate attaches.
It is also important that the Government should realise the difficult position in which professions as a whole, and solicitors particularly, are placed 10-day through the various economic trends and tendencies. Office rents are enormously increased and rates of pay of clerks and other employees are greatly increased, but rates of remuneration have not increased proportionately. Solicitors as a profession—and, if I may say so, I think that in this respect the Bar are worse treated than solicitors—have little or no opportunities of saving, have little or no opportunities of amassing any kind of provision for their futures, except those provisions which arise under the Finance Act insurance schemes of which the House will be aware. It is very important that these professions, which are so vital to the maintenance of so many features of life in this country, and particular to the maintenance of very crucial liberties in this country, should not have placed upon them a burden which they cannot sustain.
Therefore there is a much wider question involved in this debate than the mere question of whether a particular piece of work done by a particular person

1447
should be remunerated at a rate of 6s. 8d. or 10s. 6d. It is, I think, a question of maintaining the standards of a profession whose standards are now seriously challenged. It is on this general ground that I hope the Government will reconsider the matter and give heed to the persuasive arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and those other Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken in his support.
9.35 p.m.
LORD WRENBURY: My Lords, I, too, am a solicitor, but I do not practise in divorce. I wish to make a few short points. It seems to me that if this remuneration is to be just, it should provide a decent living for somebody who specialises in this kind of work. The normal country solicitor, if he is in a modest way of business, hopes to earn a gross annual income of around £3,500. His overheads are probably 70 per cent, so he retains only 30 per cent, for himself. Working on those figures, I think that he must earn over £11,000 a year at this kind of work if he is to earn a decent living for himself. If one works on the basis of each case being remunerated at £55 and on his being an advocate and not employing counsel, he must do some, thing like one case per working day in order to make ends meet. Allowing for the fact that he does not do the whole thing himself but has to employ a secretary and a clerk to do the filing in the court, I calculate that the amount of time he is going to have to spend on each of these cases is not more than between five and six hours. This may seem a reasonable amount of time if you never leave your office; but if you go to the county court—and this applies to any kind of county court practice—it cannot be done by appointment. You turn up at the beginning and you await your call. You may be unlucky or you may get in quite early. But you can spend a whole morning waiting about in a county court, and that could represent some three or three-and-a-half hours of your time.
What I should like to know is this: has the calculation been done in reverse? Has anybody tried to calculate how much time is going to be allotted to the client for this kind of case? It seems to me that this is an important calculation;
1448
for once you get to the stage that the principal cannot handle this work economically then divorce practice is going to be relegated to the managing clerk, who is paid about half as much and who therefore can take twice as long to do the job. I cannot believe that divorces in this country should be run on a sort of managing clerk level; that a kind of debt collectors' service is really the way to do it. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said: that there is a limit to how far down the scale one ought to go in this type of work. That is all I have to say; but it seems to me that even on the basis of the Law Society's suggestion it is cutting it as fine as it possibly could be. If sufficient time is to be given I do not see that this work can possibly be dealt with at the level now suggested.
9.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have listened with great interest and with sympathy to the eight noble solicitors and to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. There are some things which all lawyers know and which perhaps I ought to explain. The first is that the Government do not leave it to the lawyers to decide what is a High Court case and what is a county court case. That has always been dealt with by Parliament. Secondly, the lawyer gets higher costs in the High Court than in the county court. Thirdly, at all times there is a movement one way or the other. Either the lawyers are doing this year for higher fees what they did last year for lower fees, or vice versa.
The reason, in the main, is that the county court jurisdiction depends on the amount in dispute, and this has gone up with the fall in the value of money. As a matter of interest, in 1846 it was £20; in 1850, it was £50; in 1903 it was £100; in 1938 it was £200; in 1955 it was £400; in 1966 it was £500. When Parliament is making no change, then as the value of money, in terms of goods, is always going down (or, if you like to put it the other way, the cost of an average secondhand car is going up), all the time it is happening, a car about which an action last year could have been heard in the county court this year will have to go to the High Court. Lawyers do not always complain that it is not right that for doing exactly the same case, in

1449
exactly the same way, they should be paid High Court costs when last year they were doing it at county court costs, and nobody expects them to complain. But it is always happening one way or the other. The moment that Parliament puts up the county court limit, immediately the lawyers have to do at county court rates work for which the day before they got High Court rates. Then again, when the value of money falls they are getting paid on a High Court scale for what they previously did in the county court.
