Sitting of 13 June 1968

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
Consideration deferred till Tuesday next.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Repair Services
    Mr. Blakerasked the Postmaster-General whether he will take steps to improve the telephone repair services available at weekends.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is considering an extension of the repair service on weekdays which should enable us to give a better service to faults reported up to 1.30 p.m. on Saturdays. An emergency service is available for the rest of the weekend.
    Mr. Blaker: Is not the situation rather pathetic when, in the normal course of events, people whose telephones go wrong just before the weekend have to wait until Monday to get them repaired? Would not the Bell Telephone Coy of North America be ashamed of that situation and put it right immediately?
    Mr. Slater: By reason of what my hon. Friend is endeavouring to do, there will
    406
    be few repairs carried over from Friday to Saturday, which will give us more time to repair the faults which happen on Saturday.

    Connection Charges
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the considerable telephone waiting lists and the long delays in some areas, he will allow prospective subscribers who were on these lists before 10th April, 1968, to have their telephones connected up at the old price of £10 and not the new price of £20.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Roy Mason): No, Sir. Connection charges have been increased, as recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, to reflect the cost of connecting new lines, and I cannot supply them below cost. The prices quoted by my hon. Friend are maxima; actual charges vary according to the amount of new work which has to be done.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly 3,000 people in the southern half of Bedfordshire are in this position? Would he accept that the Post Office is placing itself in the position of a shopkeeper who says about advertised goods, " I have not got them at the moment, but you can have them in six months' or a year's time, of course at double the price "?
    Mr. Mason: I am sorry that in my hon. Friend's constituency there is a delay, and this is regrettable. In view of the fact that the previous Administration never thought of the explosive demand that there would be for telephones, sufficient orders were not placed for telephone exchange equipment.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Are not the answers to these three questions yet another proof of a failure of the nationalised industries, which give worse service at increased cost?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite incorrect. He should have recognised that, when the Post Office was examined by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, it came out of the examination extremely well and was praised for its productivity and efficiency.

    Elderly Persons (Emergency Communications)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Postmaster-General how soon he expects to receive the results of the research which is being carried out on his behalf at the University of Essex into the communication needs of the elderly.
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the provision of an emergency bell service for old people living alone.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: A Research Fellowship was established at the University of Essex in January, 1968, for a period of two years. The research fellow will report in 1970, but I hope he will have some suggestions to make before then. In addition to this research, we are prepared to consider any practicable scheme in which the Post Office can properly help with this problem.
    Mr. Digby: Will the hon. Gentleman remember the great problems of old people living alone and their need for emergency communications? Will he bear in mind, too, that only the Post Office can help in this matter? Will he give any financial assistance necesssary for this fellowship to pursue the work?
    Mr. Slater: We are always giving consideration to the sort of object the hon. Gentleman has in mind. However, I would remind him that this falls not only on the Post Office. We seek to help, but it is also a matter for local authorities and other interested organisations. Some 40 local authorities and voluntary organisations already provide emergency services, and we readily give our consent to applications which are made.
    Sir S. McAdden: While not wishing to denigrate the necessity of doing something for the elderly in this matter, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that, in view of what happened recently at the University of Essex, there ought to be some investigation into the needs of youth?

    Telephone Directories
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Postmaster-General why the London telephone directory is to be split into 40 small directories; and whether he will place a map in the Library showing the areas each separate directory will cover.
    Mr. Huntasked the Postmaster-General on what grounds it has been decided to discontinue the issue of the four London telephone directories and to restrict each subscriber to a single local directory.
    Mr. Berryasked the Postmaster-General what consultations he had with professional and business people before deciding to split London telephone directories into separate district directories.
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider the decision only to issue to subscribers telephone directories covering their immediate neighbourhoods.
    Mr. Wallasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on his proposals for new editions of the London telephone directory.
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement on the proposed changes in the London telephone directory.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Postmaster-General what are his proposals for London telephone directories; and whether he will give an assurance that subscribers in the London telephone area will continue to receive directories for the area as a whole.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the inconvenience to subscribers and the cost of the additional use of the directory enquiries service, he will reconsider his decision to issue telephone directories only covering limited nearby areas.
    Mr. Mason: I have nothing further to add to my answer to Questions on 30th May.—[Vol. 765, c. 2123–5.]
    Mr. Tilney: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that in each directory there are maps to show the boroughs as well as the postal areas, and which boroughs are outside the area of the directory?
    Mr. Mason: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has received a briefing from officials of my Department and from myself about this. I am aware of his view and I assure him that his suggestion will be considered.
    Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact that the Mason master plan for London directories was revealed to the public only

    409
    by accident? Is this not a serious reflection on the public relations of the Post Office?
    Mr. Mason: Adamantly, no, Sir. In 1965 and again in 1966 the Post Office annual reports made reference to the change. The Press who regard themselves as news hounds failed to get on the right scent, except the Guardian which, in November 1966, published a feature article on the subject and in December of that year published facts about it in its miscellany column.
    Mr. Berry: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the inclusion of the 5,000 popular names and businesses in each book will not lead to confusion and jealousy between those who are in and those who are out? Will he take care in deciding who should be in or out?
    Mr. Mason: I agree that we will have to be careful, particularly on the commercial plane, to ensure that no jealousies develop.
    Mr. Worsley: Before finally making up his mind about this, will the right hon. Gentleman see that a careful study is made of other metropolitan areas, particularly New York, and about the thickness and type of paper to be used?
    Mr. Mason: There are five, not one, directories covering New York. Those directories contain abbreviated addresses and not the full postal addresses as is our practice. This enables them to have four columns per page instead of three. However, they have a similar problem to that facing us and the problem which confronts them will be greater in future.
    Mr. Wall: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the steps he has taken to repair the gaff made by his Department, may I ask him to make sure that in any similar circumstances in future the general public is consulted before such radical changes are made?
    Mr. Mason: Consulting the general public is a loose term which is easily used. We consulted the London Boroughs' Association, the G.L.C., the London Chamber of Commerce and the Post Office Users' Council. To discuss these matters with the general public before the general public has seen the alternative new borough directory would
    410
    be difficult. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that that type of consultation will take place when the new pilot directory is out.
    Mr. Fisher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the activities of businesses and others in our constituencies in Greater London are not confined to one narrow geographical area? Will he take that convenience more into account and rescind this lunatic scheme altogether?
    Mr. Mason: I have no intention of rescinding the scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] Business men in London recently received, for the first time, a London businesses' directory. This has been received with great acclaim. It was the first step in the gradual evolution of the plan.
    Mr. Driberg: When my right hon. Friend says that he has no intention of rescinding the scheme, does he recall that he said recently that no final decision had yet been taken and that there would be further consultation? Will he look at Question No. 49, which is not included in the series of questions being answered, about public telephone kiosks? How is he going to pack them all in?
    Mr. Mason: I meant by my reference to not rescinding the scheme that I would not halt it at the moment. We will have to go on and produce the pilot directory, first for the Borough of Hillingdon, and then see how the telephone user, the customer—especially the residential subscriber—reacts to it. We think that it will be welcomed once the change has been seen.
    To answer my hon. Friend's question about the kiosk problem—I would not be in order in going too far because it is not included in this series of Questions— kiosks will be provided with a directory of the surrounding area in each case— in addition, of course, to the 5,000 popular names allied with it—a West End and City directory and the London businesses' directory. Users of kiosks will, therefore, probably have all the directories that they require. In kiosks at hotels and railway termini, directories will also, of course, be provided and the full set will be available in them.
    Mr. Brooks: Has my right hon. Friend made a serious calculation of the extra

    411
    cost involved in supplying additional directories to those who apply for them? Will he clarify the position from the point of view of, for example, Merseyside, and would he agree that such a parochial approach should not be attempted there?
    Mr. Mason: If the scheme is successful in London, then we will have to consider schemes for the greater conurbations in the rest of the country; and I would have thought that this was a sensible step to take.
    Mr. Bryan: While appreciating the efforts of the Postmaster-General and his officials to explain the system to hon. Members last Tuesday, is he aware that many of us are sincerely still convinced that not enough use has been made of American experience in this matter?
    Mr. Mason: I would have hoped, from the presentations we have made in documents—including the presentations we made in Committee Rooms upstairs on two occasions—that hon. Members would have seen that my officials purposely had talks with the Americans and made contrasts between what we are doing here and the problems confronting the Americans. There is, however, the difference to which I referred; that our telephone users expect a full postal address system in directories.

    Alarm Calls (Increased Charges)
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General on what financial criteria he increased the charge for alarm calls from 6d. to 2s., which is an increase of 300 per cent,
    Mr. Mason: The charge is being increased to eliminate the current heavy loss on this service. Charges for most alarm calls have been unchanged for 12 years.
    Mr. Gilmour: Is not the increase of 300 per cent, absolutely staggering? Is the Postmaster-General aware that the Report by the Prices, and Incomes Board indicated that the additional yield from these charges will be negligible?
    Mr. Mason: The N.B.P.I. did not dissent from this proposal. We estimate that there are 13½ million calls a year and the extra Is. 6d., if the present number of people used the service, would bring in £937,000. There would
    412
    obviously be some loss of traffic and we are losing £600,000 at the moment, so probably this would just pay its way.

    Directory Inquiries
    Mr. Barnesasked the Postmaster-General what percentage reduction in directory inquiries he expects to achieve by the proposed restructure of the London telephone directory system.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the number of extra staff needed for directory inquiries when the London telephone directory is reorganised.
    Mr. Mason: Forty per cent, of directory inquiries in London are for numbers in the directories held by callers. A similar proportion is for a particular group of 5,000 numbers. The new structure should reduce both of these significantly and, by containing the growth in inquiries, minimise the additional staff otherwise required to meet the rapid expansion of the system.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the claim that directory inquiries will be reduced by this proposal is the hardest thing of all to believe? Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he has no intention whatever of imposing charges for simple directory inquiry calls where adequate information is given?
    Mr. Mason: On the latter point, yes, Sir. On the first point, I should inform my hon. Friend that there are 40 million directory inquiries in London every year and 16 million come from people who have the information already in their books, but the books are voluminous and thick and people are very hesitant to use them. On an analysis we have found that if we provided them with custom-made directories with this information they would use the books rather than directory inquiries.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the House of Commons figure in the 5,000 most popular numbers?
    Mr. Mason: The number 6240 will be easily recognised.

    Car Radio Phone Services
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for licensing private enterprise firms who

    413
    want to operate car radio phone services in Great: Britain.
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for extending the car radio phone services operated by the Post Office.
    Mr. Mason: I already license organisations to communicate with their own vehicles by radio. I also license some telephone answering bureaux to relay messages over their systems. We are extending the capacity of the public radiophone service. Work has recently been completed in South Lancashire; a new system in London will be ready next year.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: The car radio service from the G.P.O. is available only in London and Manchester. Could it not be supplemented by private enterprise firms?
    Mr. Mason: No, Sir, because it would not be long before there would be chaos on the air.
    Mr. Worsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the size of the waiting list for this service in London?
    Mr. Mason: In London 159 are waiting at the moment, but when the new system is provided next year this should be practically eliminated.

    Kiosks (Vandalism)
    Mr. Wallasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on vandalism in telephone kiosks.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Wilful damage is still a grave problem which can have serious social consequences. I am glad to say that over the last three years the number of incidents has fallen; the number of offenders caught has increased; the number of kiosks not fully usable has been reduced; and those out of use have been restored more quickly.
    Deterrent and preventive measures, including secret alarms, are still being introduced; and we are grateful for the ready co-operation we have had from the police. We shall continue to minimise the inconvenience to our customers.
    Mr. Wall: What is the approximate cost of repairing kiosks damaged through vandalism? Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that he has universal
    414
    support in combating this dangerous and thoughtless vandalism in telephone kiosks?
    Mr. Slater: I cannot answer about the cost, but the amount of money lost on telephone kiosks within a year is approximately £4½ million.
    Mr. Hooley: I welcome the statement that vandalism generally has declined, but is my hon. Friend aware that in Sheffield recently there has been a sustained campaign to put public kiosks out of action and that this caused a very grave social nuisance? Would it be possible to design a heavy calibre money container which might deter people from trying to burgle the containers?
    Mr. Slater: I have every sympathy with the position of the general public in Sheffield. The whole House has endeavoured to give my Department its support in our effort to safeguard the interests of the general public in this matter. We have taken certain action to try to offset vandalism in kiosks. I do not think that the House would expect me to reveal specific details. A variety of measures has been used, including the strengthening of the boxes and secret alarms.

    Tring
    Mr. Allasonasked the Postmaster-General what is the average estimated waiting time before a telephone can be provided to a subscriber on the Tring exchange; and what was the corresponding time in October, 1964.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The exchange is now fully loaded and new customers can be connected only to the extent that numbers are freed by people giving up service. I regret it will not be possible to connect most of those now waiting until a mobile relief exchange and additional cables are available in about a year's time. Records of the waiting periods in October, 1964, are no longer available. Since then 984 customers have been connected.
    Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with that performance, with people being asked to wait a year before they are connected? Why cannot he produce the mobile exchange much more quiukly?
    Mr. Slater: We would like to do many of these things, but the growth that we planned for has been exceeded. Manufacturers have doubled their output in about two years. We are still short of exchange equipment. We will endeavour to bring mobile equipment into use wherever we can. This is a big area to cover.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    National Advisory Council
    Mr. Danceasked the Postmaster-General what plans he has to set up a national advisory council representative of the radio and television industry, consumers, viewers, universities and possibly broadcasting personnel, with terms of reference wide enough for them to report on all matters affecting sound broadcasting and television.
    Mr. Mason: None, Sir.
    Mr. Dance: In view of the recent irresponsible attitude of the B.B.C. in inviting a German professional agitator to appear on television, does the Minister not agree with the wording of this Question, which repeats his own words in 1964?
    Mr. Mason: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has cleverly quoted verbatim from what I said in 1964. Since then, in 1966, a White Paper on broadcasting was issued, which took this into consideration, and is in line with the recommendations of the Pilkington Committee. As the hon. Gentleman knows, M.P.s have many opportunities to question the Postmaster-General himself.
    Mr. Bryan: Does the Postmaster-General's reply mean that he is satisfied with the effectiveness of the advisory committees to bring the weight of public opinion to bear on the broadcasting authorities?
    Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. Taking into consideration that there are now a national advisory council, four regional advisory councils and 26 functional advisory councils advising the B.B.C, that seems to be adequate.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the Minister aware that when he used these words in
    416
    1964 they were not his personal words? He said, " we ", speaking in his capacity as the shadow Minister for his party. Now that he holds office within the area that was covered by the shadow cabinet, ought he not to pay more attention to what he said then?
    Mr. Mason: We examined it in 1966 and we produced a Government statement on the matter.

    National Coverage and Licence Fees
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Postmaster-General (1) what estimate he has made of the amount of the combined radio and television licence fee required to give ubiquitous cover for radio and for television in colour in the United Kingdom, both for BBC1 and BBC2; and by what date this will be achieved;
    (2) when total television coverage in the United Kingdom will be available, respectively, for BBC1 and BBC2, with and without colour; and what effect these developments will have on prospective increases in licence fees.
    Mr. Mason: The coverages of the national sound radio services and BBC1 on 405 lines in VHF, have already virtually reached their present practical limit. BBC2 and the 625 line duplicate BBC1 in UHF (both with colour) are expected to reach 90 per cent, coverage by 1973, virtually full coverage will be reached around 1980. The estimated cost of the additional transmitters is about £60 million at present day prices, but the licence fees depend as well on other factors, such as the cost of colour programmes and the number of colour licences and I hesitate to forecast the position so far ahead.
    Sir G. Nabarro: In view of the fact that the Postmaster-General has given us for the first time precise figures of the planned progress of universal coverage for television, and in colour, cannot he work out precisely what the television licence needs will be during the commensurate period; that is to say, over the 12 years between 1968 and 1980? That should not be unduly difficult.
    Mr. Mason: No, but I do not think that it is necessary at the moment to undertake it. We have already a three-tier licence system, with £10 for colour,

    417
    monochrome and sound, £5 for monochrome and sound, and 25s. for sound on its own. I would have thought that that was all right.
    Mr. Bryan: How long will the right hon. Gentleman maintain this system of a dual licence scheme with £10 for colour and £5 for black and white?
    Mr. Mason: It is too early to take all the factors into consideration. In the main, colour will not be available generally until the beginning of 1970, so we have time to consider the question in depth.
    Captain Orr: Will the Postmaster-General publish a list or map showing the areas which will come within the 1973 and the 1980 dates, respectively, and would he be sure to include on that map the South Down area of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that suggestion. Certainly I will consider it.

    Radio Masts
    Mr. Onslowasked the Postmaster-General (1) how many sites for radio masts forming part of microwave communications systems have been established in areas of outstanding natural beauty; and how many applications for similar sites are now under consideration by his Department;
    (2) whether, in view of his insistence that the heights of radio masts in microwave communications systems should be determined on the assumption that the radio radius of the earth is 0·7 times its true radius, he will take steps to establish a single network of such masts to serve the foreseeable need of all users, so as to reduce the total number of masts required.
    Mr. Mason: Of the 96 Post Office microwave radio-relay stations in the United Kingdom 4 are in national parks and 5 in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Only one site of those at present under consideration is in an area of outstanding natural beauty. There are 174 stations in the private users microwave networks and 16 of these are in designated areas of natural beauty.
    It is unlikely in many cases that other users would require the same routes and
    418
    terminal points as the Post Office trunk routes, so a simple all-purpose network is impracticable. However, all users, including the Post Office, always consider the mutual sharing of masts, and many individual masts are shared in this way.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that he ought not to encourage the proliferation of these masts or make them any taller than necessary? Can he say on what research, and where it was published, his calculation of the necessary height is based, and will he bear in mind that, if there has to be a 7 per cent, increase in the height of a mast, it adds 21 per cent, to its cost, which may be as much as £70,000?
    Mr. Mason: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter, and I know that he has a problem about it in his constituency. However, in all fairness, I should say that the 7 per cent, increase in height to which he refers also means that there are fewer of these taller masts in the country.
    Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend undertake consultations with the Countryside and National Parks Commissions when considering the further siting of these masts?
    Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. I am certain that my hon. Friend is aware that every time any area of outstanding natural beauty is to receive a mast the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the various other interested bodies are consulted.

    Local Radio Stations
    Mr. Berryasked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied with the progress of the experiment of six local radio stations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Huntasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the current difficulties of local radio stations, he will now reconsider his refusal to allow the Greater London Council to introduce a commercial radio service for Londoners.
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a further statement on the progress in connection with the experiment on local sound broadcasting.
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider allowing the use of medium wavebands for local radio; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mason: Six stations are already broadcasting. The Leeds station will open on 24th June and the Durham station on 3rd July. I think we should give the stations a fair chance to show what they can do and not prejudge the experiment or extend it to include commercial radio stations. Moreover, successive Governments have taken the view that the conduct of, and responsibility for, broadcasting services should be vested in public corporations operating at the national level. The use of medium wavelengths for a general service of local radio is impracticable. Only a few stations able to operate after nightfall—when interference is much worse—as well as by day, could be accommodated on the wavelengths available to the United Kingdom under international agreement. The use of VHF is not limited in this way.
    Mr. Berry: As regards the six existing stations, can the Postmaster-General say how much of the charges for them fall on the local ratepayers concerned and tell the House how many ratepayers listen to the stations?
    Mr. Mason: Without notice, I cannot give those specific details. But it is a little too early to pressure either the B.B.C. or the local authorities from whence these stations are broadcasting. I think that we ought to give them time to see how they grow and how best they are financed.
    Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact that the G.L.C. is satisfied that commercial radio is workable in London and would produce a substantial income which could be used to provide concert halls and other amenities? Is not the Government's obvious objection to this project sadly reminiscent of the Labour Party's attitude to commercial television?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Of course, the G.L.C. would like to go on to 202 metres. If that was agreed upon, at the moment we could only have 10 stations in the United Kingdom. On our present policy, if we wished to expand, we could have at least 100.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some advocates of commercial radio have claimed that the medium wave could be used extensively for it? Will he ensure that his statement to the effect that that is not the case is given widest publicity in order to put down the misleading statements which have been made about it?
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is not possible to change the wave-length and go over to what they demand, which is 202 metres. As I have said, if that were done only 10 would be able to operate.
    Mr. Cant: Speaking as an hon. Member for one of the cities privileged to have local radio, might I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that we have introduced a highly efficient technical product without a marketing budget? Would he make funds available locally to advertise the services in local newspapers so that we can have an effective take-off?
    Mr. Mason: That would have to be considered at the appropriate time. I think that we have to operate them for 12 months and then look at them in retrospect.
    Mr. Bryan: How much has the B.B.C. so far had to pay out of licensing income towards the running of these stations?
    Mr. Mason: The average payment for each station is £35,000 from the B.B.C. In some of the areas concerned, there may be a shortfall at the moment, but I could not say what the B.B.C. has had to do in total to keep stations going because local revenue has not been forthcoming.
    Mr. Moyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the G.L.C. scheme is approved it will take away advertising from the local Press and thus reduce the number of democratic channels of communication open to Londoners?
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend can rest assured that Government policy is not to allow local commercial radio stations.
    Sir E. Bullus: Is it not already apparent that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor gave the B.B.C. an almost impossible task? Was it not always obvious

    421
    that the money would not be forthcoming? Would the right hon. Gentleman be more forthcoming on this?
    Mr. Mason: I do not agree. In some instances the revenue is forthcoming locally and, after we have had time to assess them fully, it may be that two or three of them will be able to raise sufficient: finance and make local broadcasting a. viable proposition for the future.
    Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposals of the G.L.C. are viewed with great apprehension by the National Union of Journalists and the proprietors of weekly newspapers in the Greater London Area? Is he acquainted with the view that these proposals would result in a reduction in the number of weekly newspapers in the area? What reply, if any, has he sent to any representations which he may have received on this subject?
    Mr. Mason: I am aware of the feelings of the provincial newspapers, and it is fully realised that if local commercial radio began on any scale at all it would knock the provincial newspapers sideways.

    Manchester (B.B.C. Circuits)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Postmaster General whether he is satisfied that there are sufficient lines for the British Broadcasting Corporation Television in Manchester to take the programmes and interviews required from London; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The B.B.C. decides how many lines it wants for television programmes and interviews at Manchester and elsewhere. We have provided all the lines asked for by the B.B.C. for Manchester.
    Mr. Tilney: How do these facilities compare with those provided by Independent Television? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at least one northern hon. Member was recently asked twice to comment on matters of considerable importance to the North and on each occasion no lines were available? Is this a case of further discrimination against the north?
    Mr. Slater: The Question is not concerned with I.T.V., but I will consider
    422
    what the hon. Gentleman has said and write to him.
    To answer his general query, even at present 18 circuits can be used from Broadcasting House to the Post Office Tower. Two circuits connect the Tower to the Manchester terminal and there are seven circuits from the Manchester P.O. terminal to the B.B.C. Manchester studios. In the reverse direction, 12 circuits connect the Manchester studios to the Manchester P.O. control, there is one video circuit from there to the London P.O. Tower and then 16 circuits from the Tower to Broadcasting House.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Manchester are not so much concerned with the lines from London to Manchester to bring programmes as with the availability of lines from Manchester to London? Will he do what he can to expedite the building of the new Manchester studios to replace the present wholly inadequate ones?
    Mr. Slater: I have already made it clear that if an additional circuit is required for occasional use the Post Office will arrange for this to be provided on receipt of an order from the B.B.C. on an outside broadcast basis.

    Fourth Television Programme and University of the Air
    Mr. Joplingasked the Postmaster-General whether he has arrived at a decision as to when a fourth television programme will start to operate, and on how such a programme would be financed and administered.
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General what arrangements he has made for allocating a television channel for the purpose of providing a University of the Air.
    Mr. Mason: I have nothing to add to paragraphs 16 to 20 of the White Paper on Broadcasting of December 1966.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Postmaster-General not aware that—quite apart from the proposal for the University of the Air, which is to be welcomed—there is still a great need for a fourth television channel? Will he make a statement this afternoon that he understands the need for this and will do something about it as soon as possible?
    Mr. Mason: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member. I cannot do that this afternoon. The 1966 White Paper said that there would be no allocation of extra frequencies at least for the next three years. A fourth T.V. channel at this time would not be on our high priority list.
    Mr. Gilmour: Since the project was talked about since 1963, is it not time that the Postmaster-General had something definite to say about it?
    Mr. Mason: It was talked about in 1963, probably with the encouragement of the then Government, but it was not encouraged by us. The University of the Air is being encouraged and I hope the service will start by the autumn of 1970 or January, 1971.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will the Postmaster-General confirm that our national economic needs are not for more amusement on T.V., but for a greater willingness to work, and that people should be encouraged to work, not to watch T.V. night and day?
    Mr. Mason: To say work more intelligently would be more appropriate.

    Radio Frequencies (Allocation)
    Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster-General if he will set up a committee representative of all appropriate interests to review the present system by which radio frequencies are allocated.
    Mr. Mason: My Frequency Advisory Committee and Mobile Radio Committee, which advise me on frequency questions, are widely representative and already provide a forum in which possible changes in procedure could be considered.
    Mr. Bryan: Since the General Post Office and Defence and other Government Departments are among the main users of frequencies, would it not be wiser, and certainly fairer, if allocation of frequencies were put into some independent hands, as is done in the United States of America?
    Mr. Mason: I do not see the reason for that suggestion. The hon. Member's Administration set up two Committees —one in 1954, the Mobile Radio Committee, and one in 1958, the Frequency Advisory Committee—to advise the
    424
    Postmaster-General of the day on what should be done, but no one has expressed concern so far.

  POST OFFICE

    Giro Service
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Giro service.
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Postmaster-General when he now expects the Post Office Giro to become fully operative; how many post offices will be able to offer Giro services; and how many transactions daily he expects to handle.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The arrangements for setting up the national Giro service continue to make progress and I expect the service to begin in the autumn of this year, as planned. All but the very smallest post offices will handle the full range of Giro business which I estimate will produce about a million transactions a day within a year after opening.
    Mr. Mawby: Is the hon. Gentleman still satisfied that he will be able to run this service without making a charge to the customer?
    Mr. Slater: Yes, Sir.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will employers be encouraged to use the Giro for payment of wages? Will it be possible to use the Giro for Income Tax purposes?
    Mr. Slater: Yes, Sir.

    Costing System
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Postmaster-General when the Post Office will be operating a new costing system, in view of the recent Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on Post Office charges.
    Mr. Mason: I am setting up a team of experts to study long run marginal costs as recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and I hope their findings will be available before any further major revision of Post Office tariffs is necessary. The results will complement but not displace the present system.

    Personal Paging Service
    Mr. Joplingasked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for licensing private firms who want to operate a personal paging service in Great Britain.
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Postmaster-General what plans the Post Office has for introducing a personal paging service.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: My right hon. Friend already licenses organisations such as hospitals and businesses to page their employees within their own premises, and these arrangements will continue. We have undertaken market research into the demand for a paging service to be operated by the Post Office and are now evaluating the results.
    Mr. Jopling: Would not the Assistant Postmaster-General agree that a service of this sort would be of the greatest possible use to many people, such as doctors and salesmen and those involved in emergency services? Has not the Post Office enough to do at the moment without trying to do this job as well?
    Mr. Slater: Whenever we can assist the sections of the community to which the hon. Member has referred, we endeavour to do so. We shall give every consideration to such applications.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware when I was in Holland about 14 days ago I saw that ordinary people could hire a pocket radio set by which they could be warned by a signal or a musical note when they were expecting an emergency call? This could be be very useful for the general public from time to time. Why should we not have the same advantages as Holland has?
    Mr. Slater: I thought the hon. Member would have referred to America. Then I would have been able to give him an answer about what is happening in America and the type of machine they have there. Probably a simple public service could be introduced in parts of the country in two or three years, but if there were a demand for a general service with distinguishable signals it would take longer, perhaps five years, and the question of the use of national resources for this purpose would have to be considered.
    Mr. English: Above all, when is it proposed to introduce a personal paging service in this House so that we could know when visitors arrived and when there were telephone calls for us instead of being told half an hour later by a man who has to walk around the building?
    Mr. Slater: My hon. Friend should address that question to another Department.

    Post Office Users' Council
    Mr. Winnickasked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to increase the number of representatives of the general public on the Post Office Users' Council.
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Postmaster-General what are the terms of reference of the Post Office Users' Council; by whom it is appointed; and where its offices are.
    Mr. Mason: To represent at national level the interests of the users of Post Office services; to ensure the existence of adequate consultative arrangements at local level; to receive proposals from the Postmaster General; and to make recommendations to him about the services.
    Twenty-nine of the thirty-three members are nominated for appointment by the organisations named in the Council's constitution: four are appointed by me. All the members of the Council serve in a personal, and not a delegate, capacity. They represent a wide range of consumer interests and are free to speak for the general public. At present the Council's offices are at G.P.O. Headquarters.
    Mr. Winnick: I think that that Answer related mainly to the other Question. Will my right hon. Friend take steps to make the Council rather more broadly representative of the general public? Is not the person who acts as secretary to the Council, and who does a very good job, a full-time employee of the Post Office?
    Mr. Mason: First, very wide consumer interests are now represented on the Council. Secondly, the Council is independent. We established it. I appoint the Chairman. There is a Council meeting today. I have offered the Council independent premises and an independent staff and secretariat.
    Mr. Bryan: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that when the Post Office becomes a public corporation the scrutiny of this Council will be a sufficient substitute for the scrutiny of Parliament to guard the public interest?
    Mr. Mason: At least it will play a part. It will be recognised by Statute when the Corporation Bill is issued.

    Telex Subscribers
    Mr. Brian Parkynasked the Postmaster-General what was the number of Telex subscribers during each of the last five years.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: I am circulating the full figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The numbers have almost doubled in the five years.
    Mr. Parkyn: In view of the tremendous increase in efficiency and the saving in time and money which could be achieved if the out-of-date business of writing letters was completely replaced by Telex, does not my hon. Friend think that an increase of 100 per cent, in five years is derisory and should be reconsidered?
    Mr. Slater: We are always looking at this type of service and doing everything we can to extend it. We shall continue to do this.
    Following are the figures:
    At the 31st March each year there were:

    12,386 in 1964

    14,636 in 1965

    17,204 in 1966

    19,501 in 1967

    22,269 in 1968

    Postal Services (Stamford)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Postmaster-General whether he will take steps to improve the postal services in Stamford following the reorganisation of this office.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: We shall continue to do all we can to give a good postal service in Stamford, but if the hon. Gentleman has any particular problem in mind, and he will let me have details, I shall be pleased to look into the matter.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have been letting him have
    428
    the details for some months and that I am receiving continuous complaints from my constituents that, since the reorganisation of the Post Office, there has been a reduction in the standard of service following the downgrading of the post office at Stamford and the take-over by Peterborough? The service is getting worse and worse. Will the hon. Gentleman improve it?
    Mr. Slater: I am surprised to hear those observations about the transfer to Peterborough. The change was made for administrative reasons and it did not affect the postal services. The Head Postmaster at Peterborough is just as concerned about Stamford as he is about Peterborough.