Ultimately, the result of all this at the present time, assuming that £200 jurisdiction was about the right figure just before the war, as it was, the county court jurisdiction to-day ought to be £700. It is £500. So to some extent the lawyers are still getting as High Court cases some cases which really ought to be heard in the county court.
My Lords, perhaps I may just say a word as to divorce history. It is quite true that one of the things in the Government's mind has been legal aid, because until 1960–61 we always spent on civil legal aid £1 million. The total went up every year. In 1960–61 it was over £1 million; the year after that it was £2½ million; the year after that it was £3½ million; the year after that it was £4½ million; the year after that it was £5 million, and the year after that it was £5½ million. Now, it is running at the rate of £6 million; which is for civil legal aid, apart from criminal legal aid; and there are limits to the taxpayers' pocket. But the suggestion that undefended divorces are being sent to the county court simply to save money is not true.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that this is the right thing to do. After the war, in 1949, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will remember, there were so many divorces that the High Court Judges simply could not try them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was Chairman of a Committee which sat to decide what was to be done about this problem. I myself suggested, on behalf of the Society of Labour Lawyers, when I gave evidence before that Committee, that undefended divorce actions ought to be tried in the county court. This was on principle, because, after all, these cases are undefended,
1450
twelve-minute cases, and they did not seem to me to justify High Court costs, even in those days.
Your Lordships may remember that when the recent Act was introduced as a Bill the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said he was rather embarrassed at having to agree with everything I said, but that had there been a Conservative Government they were going to do exactly the same thing—only, he said, they would have cone it more quickly. If these cases are transferred to the county court, obviously the lawyers are going to get less. I said at that time that I estimated the saving at £400,000 a year. My noble friend Lord Silkin said he warmly welcomed the Bill; he was entirely in favour of it. He did not say that it could not be right for the lawyers to get £400,000 a year less than they are getting at the moment. He welcomed the Bill; he thought that it would save more than I had suggested because people would have their cases tried locally.
My Lords, on the timetable, if I may get this right, the Bill which is now an Act was ready for introduction in October, 1965, but owing to the pressure on legislative time, had to wait until the October, 1966, Session before being introduced. It became law in July. In the summer, Rules were drafted, and I intended to bring them into operation on January 1. But then the Law Society (whom we naturally always consult about Rules), said that they had a very great deal to do, and that when the Rules are published solicitors have got to understand them and get used to them. I thought that was reasonable, and agreed that we should not start until April 1.
I do not want to get involved in quantum. I do not accept Lord Tangley's £40. In a legal aid case I should say that it is more like £59. But I agree—and I have said this publicly for the last two years—that solicitors are having a difficult time. They are overworked. There is a great shortage of solicitors. The Law Society themselves reckon that they are short of 5,000 solicitors—about 25 per cent. There are 30 jobs for every newly qualified solicitor now. They cannot get staff. Their overheads go up all the time, and they are subject to S.E.T.

1451
One thing that is quite plain is that county court fees—and this applies to both barristers and solicitors—could not possibly be right, because they have not been increased for twelve years. Anything fixed twelve years ago, when we think of the increases in salaries, in telephones and every sort of thing, could not be right now. Therefore I was not at all surprised when I received an application from the Law Society for an increase in county court costs. Unfortunately, we are subject to a prices and incomes policy and, as this morning's White Paper says:
"Many individual salaries and other forms of remuneration, including that of company directors and executives, are fixed outside the usual process of collective bargaining. The principles of incomes policy should, however, be applied equally to them as to other forms of income. The incomes and scales of charges and fees of self-employed persons, including all forms of professional fees, are expected to conform with the policy."
Therefore, any Minister with power to fix remuneration has to comply with the prices and incomes policy.