  UNITED KINGDOM AND AMERICA (ECONOMIC DISCUSSIONS)
  Ql. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he intends to visit President Johnson to discuss economic matters relating to Great Britain and the United States of America.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have no present plans for a meeting with President Johnson, Sir.
  Mr. Winnick: Are the British Government in contact with the American President over the present negotiations which are apparently going on for an international loan? Are we also discussing with the American President the future position of the sterling balances?
  The Prime Minister: As I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in close touch with his opposite numbers in the United States and in the European countries principally involved.
  Mr. Heath: Can the Prime Minister clarify two points? First, was the recent drawing on the I.M.F. of 1,400 million dollars to replace existing short-term indebtedness to the central banks, and did it completely replace it? Secondly, are the further discussions which are going on in Basle arrangements to replace other existing short-term indebtedness or to be an addition to the short-term indebtedness to cover the withdrawals of the sterling balances where they are being diversified?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that I should say too much about the Basle discussions while they are still going on, although the right hon. Gentleman will have seen a number of Press stories emanating from Basle linking the discussions with the general future of sterling balances—something which I think has been often raised from all parts of the House in our financial discussions. On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the drawing from the International Monetary Fund has been used for the purpose to which he referred, namely, for reconstitution loan arrangements of that kind.
  Mr. Heath: Did it completely replace that central bank borrowing, or is there still some outstanding? Secondly, cannot the Prime Minister tell the purpose of the discussions in Basle? I am not asking for the figures, but is the purpose to cover further withdrawals of the sterling balances or to replace existing debt?
  The Prime Minister: On the first question, it is not the practice ever to disclose the extent of short-term swap arrangements, and it has not been so under successive Governments. So perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will leave that question with me. I will see if anything further can be said by the Chancellor or myself, but off the cuff I think that it would be contrary to previous practice.
  With regard to the Basle discussions, as I have said—I thought it better to refer to the not all that inaccurate newspaper reports—their purpose relates to the question of sterling balances over a relatively long period ahead. They are not related to the question of short-term borrowing in relation to our balance of payments problems at any given time. They are related principally to the sterling area.

  QUEEN'S AWARD TO INDUSTRY (SERVICE INDUSTRIES)
  Captain Orrasked the Prime Minister which service industries paying the full amount of selective employment tax without rebate are eligible for the Queen's Award to Industry.
  The Prime Minister: Generally speaking, service industries are not eligible
  430
  for the Queen's Award to Industry. But the criteria applied in assessing eligibility are not precisely the same as those which govern Selective Employment Tax rebates and some establishments have, in fact, received the Award while paying Selective Employment Tax in full.
  Captain Orr: Surely this is very strange. Was not the Selective Employment Tax designed to move labour towards productive industry from service industries? Is the Prime Minister aware that I know of one company making films which has received the Queen's Award to Industry but which pays Selective Employment Tax? Does not that make a nonsense either of the Queen's Award to Industry or of the Selective Employment Tax?
  The Prime Minister: The conditions for the Queen's Award were settled, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know, a year or two ago by a Committee representative of industry and presided over by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. Those conditions will fall to be reviewed against the whole background of the operation of the scheme when it has been going for five years. One of the three companies which in fact is not exempt from S.E.T. but which has received the Award is the one mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I would not have thought that the Selective Employment Tax there has made any difference either to the profitability of the company or to its ability to earn the Award.
  Dr. Dunwoody: In view of the considerable technological advances and the amount of foreign currency earned by the industry, would my right hon. Friend consider making the ship-repair industry eligible for the Award?
  The Prime Minister: As I said, it was agreed with industry at the beginning of the scheme, which has now been running for more than two years, that the whole question of eligibility and coverage should be reviewed at the end of five years' working. No doubt that would provide an appropriate time for considering my hon. Friend's question.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning the latest situation in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Sandysasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to explore further with Mr. Ian Smith the possibility of a negotiated settlement.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the Answers I gave to Questions on 11th June.—[Vol. 766, c. 25–29.]
  Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will resist those pressures and suggestions which ostensibly seek to find a solution to the Rhodesian problem but in point of fact would mean giving in to the illegal regime? Will he assure the House that he will give the same support to the majority of the Rhodesians as we are giving to the Gibraltarians?
  The Prime Minister: We have always made clear our position with regard to the acceptability of any settlement to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. That was first laid down by the previous Government, and we stand by it. We have also made clear that any settlement which is in full accord with the six principles which the House has accepted would be a basis on which we should go forward, but in view of all that has happened we should certainly need something more than just a signature on a paper to ensure that such a settlement would be honoured.
  Mr. Sandys: In previous answers the Prime Minister stated the conditions which would have to be satisfied before he would be prepared to resume negotiations. May we assume that in his opinion those conditions are not at present satisfied and that he has no immediate plans to resume talks, even of an exploratory nature, with Mr. Smith? Could we be clear on that point?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid that that is true. The position is that although Mr. Smith changes his ground very considerably from time to time depending on—
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  The Prime Minister: That is something we have not done on this side of the House.
  Mr. Faulds: Hon. Members opposite are a shifty lot.
  The Prime Minister: We have stayed completely faithful to the six principles.
  432
  It is right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have ratted on what they said when they were the Government.
  Mr. Woodburn: In view of the number of people who advise opening negotiations with Mr. Smith, have any right hon. and hon. Members opposite produced reliable evidence that Mr. Smith and his Government are willing to consider a reliable settlement?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, because the position is that Mr. Smith at various times has insisted to me and others on a braking mechanism which the whole House must conclude is incompatible with the principle which requires unimpeded progress to majority rule. He went much further in a recent public statement to a distinguished British journalist—the whole thing was on the record. Mr. Smith repudiated any idea of ultimate majority rule in that statement. When the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) saw Mr. Smith he brought back certain ideas which I know he felt attractive, and these could have been pursued, but they have been repudiated since—
  Mr. Heath
  The Prime Minister: They were repudiated in the interview to which I referred. Of course they were. What the proposals did not do—and this was a matter on which further eludication would have been necessary—was to provide any evidence that there would be the necessary blocking minority. There was no blocking minority in the proposals. That was why they should not of themselves be accepted, but we said that if there is a change of heart there we are prepared to follow it up.
  Mr. Heath: With reference to the Prime Minister's last reply, I ask him to recognise that we do not accept that the proposals brought back by my right hon. Friend have been repudiated by a newspaper interview. But that is not the point on which I wish to question the right hon. Gentleman [Interruption.] We shall have an opportunity of debating this.
  What I want to ask the Prime Minister is when the Government will be setting up their review machinery for passports, particularly in view of the proposals in the Order. As the Government have

  433
  refused to allow the Ombudsman to look into the existing case, will the Prime Minister recognise that the review procedure must be under an independent tribunal and that a Departmental Committee will not be satisfactory to the House? It must be a tribunal completely independent of the Government.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may or may not accept what was the position in relation to his right hon. Friend's proposals, but we have all read the interview in the Sunday Telegraph and I do not think that he can produce any evidence to the House that there was a blocking mechanism as is required for the fulfilment of the second principle. I do not think that he can produce any evidence to suggest that. As the right hon. Gentleman says, the House will be debating Rhodesia in the very near future.
  My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary intends to take the first opportunity after his return from the Commonwealth Conference at Kuala Lumpur to make a statement about the passport review procedure. Without anticipating that, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that it is genuinely independent.

  VIETNAM
  Mr. Roseasked the Prime Minister what further action he proposes to take with the co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference to bring an end to the war in Vietnam.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answers I gave to Questions on 7th and 28th May, Sir.— [Vol. 764, c. 206–8; Vol. 765, c. 1530–1.]
  Mr. Rose: Will my right hon. Friend keep in the closest possible contact with the negotiating parties in Paris and stand ready to respond to any initiative that may present itself with regard to reconvening the Geneva Conference? Is he aware that while peace negotiations are going on there are more casualties than ever in Vietnam and that the bombing has continued unabated in volume if not in scope and extent?
  The Prime Minister: The bombing has been conducted within the new policy
  434
  announced by President Johnson in March, but it is certainly true that the casualties have continued and there have been some horrible civilian casualties in South Vietnam as a result of the intensification of the fighting.
  With regard to the position of the co-Chairman, we have always agreed that we stand ready, if the parties request us to do so, either to reconstitute the Geneva Conference or in any other way to take an initiative which would enable substantive discussions to take place. It might not necessarily be the old Geneva Conference. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs discussed these matters with Mr. Gromyko on his recent visit to the Soviet Union.

  INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS
  Mr. Roseasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of International and European Human Rights Conventions.
  The Prime Minister: Our policy is to become party to as many of these instruments as we can, provided that in each case we are satisfied that participation will further the cause of human rights and that we shall be in a position to carry out the obligations which we should assume. We are, of course, already a party to many international human rights instruments, including the European Human Rights Convention. Our participation in other instruments is under active consideration.
  Mr. Rose: But is my right hon. Friend aware that it is quite impossible for this country to sign these conventions in their entirety because of the current situation in Northern Ireland? In view of this, is not it hypocrisy for the Government quite rightly to impose sanctions because of the violation of human rights in Rhodesia and not to deal with this situation in our own backyard?
  The Prime Minister: In the present state of the world and speed of travel, I do not think that one can make a distinction between backyards and areas further afield for which we have a direct responsibility in the House and internationally.

  435
  As regards Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend will be aware that after the European Human Rights Convention was signed by this country in 1950 a notice of derogation from certain obligations of the Convention was lodged in 1957 in respect of the Special Powers Acts. I dealt with this in answer to a recent supplementary question, when I said that this is a matter we shall need to discuss very carefully with the Northern Ireland Government. I know the concern throughout the House about this, but the House will realise that under the European Convention—[Interruption.]—One wants to be fair to Northern Ireland in this matter, even if the hon. Gentleman does not. Under the Convention, a report on Northern Ireland must be furnished each year to Strasbourg.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SPEECH)
  Mr. Speedasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for the Home Department at Blackpool on 28th May on incomes policy represents Government policy.
  Mr. Hordernasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 28th May at Blackpool on incomes policy represents Government policy.
  Sir F. Bennettasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department on income restraint, on 28th May at Blackpool, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the Answer I gave on 11th June to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).—[Vol. 766, c. 27–28.]
  Mr. Speed: Was the Home Secretary speaking in his capacity as Treasurer of the Labour Party or as a senior member of the Government?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did not make such a distinction. He was speaking as himself, having both responsibilities, and addressing a distinguished trade union.
  Mr. Hordern: The Home Secretary said that when the present legislation ran out there would need to be a voluntary policy. Does the Prime Minister agree with that or not?
  The Prime Minister: I have made the position perfectly plain. It is in my speech to which I have just referred and I am prepared to read out the relevant passages if the House so wishes. The position is that we hope that it will be possible, for the three reasons stated in my speech, that it will not be necessary to ask Parliament for a renewal of the powers we are seeking in the current Bill. But, as we have also said, no responsible Government could give an absolute assurance that these powers would not be required. We have, however, given the assurance that any renewal of such powers would not be done under the expiring laws continuance procedure.
  Sir F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he accepts the word "expect", used by the Home Secretary, or the word "hope", which he has used? Even the Prime Minister, with his devious mind, cannot match both.
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is interpreting my right hon. Friend's speech as saying that in no circumstances could there be further legislation, I have explained that such interpretation is incorrect.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many, if not all of us, hope to get back sooner or later to a voluntary policy? Some of us who rather reluctantly supported the incomes policy a few weeks ago would be rather less willing to support it 18 months hence.
  The Prime Minister: I recognise the reluctance with which many hon. Members felt it right and necessary to vote for the Second Reading of the Prices and Incomes Bill, but I remind my hon. Friend that, in the speech to which I have referred, I said that, given the achievement of the required surplus in the balance of payments and all that means, success in the development of the T.U.C.'s voluntary policy, which is of first importance, and also success in the productivity drive launched through her new Department by my right hon. Friend

  437
  the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, we hope that it will not be necessary to have further legislation.
  Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult to discover any Cabinet Ministers who have ever believed in the Prices and Incomes Bill? Is it not time for a categorical assurance, following the Home Secretary's statement, that, even if the Government continue this unfortunate Bill for the next year, the legislation will not be continued in any circumstances beyond that period?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has on many occasions gone on record in favour of a positive prices and incomes policy. All members of the Government support this very necessary though repugnant legislation because, in present circumstances, it is needed as an essential supplement to the so far embryonic voluntary policy of the T.U.C.
  Mr. Heath: The Home Secretary said that when the powers ran out there would need to be a voluntary incomes policy. He gave an undertaking that there would be no compulsory powers. The Prime Minister said in his own speech to other trade unionists that it would be misleading and irresponsible to give such an undertaking. Why does he keep the Home Secretary in the Government?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  The Prime Minister: I shall answer that question, but I shall want one day to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to state where all his own Front Bench members stand on this issue. His regular and well-known trends to the Right under pressure from the Right and from every Powellite doctrine show that he has not the guts to resist.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expressed the hope, as I did, that it would not be necessary. As I have already pointed out, if hon. Members interpret my right hon. Friend's reference to a voluntary policy, and that alone, without statutory powers, as meaning that there can be no question of further
  438
  legislation, that is not the policy of the Government.
  Mr. Roebuck: Since a week is a long time in politics, is not the important aspect of this matter the fact that the Home Secretary supports the present policy? Would not those who do not wish to see further legislation of this sort do better if they worked hard to make the present policy successful so that we could break out of the dreadful economic troubles which have dogged us for so many years?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in terms that he fully supported the legislation. He was talking about what might happen in 18 months' time. The important thing now, particularly with the new drive being given to productivity agreements, is to strengthen the T.U.C.'s voluntary policy and the productivity link with wages.
  As my hon. Friend says, we need to improve substantially the economic situation, remembering that the previous Government never succeeded in getting an incomes policy at all and that only this week the Bank for International Settlements has placed the responsibility for the economic situation unequivocally on the years before 1964.