The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and I had to refer this matter to the Prices and Incomes Board. What the Board said was fairly indicated by my noble friend Lord Silkin. Having carried out an extensive sampling of solicitors' incomes and compared them with what they were at the time of the Pilkington Committee about nine years ago, they found it untrue to say that solicitors were earning enormous incomes. They found that about one-quarter were earning over £6,000 a year and a quarter less than £2,500. What they said was that solicitors have kept up with the Joneses. Looking at the increases in earnings between the time of the Pilkington Committee and the present, they found that the increase in solicitors' incomes was just about the same as those of other professional men. They have fared a little better than the architects, and not quite so well as the doctors. Therefore, there was no justification for any general increases in solicitors' incomes. But they said that solicitor's earnings were too little in county court work, and too much in other forms of work. They said that county court costs were obviously too low and an increase of 55 per cent, would be £2·4 million. Then they said that lessee's solicitors
1452
should get the same as the lessor's solicitors. That would be another £0·9million. Finally, the increase which they thought necessary to encourage the conveyancing of lower priced houses would add a further £0·8 million to total income. These increases would total £4·1million and the reduction elsewhere was therefore appropriate. They then said that in the middle ranges of conveyancing there should be the same total reduction as they were recommending increases. This is a package deal.
I do not think it is generally understood that the result of this is this. First of all, obviously, this being a package deal, the solicitors cannot get the increases and pay no attention to the decreases. Secondly, nothing can happen in any case unless and until the Government have decided whether or not they are going to accept the Report. I am not in a position to make any statement about that, because it has always been the right of anyone affected by a Report to make representations to the Government against the Report.
Within 48 hours of the Report's being published I asked the Law Society whether they wanted to do this. I told them that I could not tell them whether the Government would accept the Report or not. I said: "All I can tell you is that, on the one hand, if they do not accept the Report it will be the first time the Government have not accepted a Report from the Prices and Incomes Board. On the other hand, it may seem wrong—I do not know—to some of my colleagues to implement a Report which means that poor people buying houses will be charged more and richer people will be charged less. But it will be for the Government to decide". They said they wanted to make representations against the Report. So at the moment the matter is entirely in the court of the Law Society. I have told them that I hope they will let me have their representations as soon as possible, because the sooner they get the increase which in county court cases they ought to have, the better, so far as I am concerned.
I have also said to them: "We do not want further delays. If you are going to consult local law societies, and so on, about your representations, I hope that you will save time by thinking about two things: first, how exactly you are going

1453
to work the reductions in conveyancing; and secondly, how exactly you want to work the increase in county court fees. If you are going to get an increase of 55 per cent., do you want it straight across the board, or do you want an increase of 70 per cent, for debt collecting work"—which solicitors say is worse paid than anything else—"and 10 per cent. for divorce, or what?" I hope that this is being done. But it is for those reasons that there is nothing further I can do at the moment.
Three Orders were made on February 21. First, an Order bringing the Act into force on Thursday of next week. That is an Order which cannot be annulled and which the Government have no power either to withdraw or to amend. The second, on the same day, was the Rules Order—that is, the Rules other than costs—and that is the first of the Orders which my noble friend Lord Silkin would wish to annul. But nobody suggests that there is anything wrong with the Rules. I think one or two speakers have gone out of their way to explain that they do not quarrel with the Rules; they are only quarrelling with the Costs Rules.
The other Order which my noble friend seeks to annul is, of course, the Costs Rules. As I have said, I have great sympathy with solicitors, and to some extent the Bar, too, in so far as all county court costs are too low. All I can say is that, having a Prices and Incomes Act, the application had to be referred to the Board. The Board have now made the Report, and nothing can be done until the Government have decided whether or not they are going to accept the Report. For that I am waiting for the representations which are being made by the Law Society.
There are two other points that I should like to mention. It is not accurate to say that solicitors who work in the High Court and who used to have an average of £65 a case are now getting less for doing exactly the same work. It will not be exactly the same work for this reason: that in some dozen different ways we have simplified the new Rules. We have taken out steps which used to have to be taken, like an affidavit to support a petition, like the solicitors having to find the petitioner and serve him. The court is now going to do the
1454
serving, so it will not be exactly the same. Solicitors will not have as much work as before.