MR. COHN-BENDIT (ENTRY INTO UNITED KINGDOM)
Mr. William Deedes(by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds Mr. Cohn-Bendit has been given a 14-day extension of his permitted stay in this country.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Mr. Cohn-Bendit arrived at London Airport on 11th June at the invitation of the B.B.C. He said that his purpose was to take part in a programme to be recorded on the following day, and he accepted that a stay of 24 hours would be sufficient for this purpose.
Last night, his legal representative applied for permission for him to stay on for 14 days to visit student friends and a relative.
Naturally, I looked at this with some care, but in all the circumstances I did

439
not think it necessary to refuse the application.
Mr. Deedes: While there may be two views about the value of admitting this student, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the handling of this matter by the Home Office has really contrived to make it look ineffably silly and that to appear to have been pushed, between Tuesday and Wednesday, from 24 hours to 14 days, in a panic, is a travesty of what the Home Office ought to be, which is an example to all our other institutions at this very difficult time?
Mr. Callaghan: I am aware that when the right hon. Gentleman is not sure on which side to come down he attacks the procedure by which the application has been handled. He might tell us— perhaps I should not ask him, but it would be interesting to know—whether he thinks it was right to admit the man or not.
Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend continue resolutely to resist the blandishments of the Opposition—the sirens were a load of old women too—when they counsel illiberalities alien to the Bitish way of life?
Mr. Callaghan: This country has a tradition of allowing people of all kinds to express their political opinions provided that they do not break the law, and that tradition is worth preserving. I would add my hope that no one will exaggerate the extent of this young man's importance.
Sir D. Renton: Is the Home Secretary aware that foreigners are admitted to this country as a privilege, not as of right? If this young man abuses that privilege by stirring up trouble here, as he has done elsewhere, will his stay be brought to an end at once?
Mr. Callaghan: His legal representative informed the Home Office that this gentleman does not intend to cause trouble whilst he is here—[Interruption.] We shall see. However, I do not propose to judge the issue until trouble arises.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Home Secretary agree, as his action indicates, that the proper way to uphold the principle of free speech, in which we in this
440
country believe, is to enable people to exercise it? Does he also agree that many newspapers, like The Times, spend quite a lot of money properly reporting to the people of this country the views of prominent students in Europe? Does he not think that the B.B.C. deserves every congratulation for its initiative in upholding the best traditions of this country?
Mr. Callaghan: I have no doubt that the soil of this country is less fertile for agitators and that the people of this country are more able to make up their minds about the value of opinions expressed than in a great many other places. I have enough to answer for myself. I do not want to offer any encomium or apologies for the B.B.C.
Mr. van Straubenzee: What weight did the Home Secretary give to the effect that his decision would have upon the vast majority of students in this country who want to pursue their studies seriously and who are dismayed at the admission of a man of this kind?
Mr. Callaghan: I have no evidence that anybody is dismayed, except a small handful of Conservative backbenchers. If hon. Gentlemen do not believe that, they had better read the editorial in the Daily Telegraph this morning which set out views much more liberally than some that are being expressed today. Of course, we should take into account people's views about this matter, but we should also remember that this country has a tradition for admitting foreigners to express their views, provided that they keep within the law. So far, this young man has not broken the law.
Mr. Heath: Is not the Home Secretary doing less than justice to himself in refusing to recognise that this is a matter which causes grave concern to a large number of people in this country? The reason is because of their desire to see free speech preserved and the rights of others to come to this country to exercise it, at the same time knowing the activities in which these students have been engaged in their own universities and the incitement to violence which some of them deliberately make as part of their political philosophy.
While recognising the Home Secretary's determination to see that free speech is

441
exercised, what the country wants to know is that, if in any way this is abused, he will immediately take firm action. That is; the assurance that we want from the Home Secretary.
Mr. Callaghan: I have indicated that the Home Office has been given an assurance by the legal representative of Mr. Cohn-Bendit that he does not intend to cause trouble—[AN HON. MEMBER: "What does that mean?"]—by which I understand he means that there will not be any breach of the peace. In those circumstances, I would not think it right to deprive this man of his right to express his views here. It is for people to make up their minds whether they find them acceptable or not. If he breaks the law he will be in breach of the Aliens' Order and will be subject to prosecution. That is where I stand on the matter.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Speaking as one who is concerned for the future of Britain's application to join the Common Market, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that any restriction on the free movement of our fellow West Europeans will not hurt our prospects as a prospective signatory to the Treaty of Rome?
Mr. Callaghan: I think that my hon. Friend has adopted a most ingenious method of advancing his anti-Common Market attitude. I well understand that it will be more difficult for us to refuse admission in future if we join the Common Market than if we stay out.
Mr. Sharpies: Can the Home Secretary say why, if it was right to restrict this young man's entry to 24 hours in the first place, the decision was later made to extend it to 14 days? Does he not appreciate that the impression given two hours before he was due to depart appeared to be giving way to threats, and that indecision of the Home Office is the worst possible thing?
Mr. Callaghan: No. I think that that is a partisan way of putting it. He agreed to a stay of 24 hours because that was the time taken to record the relevant programme. Then his legal representative came along with a further application, which was granted. I thought that it would be useful for him to do some of the things he wanted to do. I even thought of teaching him the words of
442
the Internationale, as he does not seem to be too sure of them. When he expressed a desire to see Buckingham Palace I could think of nothing better for his education.
Mr. Whitaker: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Tories are making complete clowns of themselves by thinking that Great Britain will be threatened by this young man? Is he also aware that most people believe in living in Britain because we have a tradition of allowing minority dissenting viewpoints to be heard, unlike in the Soviet Union or at a Tory Party conference? In view of our tradition for giving this hospitality to de Gaulle, Napoleon and Garibaldi in the past, will the Home Secretary resist the Stalinist blandishments of the Opposition?
Mr. Callaghan: I have no intention of departing from the traditional view that we admit foreigners and that they are free to express their views, provided they keep within the law whilst they are here. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition supports that view.
Mr. Maudling Mr. Maudling rose—
Hon. Members Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are talking about free speech. I want to hear what is said.
Mr. Maudling: The Home Secretary has made it clear that if this gentleman should act against the law he will take firm action. What will he do if, short of breaking the law, he should depart from the conditions put forward by his lawyer upon which he was admitted?
Mr. Callaghan: I should consider the circumstances and nature of the breach of the obligation.
Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend resist falling into the trap of the Opposition which, when it suits their purposes, call students who protest in Eastern counties freedom fighters and, when they protest in other circumstances, say that they are nuisances? Will my right hon. Friend maintain the tradition of this country and allow people to come here and, if they wish to protest, to be allowed to do so, on the understanding that they might also learn something?
Mr. Callaghan: I was hoping that by sticking to the traditional principle I was avoiding the danger of falling into a great many traps. I advise some hon. Members of the Opposition to do the same.
Sir C. Taylor: Did the right hon. Gentleman receive any representations from the French Government and was a dossier on this particular man sent by the French Government? If the Home Secretary received representations, what were they?
Mr. Callaghan: I have had no representations and no dossier. He arrived with a German passport, which he presented. If I do get any representations I will, of course, consider them.
Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I was the same age as this young man I held precisely the same views and engaged, with rather less success, in the same form of activities? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that I began to simmer down and grow up—
Mr. Speaker: We must have a question and not an autobiography.
Mr. Fletcher: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that further contact with a democratic Labour movement such as we have in Britain will have the same salutary effect on Mr. Cohn-Bendit as it had on me?
Mr. Callaghan: For many years I have watched over the flowering of my hon. Friend's genius, and perhaps if Mr. Cohn-Bendit stays here for as long as my hon. Friend has he will attain the same level of eminence.
Mr. Frederic Harris: How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly stand by the policy decision in this case, when only a short while ago his Government were responsible for withdrawing the passport of Sir Frederick Crawford?
Mr. Callaghan: That is another question. Sir Frederick Crawford was not denied admission to this country, and, as far as I know, while he was here he freely expressed his opinions, whether they were agreeable or not.
Mr. Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend explain why, although Mr. Cohn-Bendit has been present for more than
444
24 hours, as yet we have had no revolution? Is this due to the sunny climate?
Mr. Callaghan: No. Sir. I have no doubt that people in this country will set their own valuation on any sentiments expressed by Mr. Cohn-Bendit—or by anybody else who comes to these shores —whatever he may preach.
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: At a time when our great ally the French people are fighting for their very existence against Communist revolution, is it not typical of the bad taste of the B.B.C. that it should bring over to this country and offer payment and publicity to one of the archenemies of free speech and law and order?
Mr. Callaghan: That question should be addressed to the Postmaster-General.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 17TH JUNE—Motions relating to the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order, to the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order and to the Sunday Cinematograph Entertainments (Borough of Middleton) Order.
TUESDAY, 18TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Medicines Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 19TH JUNE, and THURSDAY, 20TH JUNE—Consideration on Recommittal of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY, 21ST JUNE—Motions relating to the Iron and Steel (Restrictive Trading Agreements) Order, the Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Orders, the Computer Merger Scheme and the Cinematograph Films Regulations.
Lords Amendments to the Maintenance Orders Bill.
MONDAY, 24TH JUNE—Supply [24th Allotted Day]:
Debate on a topic to be announced later.
Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that there will be an interval of a fortnight between the Recommittal of the Finance Bill and Report?
Secondly, will he give an assurance that the House will be kept informed about the supply of arms to Nigeria in the light of the further talks going on?
Thirdly, will he give an assurance that the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, which is to be published this afternoon, will be debated before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Peart: I shall consider the last point. I think that we shall have to wait until Members have read the Report.
I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks in connection with Biafra. I shall make certain that the House is fully informed about that.
With regard to the timetable for the Finance Bill, the right hon. Gentleman probably appreciates that the Business Committee has been sitting this afternoon. I have not as yet heard the result of its deliberations, but I shall keep the right hon. Gentleman informed through the usual channels.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, realise that the seven or eight weeks available before we rise for the Summer Recess ought to be time enough in which to consider the Royal Commission's Report, and that it will be urgent to have a full debate before we rise.
Mr. Peart: I recognise the importance of the Report.
Mr. Murray: As we are falling behind the former Conservative Government on average, can my right hon. Friend say what plans he has for further use of the Guillotine?
Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that when I put forward a guillotine Motion I did so with reluctance. When I look at the records of past Governments, I find that they did it with enthusiasm.
Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply himself to Motion No. 266, entitled "Atlantic Tree Trade Area"?
[That this House, taking note of the present state of the negotiations to join the Common Market, believes that Her Majesty's Government should in the meantime begin a feasibility study of an open-ended Atlantic Free Trade Area initially comprising the United Kingdom, the European Free Trade Association, Canada and the United States of America.]
It now has more than 100 signatures appended to it, and includes the names of hon. Members of all parties. Will the right hon. Gentleman confer with the Prime Minister and arrange for appropriate time to be taken next week for a revised policy statement to be made on this critically important matter?
Mr. Peart: I am aware that many hon. Members on both sides—
Sir G. Nabarro: On all sides.
Mr. Peart: —feel that this is an important matter—including hon. Members of the Liberal Party—but I cannot find time next week.
Mr. Swain: Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the changes at the top of the newspaper publishing world? Will he find time to debate Motion No. 278?
[That this House has no confidence in Mr. Cecil King as a member of the Board of a nationalised industry and calls upon the Minister of Power to terminate his office as a part-time Member of the National Coal Board forthwith.]
Alternatively, will he suggest to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power that he should take the action for which the Motion asks, and dismiss Mr. Cecil King from the National Coal Board.
Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend is aware of the feelings of hon. Members, but there will not be time for a debate next week.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the shortness of time between the ending of the Committee stage of the Medicines Bill and the Report stage, which is to be on Tuesday next? Does he agree that further time should be given to enable us to hold the necessary consultations on the issues involved? Will he agree to reconsider his decision, and see whether the Report stage can be put back from next week?
Mr. Peart: I think that the matter has been arranged for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides.
Mr. Ted Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend provide time next week for a short procedure debate on the use of the Guillotine, as today happens to be the 81st anniversary of the first use of the Guillotine, and such a debate will perhaps establish that the Labour Government neither invented it, nor were the first to use it.
Mr. Peart: I accept my hon. Friend's views, but not next week.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: May we have an assurance that before the Recess we shall have the chance of a general debate on the Report of Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law, which has been in Mr. Speaker's hands for some time now?
Mr. Peart: I know that that is an important matter, but not next week.
Mr. James Johnson: Can my right hon. Friend say when we can expect a statement on the Government's measures for the future of a deep-sea fishing industry?
Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend represents a very important fishing centre at Hull, and that he regards this issue as extremely important. I shall convey his views to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but the debate may not be next week.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: As the words used by the Prime Minister today when answering Question No. Q2 showed conclusively that the Selective Employment Tax is preventing the entertainment industry from earning foreign currency which we greatly need, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement next week, taking into account what the Prime Minister said?
Mr. Peart: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister conveyed that view.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: He did to me.
Mr. Peart: I thought that it was to the contrary. Perhaps the hon. Gentle-
448
man will read what my right hon. Friend said.
Dame Irene Ward: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether, next week, the Government will announce their new proposals for the granting of passports in Rhodesia? Will he say whether we are to have an explanation of why the right of the Parliamentary Commissioner to discuss Sir Frederick Crawford's position has been denied?
Mr. Peart: I shall convey that view to my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary. There could be a statement. I note what has been said.
Sir C. Taylor: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Motion No. 331, which has obviously aroused a great deal of interest on both sides of the House?
[That this House condemns the British Broadcasting Corporation for inviting a well known foreign professional revolutionary agitator, already banned from France, to appear on one of their programmes at the expense of British licence holders and taxpayers.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a short debate on the Motion?
Mr. Peart: I think that the matter has been reasonably discussed this afternoon by question and answer. I cannot find time for a debate next week.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Can the leader of the House tell us when there is to be a debate on the Ombudsman becoming a non-Ombudsman? Could he give a date for this before the House goes into Recess?
Mr. Peart: I know what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but not next week.
Mr. Roebuck: Is it not right that the House had an opportunity to discuss the withdrawal of a passport from Sir Frederick Crawford? Will my right hon. Friend strongly resist any attempt to remove from the House these questions to a servant of the House?
The Speaker: Order. That is drifting into merits rather than business.
Mr. James Davidson: Could the Leader of the House say when we may expect the long overdue debate on the Halliday

449
Report, particularly in respect of its re-trictive effect on development in Scotland?
Mr. Peart: Not next week.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS (REPORT)
The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations has been published today. I am sure that the House will want me to thank Lord Donovan and his colleagues for this valuable and constructive Report.
I am initiating as a matter of urgency consultations with both sides of industry on the Royal Commission's recommendations, which are detailed and far-reaching and will require careful study by all concerned. In the light of these consultations, I shall present a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals.
Mr. R. Carr: We would, of course, like to associate ourselves with the right hon. Lady's thanks to Lord Donovan and his colleagues and also agree with her that this Report will need careful study. We have, however, had to wait a very long time for this Report and we would like to stress the need now for really quick action.
Therefore, may I ask the right hon. Lady two questions? Could she give a target date for publication of the White Paper? Could she confirm the strong indication given by her predecessor, the present Minister of Power, that the necessary legislation will definitely be introduced next Session?
Mrs. Castle: I would certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should now try to initiate follow up action with a sense of urgency. This is what I indicated in my statement. I shall lose no time whatever in entering into consultations with both sides of industry. My difficulty in giving the right hon. Gentleman any precise target date either for the White Paper or legislation is that one must await the outcome of those consultations or progress with them,
450
before one is able to see either what conclusions will come or when it will be possible to legislate, because one does not know how comprehensive such legislation may be.
Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter is of such importance that many hon. Members want adequate time to consider it and do not want this matter to be rushed? Further, as this Report is dealing with one of the basic democratic institutions within our society we would like consultations to take place not only with just both sides of industry, but with this House and representative bodies within it.
Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that hon. Members and all those concerned will need adequate time to study the Report. It is very detailed and comprehensive and some of the changes proposed are very fundamental. This is why I find it difficult to give a target date for publication of the Government's final conclusions or for legislation.
No doubt, as has been discussed earlier at Business Question time, there will be opportunities in due course for debate to enable the House to make its views known.
Mr. Iain MacLeod: The right hon. Lady has said that the Report is published today. Is it available to hon. Members now in the Vote Office?
Mrs. Castle: Yes, from 3.30.
Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend say whether, in view of the importance of the arguments contained in paragraph 519, which I have just had an opportunity to study, she can tell us whether the Government have yet had an opportunity to consider the merits of the arguments contained in this very important paragraph?
Mrs. Castle: As the paragraph to which my hon. Friend refers deals with a note of dissent, I think that we will discuss the agreed recommendations before going into the minutiae of dissent.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Could the right hon. Lady say whether the Government intend to have a debate before the White Paper is issued? May I suggest that she takes that course into consideration?
Mrs. Castle: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that quesions of debate are matters for the Leader of the House. My right hon. Friend was asked earlier about this and said that he would consider representations very carefully.
Mr. Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members on this side of the House are most concerned that nothing shall be done with too much haste? This is a very important subject and it may be that consultations and considerations that arise along the way would inhibit my right hon. Friend from making any statement about a White Paper or anything else?
Mrs. Castle: I would not quite concur in what seems to be the rather negative approach of my hon. Friend. I agree that there must be consultations, and extensive consultations, before the Government produce any documents setting out their views, or indicate lines of legislation. Equally, I believe that it is important that action is needed in this field. The Report gives valuable indications of the lines along which action ought to be taken, and taken with a sense of urgency, just because of the importance of this whole matter and the importance of its rôle in our economic life.
Sir T. Beamish: The right hon. Lady said that until consultations are completed she does not know if it will be possible to legislate. Those were her exact words. Does she mean that it will not be possible to legislate next Session or to legislate at all?
Mrs. Castle: I was asked to give a date for legislation. Obviously, I could not do so until we make progress with the consultations. I am by no means ruling out legislation altogether.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would the right hon. Lady take particular note of the request of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) that before the Government reach a final conclusion, and get committed to a line of action, the best consultation possible is a debate in this House before such a committal? Would she convey to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House that that is our view?
Mrs. Castle: I can only repeat that the Leader of the House has already responded very sympathetically to points of that kind put to him; and it is, of course, a matter for him and for discussion through the usual channels.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that some hon. Gentlemen are a little disconcerted over the emphasis she puts on the need for consultation in the way she presented it? The trade unions and the C.B.I. were represented on the Royal Commission and the Report is surely part of the considered views of both bodies; and I would have thought that since that view is on record we should have the view of Parliament to round the circle. I hope that her explanation of wanting further consultation is not only an excuse for not bringing in legislation which, clearly, the nation needs.
Mrs. Castle: I do not believe that the two Gentlemen on the Royal Commission to whom the hon. Gentleman refers would accept his view that they were in any way speaking in a representative capacity for their organisations. They were there as individuals and they have individual varieties of views. I do not think that they would agree that their presence means that it is not necessary for the organisations to which they belong to be consulted. It would be quite intolerable, in a matter of this far-reaching importance, for me not to consult with very great care and firmness the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and others interested.
Mr. Heath: We recognise that the Leader of the House is to consider the question of a debate. What we are asking is that the right hon. Lady should not publish the White Paper until the House has had a debate so that she can take the views of the House into account before doing so.
Mrs. Castle: I appreciated that that was the point being made. The Leader of the House will be consulting through the usual channels.
Mr. John Page: In view of the fact that in paragraph 4 of the addendum by Lord Donovan he draws attention to the continuing and expected continuous growth of unconstitutional and unofficial strikes, would the right hon. Lady arrange for special time to be devoted to a debate on that subject alone?
Mrs. Castle: I think that it would be quite meaningless except in the context of the Report, which, I believe, throws valuable light on some of the causes of unofficial strikes and, therefore, enables us to consider positive remedies.

MR. COHN-BENDIT (ENTRY INTO UNITED KINGDOM)
Mr. Gresham Cooke: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the extension of the entry permit for the visit of Mr. Daniel Cohn-Bendit by 14 days."
This matter is undoubtedly specific. That it is important is shown by the number of hon. Members who rose today to question the Home Secretary.
This man has become a student demagogue and has stirred up strife among university students in Paris, at the Sor-bonne, at Nanterre, at Amsterdam, at Frankfurt, the Saar and Strasbourg. Wherever he has addressed students, grave trouble has followed. He has been refused entry into France and Belgium and he told a British reporter in Paris:
" If we have to use paving stones to fight in order to take power, then we shall do so. The Wilson Government is not doing too well in England. Perhaps we will have a revolutionary movement there soon."
His presence will undoubtedly cause breaches of the peace and possibly student riots.
There are 200,000 university students here in over 40 universities and in 14 days he could get around a number of universities making speeches which, in my opinion, will be pouring oil on an inflammatory situation. This is examination time for students and many parents and university authorities will be extremely concerned if his presence would disrupt the examinations now being taken by about a third of the students.
Lastly, the matter is urgent because by the time we debate it in the ordinary way, the 14 days will be up and the damage may be done. There is great feeling in the country against his extended visit and that feeling itself may lead to breaches of the peace. He has already blackmailed the B.B.C. into granting the 14 days' extension—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not drift into the merits of the subject which he seeks to debate.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: I will not do that, Mr. Speaker.
Let me say that he has already used his student power to get his extension. The extension of his entry permit by 14 days is sufficient reason for the House to have an emergency debate on this controversial aspect of Government administration.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
" the extension of the entry permit for the visit of Mr. Daniel Cohn-Bendit by 14 days."
The House will remember that, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 agreed on 14th November, 1967, Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for his decision.
In the light of the new conditions, I must rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  OVERSEAS AID
  Bill to enable effect to be given to international arrangements for the making of contributions and other payments to the International Development Association and for the making of contributions to any international financial institution established for promoting the economic development of any region of the world; to enable Her Majesty's Government to implement undertakings, given under an international agreement with respect to the Asian Development Bank, to be responsbile for the obligations of certain members of the Bank; and to make further provision with respect to the Overseas Service Pensions Scheme; presented by Mr. Reginald Prentice; supported by Mr. Stewart, Mr. Dick Taverne, Mr. William Whitlock, and Mr. Oram; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 173.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

  GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL

    Clause 1
    EXTENSION OF BORROWING POWERS OF GAS COUNCIL AND AREA GAS BOARDS
    4.17 p.m.
    The Chairman: Before I call Amendment No. 1, perhaps I should indicate that, as a result of representations made to me, I think that it would be convenient if we discussed with Amendment No. 1 Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5, with a view, after a general debate on all four, to there being Divisions, if required, on Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
    Sir Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out'£1,600' and insert'£1,400'.
    I welcome your suggestion, Sir Eric, of the amalgamation of the debate on this Amendment with that on Amendments No. 2, in page 1, line 11, leave out from'million' to end of line 12; No. 3, in page 1, line 12, leave out'£2,400' and insert'£1,800'; and No. 5, in page 1, line 16, after 'House', insert:
    'and no such draft shall be so laid before 1st January, 1971'.
    I welcome it because the arguments to be adduced, which are largely financial, are in many respects similar on the first Amendment and many subsequent ones.
    We are concerned primarily in Amendment No. 1 with the large-scale discovery of natural gas beneath the North Sea and the capital moneys required for adequate and economic development of this metallurgical phenomenon as early as possible. It was Sir Henry Jones, the Chairman of the Gas Council, who alluded to the find a few months ago as being "on a Texan scale". I prefer the terminology of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) a few days after, "It is the best bit of luck which we have had in Britain this century".
    Indeed it is, but my purpose is to try to bring to our consideration of the
    456
    massive issues concerned rationality in regard to the voting of sums for orderly and expeditious development of the find.
    The trouble with the Labour Party is that it believes as a matter of philosophical dedication, that all investment by a public board is good investment. Thus, any attempt by a Conservative Member, in recent years on Opposition benches, to qualify or to circumscribe or to rationalise investment by public boards or, indeed, to bring a closer scrutiny to the financial affairs of public boards is regarded as an act hostile to Socialism. This, of course, is quite wrong. We on this side have proclaimed at the last four General Elections that we will not seek the denationalisation of the coal, gas or electricity industries, for various reasons which I will not go into today.
    Having accepted that these public services should remain in State ownership, it is, of course, the responsibility of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to ensure that they are voted adequate sums for the capital investment programme sanctioned from time to time by this House after due regard to two fundamental considerations—first, that the maximum sum in capital investment for each Board should be derived from its own resources, which would come mostly, for the gas industry, from its depreciation funds; and, second, that they conform to the requirements of the White Paper on the financial objectives of nationalised industries and return, taking year with year, the proper surplus or profit on the net assets employed in the industry.
    Those are the two disciplinary requirements to which I hope both sides subscribe and which both will support this afternoon. It is idle to suggest in current circumstances that it is the very magnitude of the sums of money delineated in the Bill which terrify many of my hon. Friends and myself. The first Amendment on the Notice Paper seeks to reduce the sum of money voted in Clause 1 of the Bill from £1,600 million to £1,400 million. The effect would be that the House would vote money for the gas industry for a less lengthy period forward on capital account than would be the case if the terms of the Bill as it stands were implemented.
    None can deny that these are huge sums of money, and I make a passing

    457
    reference, as analogy only, to a tiny sum of money when put beside the sums we are discussing which has caused in the party opposite the biggest political upheaval since 1951, namely, the proposal to reimpose prescription charges. All the Government will get out of that is £25 million, after all the exemptions that were discussed on the day before the House rose for the Whitsuntide Recess.
    Here we are proposing, in the words of the Minister, three consecutive tranches, from £1,200 million, the present limit of borrowing for the gas industry, up to £1,600 million, being the first tranche; from £1,600 million up to £2,000 million being the second tranche; and from £2,000 million up to £2,400 million, being the third tranche, all to be occupied within a period which the Minister does not know—he has no crystal ball and neither have I—all to be occupied and taken up within a period of three to four years.
    These huge sums of money are expected to go through the House without dissent. The Minister was the person who suggested that there should be no dissent on Second Reading. In the peroration of his speech he appealed to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) not to have a vote on Second Reading. I interjected, lucidly and pointedly, "Not a hope, not while I am around",—even if I had to carry my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley into the Lobby with me! That would be a very desirable thing to do; much better than for her to carry me into the Lobby. It is the very magnitude of the sum of money entailed, the habits and the records of nationalised industries in the expenditure of funds and the utter wastage of which they are so often guilty that cause my hon. Friends and myself to have considerable trepidations as to how this sum of money is to be spent.
    I seek to reduce the sum of money. Instead of letting it run on to £1,600 million in the first tranche, I would have it go only to £1,400 million because of the nation's economic circumstances. The effect would be not to curtail the expenditure month by month, or the commitments of the gas industry, but to cause the industry to come back to the House for a further authorisation and sanction about 12 months from now instead of
    458
    about 18 months from now. So the effect of the Amendment is to bring the industry, through the Minister, back to the House six months earlier than would otherwise be the case.
    I have a very good reason for saying all this. It would be a thousand pities if the new incumbent to the office of Minister of Power gave the impression that he wished to set down one policy for nationalised industries and another policy for private industry in the present difficult economic and financial circumstances of the nation. He should apply the same financial desiderata to capital investment by the State boards which are within his paternal control as Minister that we as business men would apply to private commercial profit-earning enterprises.
    Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: As my hon. Friend is on this point, the great trouble is that the nationalised industries are not run by anybody who has any business experience whatsoever. They cannot be turned off the board by irate shareholders. They could not care less whether they make a loss or a profit. Is not that the great trouble?
    Sir G. Nabarro: That is one of the troubles. The Tory Government over 13 years had very great difficulty in trying to turn the State enterprises into commercial concerns. I doubt whether we shall ever be able to do it, since if they make a big loss, at the end of the road they are always in a position to come to Parliament and write it off.
    My hon. Friend is correct in what he says. He will recall that in 1965 the former incumbent of the office of Minister of Power, one of seven during the last seven years, wrote off £415 million of accumulated losses of the National Coal Board. It is no good the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite vigorously nodding dissent. It is all on the record and is a matter of history; £415 million of accumulated losses was written off.
    I have talked about financial desiderata in judging the wisdom or otherwise of this investment by the Gas Board. I give the House the desirable considerations for this investment this afternoon. The first is that, by making this important and large investment how

    459
    much will be saved in terms of imports? It is no good the right hon. Gentleman side-stepping this issue. The case for development of North Sea gas is simply that it is indigenous fuel being developed by British capital, money subscribed by the British taxpayer, and it is intended to save money on imports.
    How much will be saved? I want this quantified, nothing less. If the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House and says that he wants the limit of borrowing by the Gas Board to be put up from £1,200 million to £1,600 million, an increase of £400 million, I say to the right hon. Gentleman, how much will he save in the aggregation on imported fuel by making this capital investment of £400 million? If he cannot answer me, I shall vote against him.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member will find a good deal of information on this point in the evidence given by Sir Henry Jones to Sub-Committee B of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, where it will be seen that over this period the quantity of Algerian gas to be imported remains constant, because it is a long-term contract, but the amount of oil declines from 4·7 million tons in the period 1967–68 to 2·5 million tons in the period 1972–73, which represents a very substantial saving in foreign exchange.
    Sir G. Nabarro: That is not relevant to my argument. I am asking the Minister to provide me with figures. Why should I do his work for him? He has several thousand bureaucrats to work it out for him; let them do the work on their slide rules and provide the answer which I ask for this afternoon. How much will he save in imports by the first tranche of £400 million in capital investment?
    Second, by this investment on the part of the Gas Board, what increase in productivity in manufacturing industry in Britain does he expect to attract during the period of five years following the investment? That was part of the Prime Minister's statement on 16th January last. The purport of that statement was that all public expenditure would in future be viewed hypercritically in order to ensure two things: first, that the investment brought about a saving in im-
    460
    ports; and second, that it led to an increase in productivity. Let us have the figures today from the Minister in the context of this investment.
    Third, will this investment contribute to devaluation of sterling being made to work? I want Ministerial assurances on that. After all, we in the Tory Party did not devalue sterling. We were not responsible for it. That calamity was brought about by the crass and gross financial squandermania of the present Government. If there is not to be a second devaluation of sterling, it is important that these huge sums of money which we are being asked to vote today for additional investment in nationalised industry should conform to the financial desiderata of the Prime Minister's statement on 16th January and that ample assurances should be given by the Minister today that they will halt the drift towards a second devaluation of sterling.
    The fourth and last is a very important matter. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) is not in his place. I felt sorry for the Minister of Power on Second Reading. He had occupied his office for only a few days, and he does not know much about fuel policy economics. He had not started to move the furniture round in his Ministry—
    4.30 p.m.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. R. J. Gunter): I still have not moved any.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman has not moved any of the furniture round in his Ministry. Such action is badly needed. The Ministry is very slack and slow on the ball. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman today that he should have the most careful regard to what my hon. Friend wrote in The Times yesterday. The article is headed:
    "Peter Hordern, M.P., argues that Britain's fuel policy is misguided. Instead of cutting costs by gearing to new and economic power sources—as our competitors do—we continue to bolster coal".
    Mr. Lubbock: That is exactly what we are doing in the Bill.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) wish to intervene?
    Mr. Lubbock: I said that that is what we are doing in the Bill. The whole purpose of it is so that we can convert to cheaper sources of power. One has only to look at the figures of coal consumption.
    Mr. David Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We cannot quite hear this private conversation.
    The Chairman: Order. It would help if hon. Members would address their remarks to the Chair.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Sir Eric, I was about to ask your permission to be allowed to intervene in the disputation going on below me. If the hon. Member for Orpington will allow me to continue, I may be able to dispel his fears by quoting from this most apposite contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham about the importance of natural gas and the capital investment required for it, which is what we are discussing today.
    I want to draw the opening passage to the attention of the Minister, if he has not already read it, because he ought to give: us his comments on it. My hon. Friend wrote:
    "The Government's plan for power (Cmd. 3438) has still to be debated in the House."
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Shame.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I concur.
    My hon. Friend continues:
    "It is a well-constructed plan and a sophisticated document. The sums all add up, but it is wrong. This is because its assumptions are wrong, either because of ignorance of what is happening in other countries, or because the political consequences of providing cheap power are unacceptable to the Government—or perhaps both. In essence the problem is that discovery of natural gas in the North Sea, the development of nuclear energy and the continuing supply of cheap oil have together transformed the prospects of providing cheap energy. But they have also transformed the prospects for the coal industry in an adverse direction. The Government has therefore attempted to reach a compromise between what it considers to be a practical or acceptable level of run-down in the coal industry and its duty to provide the cheapest possible energy. It has had to lay heavy burdens on the electricity industry and penalise the oil industry to get more coal burned so that there are not too many
    462
    redundant miners. But it has taken its pattern for the run-down of the coal industry from the existing trend. It has failed to grasp that what is required is the provision of Government Retraining Centres on an unprecedented scale. … The Government rightly claim that the national considerations that need to be taken into account include security of supply, the efficient use of resources, the balance of payments, and the economic, social and human consequences of changes in the supply pattern. … But it really is impossible to justify a policy of keeping one-quarter of the available supply of natural gas under the sea in 1970 in order that the coal industry should be allowed to sell more coal to the C.E.G.B. Yet this is the Government's policy."
    That is a very grave allegation. It amounts to the Ministry being accused of deliberately retarding the development of natural gas from the North Sea so as to keep obsolescent coal mines open longer than is commercially justified. That is the charge against the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will answer it, because I shall not vote for his Bill until he does.
    Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman would not vote for it in any case.
    Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman does me a great injustice. I might trim it, but I would not vote against it.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil has said, natural gas is the greatest bit of luck that we have had this century, and I am all for developing it as rapidly as possible. However, I want these four financial desiderata to be obeyed.
    The symposium for the Minister is, first, how much is the economy in imports by this huge investment? Second, how much do we increase productivity in manufacturing industry by making this huge investment in the Bill? Third, will this huge investment in the Bill make progress towards preventing a second devaluation of sterling and, therefore, contributing to national solvency? Fourth, will it contribute to cheap fuel policies, which I regard as indispensible to the future success of our economy?
    With those few short words, I commend the Amendment to the Committee. I hope that the Minister will sit throughout this debate and not absent himself as he did on Second Reading. I hope, too, that he will answer the four points that I have put to him specifically and in