The other thing which I think I should mention is this, because nobody has mentioned it at all and those who are not lawyers would not know it. For years and years solicitors, particularly young solicitors, have said to me, "You know, it really is absurd that I am not allowed to do my divorce cases. For twenty years they have been tried by my local county court judge. It is this monopoly of the Bar. I have to get a barrister to do these cases, and it is absurd, really, because I do personal injury cases, factory accident cases, cases which may last a day, or two or three days, before my county court judge, some involving medical evidence, and difficult questions of law. Yet here is an undefended case that lasts 12 minutes and I am not allowed to do it". The persons who are really affected by this are the barristers, because for the first time every solicitor will be able to do all his undefended divorce cases himself. You would not think that, because in the large brief which has been sent out by the Law Society, which I have seen, to every solicitor Member of the House, this seems to be the one relevant thing which is not mentioned. There is a Birmingham solicitor who has engaged a young solicitor to do all his divorce cases. After all, you can do a dozen in a morning at £60 a time. It is not all that bad. And whether they do them all themselves is entirely a matter for them, but they could. If so, of course the Bar—this is a straight transfer of money from one branch of the profession to another—will lose the whole of this work—
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but he may be so carried away by his enthusiasm that he may be giving a rather unfortunate impression, that a dozen divorce cases can be completed in one morning from beginning to end by a solicitor. I think that would be an unfortunate impression to convey to the public at large.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not mean of course that he prepares the whole case in a morning. I am talking about the hearing. A dozen cases can be done at one hearing, but of course the

1455
fee he gets, like the barrister's, covers work previously done. As I said, I am very sympathetic to lawyers about county court fees; they are obviously not enough, having been fixed 12 years ago. I am anxious to help in every way I can to see that in this respect the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board is implemented. It means, I am afraid, so far as solicitors are concerned, that some of the conveyancing fees will also have to be reduced. But it may be that both courses are right, because we must face the fact that the value of land has gone up so much. But, of course, being paid on a scale is of great assistance.
My Lords, I do not think I can say any more, except that these, of course, are Government Orders, and about public expenditure, because so far as Section 9 of the Act is concerned (which is the section under which these Costs Rules are made), this was, I think, subject to a Privilege Amendment, and as this concerns money it is peculiarly a matter of the other House. On those grounds, I would ask the House not to accede to my noble friend's Motion.
9.59 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, as a matter of fact I was going to ask the House to do exactly the same; that is, not to accede to my Prayer, because, for one thing, this House has never since, I think, 1911 successfully prayed against, or even divided against, a Statutory Instrument; and I should hate to create a precedent after all these years. Secondly, my noble and learned friend has to some extent given us a little satisfaction; and I think fully justified the Prayer which I put down. I hope he was not meaning to draw any particular significance from the fact that eight of the speakers were solicitors. After all, they know where the shoe pinches, and they are in the best position to say—far better, even, than barristers—that a gross injustice has been done. Therefore I was glad to find that my noble and learned friend was in sympathy with that view and that there is a hope that something will be done.
I am sure the Law Society will make their representations, and I am equally sure that we, as a profession, will be very willing indeed to look at the other aspects of solicitors' costs, such as conveyancing, where on the one hand in the case of the
1456
smaller conveyancing transactions it is proposed to increase the fees, and on the other hand in the case of the larger ones it is proposed to decrease the fees. We are perfectly willing to consider all these things sympathetically. But the purpose of this debate was to draw special attention to this particular Rule which was asking the members of the solicitors' profession to undertake work for fees which admittedly not only were unremunerative but would have involved them in a loss; and if there is any hope that that state of affairs is going to be remedied then I am sure we have justified the purpose of this debate. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw this Motion, and I do not propose to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EPPING FOREST (WATERWORKS CORNER) BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments, considered, and agreed to.
  SAVINGS BANKS FUNDS INVESTMENTS
  SAVINGS BANKS FUNDS INVESTMENTS
  VALUE OF NATIONAL INSURANCE (RESERVE) FUND SECURITIES
  VALUE OF NATIONAL INSURANCE (RESERVE) FUND SECURITIES
  FIREARMS PERMITS
  FIREARMS PERMITS