    463
    terms which we are all capable of understanding and applying to the huge financial sums set down in the Bill.
    Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have put down similar Amendments to this Clause.
    Perhaps I might put the arguments in this way, and I deal first with the general economic arguments to which my hon. Friend addressed a number of his comments.
    Whatever we said on Second Reading on this Measure about reducing the amount of borrowing available has been more than abundantly justified by subsequest events. The very day after the debate in which we proposed to reduce the borrowing powers, we learned of a new squeeze in the private sector. It was a squeeze which will not affect the public sector, but which will affect the whole of private sector investment and may affect exports as well. In future, credit for exports has to be within the ceiling on the new squeeze. If we allow the Clause to go through unamended, it means that export and private sector finance will have to take second and third places to nationalised industry finance.
    Following that sequence we learned in the first week of June of yet other economic difficulties. There was another £600 million drawn from the International Monetary Fund on top of the £600 million we already owed. All of that had to be repaid by 1971. It is purely a coincidence that we have borrowed precisely the amount which this Bill proposes to spend. I cannot put it more strongly than saying that we are now proposing in this Bill to spend money which we have not got, so there are very strong economic circumstances for looking critically at the amount spent in the nationalised sector and for cutting it down as far as possible.
    My second point is that I want to ask the Minister about the arrangement of the investment programme. During his Second Reading speech he pointed out that the programme could be held up at any time; "checked" was the word
    464
    he used. Having looked carefully at the investment progamme, it appears to me to be planned on the basis that the Gas Council assumes the full amount will be forthcoming, and it has not planned it in independent stages each of which could be checked at a definite time. It looks from the programme as if it will be coming back later and saying, "Unless you give us the extra amount, we have planned the programme in such a way that the earlier expenditure will be abortive."
    A programme can be planned in two different ways, either in five independent terms each of which stands on its own or in one move and each year is an instalment in attaining the objective. We are entitled to ask for an assurance that this programme has been planned in independent stages and could be held up at any year without detriment to the amount of investment which has already been made. If that is not so, the Minister's argument that this programme could be checked falls to the ground.
    Obviously, the Gas Council would ask for as much investment as possible. It is the Minister's job to see that all contingencies are planned for. I am familiar with the fact that no one seems to worry very much when the amount of expenditure is increased.
    My third point is: has the Minister gone further with deciding the target return from the gas industry after this year? My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) pointed out that as the targets return is not known, the price is not known and the consumption cannot be forecast with accuracy, we are, therefore, planning very much in the dark. The price factor will largely influence the demand.
    My fourth point is that the Minister, in the White Paper on Fuel Policy and in the Bill, has said that gas should be introduced as rapidly as possible into the economy. This could be done without risking a penny of the taxpayers' money. I noted in an article in the annual review of the Financial Times of 3rd July last year, that Sir Henry Jones pointed out that in addition to the home demand there is a likelihood of new consumption in industry and commerce which could mean that well over half the natural gas available will be sold there.

    465
    According to that, well over half the natural gas could go straight to industry and commerce without the extensive conversion of domestic appliances and it could be got to industry by other means than through the Gas Council. All the Minister would need to do would be to give his consent under Section 9(2) of the Continental Shelf Act for exploring companies to sell to industry. Then, not a penny of taxpayers' money would be at risk. In fact, the gas could be introduced into the economy comparatively rapidly, and, also, there would not need to be any change in legislation.
    My fifth point is the rate at which this amount of investment would mean using up the amount of gas in the North Sea. It is alleged that it will last for 25 to 30 years. The first 15 of that 30 years will be taken up by writing off modern plant which is being adjudged prematurely obsolete. We are, therefore, in a position of having a 30-year programme, at the end of which time it will be used up. There is not much incentive for additional exploration at the moment.
    During the next 15 years it will used up, and at the end of the time what will be the use of this tremendous amount of investment we are making? Either we go back to town gas or buy Algerian or gas with foreign exchange, so as to use the investment the Minister is proposing. So we go back to nuclear power or coal. We are indulging in colossal expenditure for 15 years, and during the second 15 years we shall be making further capital expenditure to use a different kind of fuel or planning to import.
    4.45 p.m.
    My sixth point is a general economic one. As part of our argument is that the nationalised industry sector must be carefully scrutinised, is the Minister planning to cut down nationalised industry expenditure by an amount equivalent to the rate at which this is increasing?
    My final point is the one about scrutiny of the amount of money actually agreed to be spent in any one year. The Parliamentary Secretary and other hon. Members adduced during Second Reading the argument that this is only an order for borrowing powers, and that at any time we could debate the specific amount of expenditure in any one year by debating
    466
    the National Loans Fund. That is not true. Under this very Bill, in the next Clauses, the Minister is proposing to give powers to borrow in foreign currency.
    Such borrowing could be within a limit, but such borrowings would never be debated in the House of Commons under the Minister's own Bill. Money borrowed in foreign currency does not enter into the National Loans Fund Account. Whatever limit we allow for the borrowing we have no further Parliamentary control over it. The whole lot could be raised overseas. It would have to have Treasury approval, but that does not have to come before the House. There are good reasons connected with issues why it should not.
    The entire amount could be used for a single company going through the National Loans Fund and without our having an opportunity to look at the investment programme on which it is based. This is a new change. I ask the Minister for certain assurances. We feel strongly that in the present economic situation we should in fact commit only the smaller amount and even with that permission I want a definite assurance that the investment programme is arranged in independent stages.
    Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Lady knows my view on this question—I expressed it on Second Reading—which is that the Floor of the House of Commons is not the best place to debate in detail any nationalised industry, and the gas industry, in particular.
    Having re-read the Second Reading debate, I am even more reinforced in my conclusion. No one said a thing about the details of the investment plan of the gas industry, or whether the £1,200 million proposed was the right kind of figure, or what information should be appropriate to enable the House to come to a better judgment on this question, so I would suggest that the hon. Lady ought to have considered whether it would not be better for us, as Members of the House of Commons, to press for more work to be done in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and to read some of their Reports.
    I say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir G. Nabarro) that he did not appear, to have

    467
    done his homework as carefully as he normally does. When he was asking the Minister questions about the possible savings in balance of payments as a result of the introduction of natural gas in particular and the investment programme in general he did not appear to have any knowledge of Table II, on page 22 of Minutes of Evidence, where Sir Henry Jones gave figures of the consumption of various kinds of fuel.
    I did not have time in an intervention to ask the hon. Gentleman to imagine what would have happened if we had not discovered natural gas in the North Sea. It is obvious that we would have converted from solid fuel to oil energy in the next 10 years, until the rundown was practically complete in 1973, with the result that nothing but oil was being used for the manufacture of gas because of the substantial difference in cost between the two sources.
    The saving is, therefore, larger than appears from the figures I gave in my intervention. They show a halving in the consumption of oil between 1967–68 and 1972–73 because not only would oil have had to be used for this element of production, but one must take into account the coal displaced by natural gas over this period. I would have thought, therefore, that the saving in terms of balance of payments, which must be substantial, should not be difficult to calculate if the hon. Gentleman makes certain assumptions about what will happen to the price of oil over this period.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I am not prepared to make assumptions in a matter of this kind, which is highly technical. Neither am I prepared to base my calculations on methane derived from Algeria, which is an entirely different matter and which is not to be confused or compared with North Sea natural gas. There is no comparison or analogy between the two.
    In any event, there is a fundamental Parliamentary principle involved and I commend to the hon. Gentleman that it is the Minister of the Crown responsible, the Minister of Power, who will do my calculations for me, if he wishes to satisfy me, using his several thousand bureaucrats for the purpose, and will make his pronunciamento publicly in this House in response to my questions.
    Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to say that the Minister of Power does not have enough bureaucrats dealing with gas in his Department because frequently, when one makes inquiries of him about natural gas and other matters connected with the Gas Council, the right hon. Gentleman refers one to the Chairman of the Gas Council. He does the same when one questions him on matters concerning the N.C.B. and the C.E.G.B. Constantly one is referred to the chairmen of those organisations.
    One is left to suspect—I will not go into the matter further because it is not germane to the topic under discussion— that the Minister does not have adequate resources in his Department to evaluate the recommendations made to him by Sir Henry Jones or the leaders of the other nationalised industries about their capital expenditure programmes. We must, therefore, look at the figures which were provided by Sir Henry Jones to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I would be surprised if the Minister said at the end of this discussion that Sir Henry's figures were wrong
    Sir G. Nabarro: He had better.
    Mr. Lubbock: Not only would we not have had this halving of the consumption of oil over the six-year period to which I referred if it had not been for the introduction of natural gas, but oil consumption would have increased until the whole of the gas produced, from 13·8 million tons of coal in 1967–68, was manufactured from oil sources.
    The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South went on to say that I must make a distinction between Algerian gas and the gas which we are getting from the North Sea. I agree that, from the point of view of our balance of payments, this is an important factor, but there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it. He will appreciate that we have entered into long-term contracts with the Algerians for the supply of 373 million therms during the period while this Measure will be effective. Thus, much as one might regret having made these long-term arrange' ments, they have been made—and they were made at a time when these enormous resources available in the North Sea were hidden from us.

    469
    There are, however, certain advantages. One is that Algerian gas is imported in liquid form and, for this reason, we have constructed large storage tanks which enable us to keep a reserve supply of gas to cover fluctuations in demand. This would probably have been necessary in any event. I understand that we are now to build in Scotland a plant for the liquification of natural gas and that it will be taken there via a trunk pipeline.
    This plant and the storage facilities associated with it will mean that a day's supply for the whole of Scotland will be available to cushion fluctuations in demand. Natural gas must be liquefied to be stored. The advantage of Algerian gas is that it is imported in liquid form.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Has the hon. Gentleman made his own calculation of the foreign exchange cost of natural gas, bearing in mind the amount of overseas capital needed and the royalties which must be paid on each cubic foot delivered?
    Mr. Lubbock: I have not made those calculations.
    Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman should.
    Mr. Lubbock: I do not think that they can be made until we know the price which will be paid for the rest of the supply from the North Sea. We have been given so far only the price for Philips, which is only a small element in the total amount discovered so far.
    The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South then asked what improvements in productivity one could expect from the £1,200 million investment. The hon. Gentleman should study the memorandum given by Sir Henry Jones to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. In the evidence which Sir Henry subsequently gave, he said, in answer to, for example, question 180, that there would be a rundown in manpower over the next six years from 124,000 people to 114,000 —this at a time when the production of gas by the Gas Council is increasing at a very rapid rate.
    Here we have probably one of the most outstanding examples of improved productivity in industry in the United Kingdom, an example even more spectacular than the improvement in the coal industry, to which the hon. Gentleman and I
    470
    often refer in debates on that subject. The industry is to be congratulated for giving such a magnificent example to the rest of industry.
    The hon. Gentleman then wanted to know about the effects of the Gas Council's policies on the changeover to cheaper sources of power. He referred to an article by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), in The Times, in which he stated that since the discovery of natural gas and the advent of nuclear power the situation had been transformed and that the figures in the White Paper on energy policy needed to be revised.
    I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that by 1975 gas could account for more than 15 per cent, of the total energy used in this country. If he does, then he is demanding an investment larger than £2,400 million and I am surprised, if that is his view, that he has not tabled Amendments designed to alter the investment figure.
    I doubt whether our economy is able to absorb natural gas at a more rapid rate and the trunk pipeline system has been installed with this capacity in mind. The conversion of domestic gas consumption appliances has been decided on by the Gas Council with the 15 per cent, figure in mind—the White Paper figure —and the discussions now proceeding with big private industrial users takes the figure of 15 per cent, as a starting point.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said on Second Reading that she did not think that the total figure of natural gas that had been given would be available and that Sir Henry Jones had said that there would be only 3,000 m.c.f.d. and not 4,000 m.c.f.d., which will be equivalent to 15 per cent, of our total energy resources by 1975. I do not agree with the hon. Lady.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I quoted from page 20 of the very Report which the hon. Gentleman admonished my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) for not having read.
    Mr. Lubbock: If the hon. Lady quotes one part of the Report, perhaps she will read on. She will find that Sir Henry said that, if the final total available from the North Sea was only the same as the assured resources that are there at present —that is, 3,000 million cubic foot a day—

    471
    it would be a most unusual field geologically. I am not quoting exactly, but that was the sense of Sir Henry's observations. Experience elsewhere in the world where natural gas has been discovered —in the Middle East, in Nigeria, in the Mexican Gulf—does not lead to the conclusion that once a certain point has been reached that is all that the resources are and no more will be discovered.
    This applies even if, as some suspect, the exploration of the North Sea gas is conducted at a much less intensive rate in the future than it has been over the past few years. I do not think there is any doubt that this 4,000 million cubic feet a day will be available by 1975. If one is to advocate an even faster introduction, that might be taking a risk. I am pointing out that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South and the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley seem to be of different minds on this subject.
    There are two detailed questions that I want the Minister to deal with. First, although we know what the target figures are for the introduction of natural gas from Sir Henry Jones's memorandum, we do not know how this is divided up. Can the Minister tell us how much Shell/Esso gas will be introduced into the system in the year 1968–69? I understand that the installation is ready and that the Shell/Esso gas will be coming ashore in the next few weeks, although the price has not been settled yet.
    It seems a little unsatisfactory that the gas from the Shell/Esso well will be used in our system at a time when the discussions on price are still proceeding. I do not know what the company thinks about this. Is not this rather blackmailing the company, in the sense that the gas will already have been consumed and the company may be forced to take a price which it does not think is fair? Some people in the oil industry to whom I have spoken think that the company is in a very difficult bargaining position, having made this investment, with the gas now coming ashore, and with no finality in these negotiations.
    I am not saying that I would agree entirely with that view, because I do not know what considerations have been in the minds of the bargainers. It appears that Phillips has reached what
    472
    it considers to be a reasonable conclusion at the figure of 2·87d. per therm, and I am surprised that the Shell/Esso contract, which involves a much greater quantity of gas, which gas was discovered considerably before the Phillips' strike, still has not reached finality.
    Next, how much does the Minister think will have to be paid to the area gas boards this year in respect of coal which they use instead of some alternative source of fuel? This could affect the amount which has to be borrowed, because, if the Minister does not make a payment which covers the whole of the difference in cost arising from the use of coal instead of the most economic source, that would increase the deficit of the area gas boards—the gas industry as a whole—and it would, therefore, mean that it would have to borrow more money, to cover the difference.
    As an aside, it is rather odd that under Section 6 of the Coal Industry Act, 1967 the payments in respect of coal used as an alternative to a more economic source of fuel have to be made to the area gas boards and not to the Gas Council. I am not sure how the Minister intends to deal with this matter. I realise that we cannot discuss it on this Amendment. I would like to know whether the figure of 8·6 million tons of coal for 1968-69, given in Sir Henry Jones's evidence to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, still stands, or whether, as a result of discussions between the Gas Council and the National Coal Board, it has now been decided to use some other figure; and, if so, how the negotiations are proceeding between the Ministry, the N.C.B. and the Gas Council on what recompense there should be to the industry for the additional solid fuel it intends to use.
    I shall not support the Amendment, because, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I consider that this is the wrong place to argue it. I want the answers to these detailed questions and many others besides, with which I will not weary the Committee. The Minister know that I have been writing to his Department —in fact, I have been pestering it—for some months on many of these and other questions which seem to me to be of some importance. I do not think that we can pursue this across the Floor of the Chamber and expect to arrive at a proper conclusion which will be beneficial

    473
    to the gas industry, to consumers, both industrial and domestic, and to the economy at large.
    Mr. John Peyton: I do not share the view which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) expressed towards the end of his speech. I believe that these matters should be aired in the House of Commons. The fact that not as many Members as one would wish take an interest in them is not the fault of the forum. It is the fault of individual Members. As I have often remarked, I do not think that the Government benches ever look nicer than when they are completely naked, as they are at the moment, save for the Treasury Bench, which is never good-looking, anyway.
    I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who referred to some words I used some time ago—namely, that the North Sea strike was the greatest bit of luck Britain had had for some time. I do not want to use too strong words this afternoon. I want on a personal note to remind the Committee that I have been in the Ministry of Power and I have a great regard for the work done by that Ministry. I also know a little of the Gas Council I know Sir Henry Jones personally. No one has a greater regard than I do for the immense work that he has done for the gas industry and, indeed, for Britain's economy. I hope that anything that I say will be understood in that context.
    I am obliged to go back over the years to 1964 when the prospects of there being gas under the North Sea first became worthy of serious consideration. I recall that the Conservative Government, who were at that time very much on their last legs in point of time, pushed through a licensing procedure which was both fair and quick. A subsequent Administration, despite the rather silly remarks made by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), saw fit to sustain the arrangements we had made.
    I believe that Ministers tend to take personal credit for things for which they are not always personally responsible. The effort made on that occasion in the national interest was very largely to the credit of Sir Matthew Stevenson, who has now left the Department. His real determination 1:0 get this thing moving was
    474
    impressive. The fact that all the licensees or would-be licensees made very similar complaints afterwards was adequate proof that nobody had been treated unfairly— in fact, rather the contrary.
    Let us come up to date and look at the present position in the North Sea. Whereas a year ago there were 13 mobile rigs engaged on exploration, there are now only five. The Minister must give his own reasons for this. I shall give mine. No price has been fixed so no one knows what return will come from the investment. When I say that no price has been fixed, I exclude the temporary arrangement made with B.P. for a limited quantity and the arrangement with Philips, but I have no knowledge of Philips' intentions. Are they continuing to drill in the North Sea, or have they had their lot?
    Were Philips told by the Gas Council that if they agreed to that price no one would get a better one, despite the fact that Philips were nearer the shore than anyone else? I suspect that the Minister will not be able to answer off the cuff, but I should like him to look into the matter. Even oil companies are entitled to fair treatment. I hold no brief for any of them. I have not sought their advice and certainly have not been instructed by them in any way. I visited a rig in the North Sea at the beginning of this week. I am expressing my own opinions and saying what I believe is fair and right in the interests of the country as a whole.
    Every day that passes increases the dependence of the gas industry on North Sea gas. The best prospects have been already worked over. It is an absolute certainty that as work progresses from now on there will be more dry holes, and therefore higher costs. It stands to reason that oil companies will always go to the best prospects first, so from now on there will be more dry holes and very much higher costs as drilling conditions become more difficult. It is fairly clear that next winter the Gas Council will already be making substantial use of gas from the North Sea. It is clear that they, incidentally, will be taking gas from the Le Mans field, from Shell-Esso, gas for which as yet no price has been fixed.
    Consider the position of the companies. They could not say, "We will hold the country to ransom and turn off

    475
    the taps because they have not fixed a price." The Gas Council is making the most of this, but others are learning the lesson. A very large number of American companies have no obligation to invest in the British side of the North Sea. They can do it in any of the seven seas and there is the Dutch side as an easy and ready alternative. That is precisely what they will do. I remind the Minister that last year there were 13 mobile rigs in the North Sea and this year there are only five. The business of exploration has dramatically slowed down.
    When dealing with this new national asset and seeing this dragging of feet, on one aspect of the matter one is bound to ask who is responsible. I yield to no one in my regard for Sir Henry Jones, but I think that in this matter he and the Gas Council have been pursuing a most ill-judged policy. They are probably to be excused on the ground that they have been subjected to heavy Government pressure. If that is not so, I should like it to be denied.
    5.15 p.m.
    I turn from Sir Henry Jones to the former Minister of Power who is now Minister of Transport. I say without qualification that, although all Ministers have their faults, he was an excellent Minister of Power. He showed great intelligence and courage. His one failure was not to stand up to some of the more noisy and undesirable elements in his party who objected to a fair deal being done which would have encouraged this vital exploration effort. It would be very unfair to extend that to the present Minister, who has only just come into a new and difficult Department, but I ask him to use all his undoubted influence in the Government to see that this matter is settled fairly and with speed. If he said that that is his purpose, I should be content, but it is being very commonly and widely said that the decisive influence here has been not in his Department but in the Prime Minister's office and a great deal of influence has flowed from Dr. Balogh.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Lord Balogh.
    Mr. Peyton: I do not wish to remind either myself or the Committee of that. My charge today—I want to be quite
    476
    specific—is that there is something which amounts to a dereliction of duty which springs from shallow prejudice. If the Minister thinks that this charge is wrong, of course I shall listen with care to his denial, but I say that the Gas Council has been pursuing a wrong policy and the Government, in particular the Prime Minister—if he has been advised as I have suggested, both he and Dr. Balogh —have been responsible for a grossly mistaken policy.
    If this goes on we shall be left at the end of the day, I fear, in the humiliating position of having started the exploration effort in the North Sea but having faltered and failed. Then we shall find that the Dutch, who started years after we did, will be supplying us, supplying us moreover at their price, a price dictated largely by our necessity. We must remember that the Gas Council is not now erecting ordinary production plants. There is obviously a limit to the imports which can be had from Algeria. We shall be in the very humiliating position of having to buy from Dutch sources gas which we could well have had from our own doorstep and having also had the benefit of capital investment in the meantime.
    I hope that I have not spoken too strongly. I believe that with this faltering—I should like to think it is only faltering and not a cowardly yielding to political pressure of the silliest kind— these monkeys of the Tribune have been having an influence totally disproportionate to their importance. I hope very much that the new Minister in the next few weeks will use all his influence to make sure that before all effort falls away in exploring the deeps of the North Sea a sensible and fair price is fixed in order that this very vital effort can go forward unimpeded by shallow prejudice and ignorance.
    I know the right hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty because many of his supporters take a jaundiced view. One has only to see one of those rigs in the North Sea and the magnificent effort made there to come to the conclusion that the Government are the more culpable in their dithering and not having had the guts to make sure that a sensible and fair arrangement was made so that, as a nation, we could be certain that, whatever the extent of the asset under the

    477
    North Sea is, it will be discovered in the shortest possible time, whereas Government policy seems to be achieving the opposite result.
    Mr. Webster:
    "We are only at the start of the development of the North Sea gas fields and the uncertainties are too great for it yet to be possible to settle the long-term strategy on gas absorption."
    That is a direct quotation from the White Paper on Fuel Policy.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) spoke of one major uncertainty which makes us very anxious. I pay tribute to him for the considerable part he played as Parliamentary Secretary in the Department in laying the foundation of what might well have been a very successful fuel policy to obtain the benefits we could have had from this indigenous fuel. I was horrified to hear of the reduction in the number of drilling rigs in the North Sea. This is very dangerous and should be brought to the attention of the House immediately.
    Two other causes of acute uncertainty about the whole of the industry are mentioned in paragraph 14 of the White Paper. I shall not weary the Committee by reading it because hon. Members can do so perfectly well themselves. In view of these uncertainties this seems a fine time to come to the House for a mere £1,200 million. We need to watch the situation very closely.
    I am a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has quoted at great length various sections of the evidence given to it. I should not like to quote them, as I do not think that they should be quoted at length until the Committee has reported and reached its conclusions. I hope that for a change it will have a little time devoted to it on the Floor of the House. That is another reason why we should not leap into giving all this money at this time, and why all four Amendments should be accepted.
    I hope that the Minister, as a reasonable man, will go some way towards accepting them. This is no time to ask for £1,200 million borrowing over the next few years, particularly in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    478
    has recently said about the need to cut down in the private sector and the need for acute scrutiny of public investments, and his statements to the I.M.F. about limiting the borrowing for each year to £1,000 million.
    Mr. Lubbock: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that the House should not be able to use the figures given to the Select Committee. I thought that the whole point of publishing the minutes of evidence and the memoranda submitted by the witnesses was that we could get all that information much earlier instead of waiting for the final Report to be produced.
    Mr. Webster: But it is still good, if we are to have Select Committees at all, to hear their conclusions and then debate them. This is another reason why perhaps some of the money should be given now but the bulk of it withheld until the Committee has reported. Otherwise, what is the purpose of setting up all the Select Committees?
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), I spent a good deal of time on the Standing Committee considering the Transport Bill and I spent a good deal of time on the Select Committee and it was very rare for me to be allowed on the Floor of the House. No doubt my colleagues are delighted, but one likes to know that one's labour is not in vain.
    There is much speculation about what the length of life of natural gas will be. As a former rapporteur to the Council of Europe, I used to go to Holland, and I tried to find out their estimate of the life of natural gas. There is not only the question of its absorption rate into industry and private consumption but the question of the time when it will be overtaken by another form of fuel, when the fast breeder reactors bring the price per therm to a competitive rate and atomic energy will take the main base load of the major fuel-using industries.
    If we are to have a wholesale expansion of natural gas into every regional board and into the premium as well as the industrial sector, one wonders whether it is right to compel people to go in for this type of modernisation when we must have a tremendous write-off for premature obsolescence of existing

    479
    plant, and before long the possible write-off of the new plant because of obsolescence through nuclear power. One wonders whether it might be better to concentrate on industries in regions nearer Bacton and the North-East.
    Surely, private industry would have a pilot scheme? There should be pilot schemes, and then we could consider a proper Borrowing Powers Bill on the evidence obtained from their progress.
    In 1965 the existing borrowing power was £600 million, with the right to increase it to £650 million. It has been raised to £900 million with a maximum of £1,200 million, and now this is to be doubled.
    We are aware of the very exciting possibilities which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil said, might be thrown away. But I also know, having taken an interest in the industry, that there has frequently been mis-estimating of fuel programmes, and I have always admired my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) when he has talked about this. It is very difficult to estimate, and one cannot but sympathise with those who have to do it, but I do not think that we need put all our eggs in one basket, because we have so much evidence of the mistakes that can be made. Caution is sensible at this time.
    The money can be raised through the National Loans Fund. The Government were not particularly keen to go for genuine loans for the national industries. It can also be raised by inflation or taxation. Those are the three main possibilities, and my reckoning is that it will be done by taxation.
    This brings me to a point which we should take most seriously as Members of the House of Commons. In the constitutional development of the country the House has taken to itself complete control of finance. The hon. Member for Orpington said that he did not think that this was the place to talk about the detail of the finance.
    "The finance of the country is ultimately associated with the liberty of the country. It is a powerful leverage by which English liberty has been gradually acquired … If the House of Commons by any possibility lose the power of the control of the grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison. That
    480
    powerful leverage has been what is commonly known as the power of the purse—the control of the House of Commons over public expenditure."
    That was said in 1891 by William Ewart Gladstone.
    Mr. Lubbock: Who was the Chairman of the Gas Council in those days?
    Mr. Webster: When the hon. Gentleman has something serious to contribute I shall try to answer him.
    Since 1911, when the House got to itself complete control of the Parliamentary granting of money, we have been more lax about our Estimates. We never thoroughly debate the Estimates that are voted. The hon. Member for Yeovil has felt very strongly on this subject. We have this year, for the first time since Ramsay MacDonald, sent a Finance Bill to a Standing Committee, a shameful thing
    Mr Peyton: The point is that this is the first time since Ramsay MacDonald that a Finance Bill has been guillotined. Never before has it been sent upstairs.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Probert): Order. I hope that the hon. Member and others will not pursue the question of the Finance Bill being taken upstairs in Committee.
    Mr. Webster: No, Mr. Probert, but we are talking about citizens' money in the context of the House of Commons being too lax in the granting of money and in debating estimates and, on the floor of the House, the granting of taxation of citizens. Our case is that we are being too lax in this case as well in granting hundreds of millions of £s without there being a proper pilot scheme. There are very strong reasons why the Amendment should be accepted.
    5.30 p.m.
    Colonel C. G. Lancaster: I draw attention once again to the difficulty in which the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, of which I am Chairman, finds itself. I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said. He paid us the compliment of having read the evidence of the Gas Council to the Committee, but it was only one of the witnesses and we cannot at this stage give any information about what the National

    481
    Coal Board, the Electricity Council or the steel industry had to say.
    We eventually have to come to a conclusion as to what is wise in regard to investment and the general degree in which the North Sea gas field should be exploited and until we have come to that conclusion I question whether the Ministry is altogether justified, or justified at all, in asking for these very large sums of money.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) has gone over the position emphatically and fairly. He said that we should withhold the amount being asked for because, if for no other reasons—of which there are plenty—the Select Committee has not yet come to a conclusion. It is, indeed, a very valid reason for asking the Minister to think about the matter again and to recognise that the Amendments are, in the circumstances, fair and just.
    We are not justified in giving these very large sums of money, although they may in due course be merited, until the position has been more formalised than it is. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is a newcomer to his office and has not had time to consider these matters in great detail. Yet he has been burdened by the Government with a situation in which he must come to the House with not an unsupported case but one which has by no means been proved and ask for very large sums of money. If for no other reason I hope that he will wait until the autumn, when the Select Committee will have reported to the House. He may then find himself abundantly justified in asking for all he needs, but until then he would be wise to accept the Amendments.
    These are not wrecking Amendments. They have not been put down because we do not want to see exploitation of North Sea gas at the earliest moment and the benefits of cheap power to the country. But we must prove to ourselves that, in all cases, it will be cheap power, particularly in the bulk supply market. This is one of the most intricate and difficult of the decisions we have to come to. But we have had our hands tied behind our backs and are being asked to do something now which I think is not justified in the present circumstances. In these circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Nigel Birch: I want to say something about an aspect touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster). This Bill represents a great enlargement of the public sector. There was an interesting article in The Times Business News by Peter Jay. He is very nice—a good young man—but, if a Yiddish word is permissible, he is a schlemeil if ever there was one, which means a not altogether wise man.
    The point that was missed under nationalisation was the difficulty of financing. It was simply assumed that the nationalised industries or the Government—in fact the Government do the borrowing for the nationalised industries—could sell such stock as they wanted to the public and that the public would buy almost unlimited quantities of gilt-edged securities.
    We know rather better now. When nationalisation started War Loan was 108; now it is 47½ or rather less and sinking. People will not buy this stock. Therefore, when the Government are doing this sort of thing, they must realise the immense burden they are putting on the people by enlarging the public sector because, if people will not buy the stock, the money has to be raised by taxation or inflation. Indeed, for a number of years it has been done by both.
    Therefore, the Government should be doubly careful about committing themselves to raising colossal sums of money without being absolutely certain that they are right when they know that the only way by which inflation can be avoided is by increasing taxation to meet the bills.
    This is a point which has not been hoisted in on the benches opposite. Look at the nonsense about further nationalisation in transport and the proposals for the docks! I do not think that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has hoisted the point in. She is a girl who likes to screech in the morning and to go on screeching throughout the day, but she has not an intellectual grasp of the situation. As the years go by, now that the bond market has been effectively destroyed by the Government, the burden on the taxpayer for these things will be increasingly insufferable and intolerable.
    Mr. David Lane: I wish to speak mainly to Amendments No. 2 and No. 3. Having re-read the Second Reading debate, I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will take the Committee more into their confidence than they did then. The right hon. Gentleman was clear on the mechanics but less informative on the underlying prospects of the industry, and the hon. Gentleman was even less informative. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has gone out for a moment.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Do not worry about him. He is insignificant.
    Mr. Lane: That may help to put into perspective what the Parliamentary Secretary said in replying on Second Reading. He said something which many of us resented, in criticising us for an unreasonable attitude towards the Gas Council. He referred to carping criticism. I hope he will accept that I, like my hon. Friends, am full of admiration for what has been done and the speed with which both the Gas Council and the exploring companies have taken advantage of this bit of British luck. But that does not disqualify us from questioning what the Government are proposing. We are justified in pressing for a much earlier opportunity of a thorough discussion of the prospects of the gas industry than the Bill would provide. We ask this because of the number of unanswered questions still before us.
    I want to support what has been said about the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. We all want to know what it will say about gas prospects, so we should have the first possible opportunity thereafter of debating the matter thoroughly. We should get this opportunity with this Amendment. We should not get it if the Bill goes through unamended.
    There is also the question of the market for gas. We heard little about it from the Government on Second Reading. It is relevant again to the question of the granting of large sums for further investment. What is to be the balance, on the latest judgment, between the industrial and the domestic market?
    Just before Whitsun we had an announcement by the President of the Board of Trade about the new plans for a smelter on the North-East Coast. I hope that we shall be told this afternoon a little more about the power implications involved. We
    484
    pressed the Government about this on earlier occasions and got nowhere. But there are plain implications in this smelter project for the question of coal pricing, for the electricity industry's policy in its future fuelling of power stations, and for the extent to which the electricity industry now wants to take natural gas. I hope that we shall hear more about that this afternoon.
    Linked with that unanswered question is the question of the speed with which gas selling prices to consumers may be reduced. We know what the White Paper said about cheap fuel, rather cautiously. On Tuesday, 11th June, 1968, my own constituency's evening paper had a banner headline,
    "Board pledge 1d. therm reduction on natural gas."
    It stated:
    "Gas consumers in Cambridge and the county will get a reduction of 1d. a therm when they start using natural gas, the chairman of the Eastern Gas Board announced last night."
    Yesterday in The Times, there was also this full-page advertisement by the Gas Council:
    "High Speed Tortoise! … Following so soon after recent price increases (largely because of exceptional factors wholly outside our control), any claims that they are going to be lowered may seem difficult to understand. But the industry aims to more than triple sales by the mid 1970s and this cannot be done unless our prices, already competitive, become even more so.
    This cold economic fact alone should give our customers a warm assurance of our determination to get our prices down."
    That is all very fine. The Minister was rightly more cautious about price prospects in his Second Reading speech. I hope that he can tell us this afternoon something about his present assessment of price trends.
    I now want to mention two points of detail. One concerns storage. We are asked to provide for possibly as much as £546 million in four years for expenditure by the Gas Council on transmission and storage. The booklet issued recently by the Council mentions its plans for storage. I will quote from this booklet in asking another question of the Minister.
    "Four frozen ground storage units for liquid natural gas are being provided at the Canvey Island terminal and above ground storage is being provided at Ambergate. Plans are also

    485
    being considered for additional storage at strategic points in the country."
    Can the Minister tell us any more about this today? These are not only costly projects, but they are of great local interest in many parts of the country.
    There is another point of detail concerning the transmission system. I happened to be at Bacton for a short time during the recess. I noticed that already one and a half masts are erected for radio control of the gas being brought from the North Sea to the shore. We know from announcements that have been made that the Gas Council has chosen radio control rather than land line for the inward distribution system. I should like to be assured this afternoon, or at least in correspondence, because there has been some doubt about it, whether the G.P.O. is in agreement with the Gas Council about the use of microwave systems for this purpose.
    The main unanswered question that we come back to is the financial one and the method of raising the money which will be required. Little was said in the Gas Council booklet, and still less by the Minister in his speech on Second Reading, about the degree of self-financing that the Gas Council expects. As has been said, there is also great uncertainty about the future financial target for the Gas Council. A target has not yet been set. Until we know what it is we are wrong to agree with the total sum asked for by the Minister today. In view of this and many other unanswered questions, it would be wrong to grant the Government more than the minimum, limited extra borrowing power.
    One of the great lessons of the last few years in many fields of expenditure has been the need for much tighter year-by-year control of public expenditure. I know what was said on Second Reading about the careful scrutiny that goes on in the Minister's Department with regard to the gas industry and many other industries. We come back to the question of Parliamentary scrutiny. It is no good the Minister saying that we will have another Order in a couple of years and another one a year after that. This is an inadequate opportunity for the House to consider these large sums of money.
    Here I will quote what Mr. Peter Jay said this morning in an article entitled,
    486
    "Can Jenkins galvanise the planners?" I hope the Minister has seen this article. Mr. Jay ends up by discussing the need for more careful and more expert assessment of public expenditure plans:
    "The only hope of making these choices both rational and democratic—even in the parliamentary sense—is for Parliament to participate in them at roughly the same level of sophistication as they are handled in Whitehall."
    For these and many other reasons I warmly support the Amendment.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Gunter: First, I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for the tribute he paid—which I thought corrected the unfortunate phraseology of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—to the Chairman of the Gas Council and also to the civil servants at the Ministry of Power. It is easy to spit out the word "bureaucrats" and to talk about thousands of them. As the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) knows, we have not got thousands at the Ministry of Power-only just over one thousand. Therefore, there is no need to talk in those terms. I repeat, I am grateful for the tributes that were paid by the hon. Member for Yeovil.
    Turning to the general theme before coming to the specific questions which have been asked, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South said that he was terrified by the large amounts of money that were involved. I know circumstances are different and that the sums of money involved are large by any standards, but I would remind the Opposition that these sums are not unprecedented in nationalised industries. Under the Conservative Administration's Electricity and Gas Act of 1963, the borrowing powers of the Electricity Council were raised from £2,300 million to £4,400 million with an interim limit of £3,300 million. Therefore, we should get the matter in perspective, whatever be our views about the uncertainties.
    Stressed throughout the debate, and legitimately so, have been the uncertainties about future development, marketing and many other aspects. I share those uncertainties, but I thought that I had recognised them by the decision to fix an interim limit at a comparatively low figure which will ensure that the industry's

    487
    affairs and future borrowings come before the House in less than two years' hence, instead of the customary two and a half to three years. Therefore, within two years at least we shall again be discussing these matters.
    I entirely agree about the necessity for control by this House of large sums of public money. I agree with the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) that perhaps over the years control by this House has slipped. We should have more control. I am not disputing that we want more control. I would go anywhere with anybody in pursuing economy in the use of large sums of public money for nationalised industries, and for their use in the most efficient way. I suggest that it is not efficiency, and it is not economy, to fail to make available the resources which are required for the speedy utilisation of a valuable natural resource which we all know can make a great saving in the energy costs of British industry and in foreign exchange.
    I have noticed a difference of opinion among certain hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Yeovil stressed the urgency of getting on with the job. He stressed the urgency of maintaining the exploration. He maintained that we should get on with the settling of prices on which so much depends.
    Mr. Peyton: The exploration is being carried out at no cost to the Gas Council. Secondly, I am not in any way arguing against these Amendments. If they are carried, they will give the Minister another opportunity to assure me that the anxieties which I have expressed today are unfounded, and he will be able to come back in a few months' time and say that instead of five mobile rigs there are 10, and we shall be pleased.
    Mr. Gunter: That is a different matter. The tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was that there was an urgency about the exercise. I therefore could not understand the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) suggesting that we should wait until the autumn comes and then make a decision on some aspects of the proposals. I am not suggesting that there is a difference of opinion between those two hon. Members, but I suggest that there is a difference of approach.
    488
    The House has many opportunities of informing itself of what is going on in the gas industry. I am sure that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is a most diligent reader of the Gas Council's Annual Report, the reports from the area gas boards, the reports of the Select Committee, and all other documents relating to the industry. There is sufficient scope for hon. Members to probe various aspects of the industry's policy.
    I propose, now, to deal with a matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and by the right hon. Member for Flint, West. One of the problems of managing nationalised industries is that they are often inhibited by the amount of public scrutiny to which they are subjected. This is far more true of them than it is of the Chairman of I.C.I, who, on many occasions, is kept away from the public gaze. We accept the need for this scrutiny of nationalised industries, and I do not want anybody to withdraw his request that this process should continue, but let us not forget that it may well be an inhibiting factor in attracting the best men to these industries.
    It has twice been said today that dealing with the matter by Order is a perfunctory method of tackling the problem. I ask the House to remember that, somehow or other, we managed to debate the 1967 Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order for about six hours. That is not a perfunctory way of dealing with an Order. I have more faith than apparently some hon. Gentlemen have in their end of the usual channels. I feel sure that they will have no difficulty in ensuring that a Gas Borrowing Order, an Electricity Borrowing Order, or any other Order is properly considered by the House.
    In putting forward a Bill dealing with borrowing powers over a five-year period in respect of what everybody agrees is one of the most exciting adventures into which the country can enter, the Government are following the practice of the Conservative Administration who quite rightly recognised that there was a need for nationalised industries to consider themselves as major commercial undertakings, and to do what normal commercial undertakings do, namely, plan ahead for at least this length of time.

    489
    During the Second Reading debate reference was made to the amount entered for contingencies, but the issue has not: been raised today. I think that management specialists today accept the view that forward estimates must always be regarded as subject to a reasonable margin of error. As I understand it, that is how modern industry conducts itself. In fact, the other day in "Studies in Management, No. 2", published by Allen and Unwin, I read the comments of a gentleman about corporate planning. He said that "all forecasts were inaccurate to a greater or lesser extent and that one thing which was certain was that a person responsible for corporate planning in industry must never claim that his forecasts are accurate— he should know better."
    We thought, and so did the Gas Council, that it was desirable to have an element of contingency planning. That did not imply for one moment that the money had automatically to be used. The inclusion of an amount for contingency planning is not imprudent. It conforms with modern thinking in industry. It does not mean that there is anything automatic about it. When the Minister asks for approval for the draft Statutory Order which seeks to raise the interim amount, he will justify whatever figure he introduces, making due allowance for uncertainties. He will put forward the figure which he considers necessary for the next three years. If it amounts to less than £800 million, a smaller amount will be proposed. In 1966 the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order raised the figure to £4,100 million even though the Conservative Administration had laid down that the maximum could be £4,400 million.
    I insisted on this low interim figure because, by doing so, the matter will have to come before the House in less than two years, when the whole issue can be scrutinised. Therefore, notwithstanding the admitted uncertainties of the gas industry, the amount of North Sea gas which will eventually become available, the markets obtainable at the beach price which the Gas Council will have to pay, the way in which peak loads will be met, and so on, there is at least something to be said for the fact that certain crucial decisions have been taken.
    490
    It is already clear that 3,000 million cubic feet a day of natural gas is available, and that remunerative markets for at least that quantity can be developed. I am glad that the hon. Member for Yeovil agrees with me. It has been decided that the greatest gain to the economy will be obtained by a policy of rapid absorption into industry, with most of the gas going to the premium market, with bulk sales being resorted to as necessary. It has also been decided that despite the cost of converting consumers' appliances, it is more economic to supply the natural gas direct to the consumer than to convert it to the present town gas.
    The oil companies are going ahead with their part of the operation. I am sure that at this stage, when delicate negotiations are taking place, nobody would expect me to speculate about why there are now five rigs instead of 15. It was understood that there would be a diminishing number. It means perhaps that exploration is drying up a little, but I hope it will not. Nevertheless, the oil companies are laying their pipelines and building their shore installations necessary to bring gas to the Council's pipelines.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Peyton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman really accept that there is danger here in that the oil companies are, as they are obliged to, building their installations and laying pipelines but they are increasingly at the mercy of a Government and a Gas Council which seems to be cashing in on the position without any scruple whatsoever? If no fair price is reached in the near future the Minister can take it that others all over the world will not come here.
    Mr. Gunter: I take the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but I would be reluctant to believe that the oil companies of the world are at the mercy of anybody. I would rather say that at the state of play at the present time they can drive as hard a bargain as anybody else.
    Sir G. Nabarro Sir G. Nabarro rose—
    Mr. Gunter: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment.
    Sir G. Nabarro: We are in Committee, Mr. Probert. The right hon. Gentleman went right through a Second Reading speech refusing to give way. Would

    491
    he now relate what he has just said to the fact that price agreement has only been reached in respect of less than 10 per cent, of the 4,000 million cubic feet per diem which is the optimum we need five years from now? And as price negotiation has been going on for three years, when does the Minister hope, first, to stop blaming his predecessors and, second, to achieve some finality in more than what is a derisory area of price agreement —I repeat less than 10 per cent,?
    Mr. Gunter: It is a great pity the hon. Gentleman is so rude. Had he let me finish the sentence I was going to sit down.
    Sir G. Nabarro: It was a very long sentence.
    Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman did not know. He did not wait for me to finish. I do not understand him. I was prepared to give way. I knew we were in Committee. And when have I blamed my predecessors?
    Sir G. Nabarro: All day.
    Mr. Gunter: I have not spoken for very long, so how could I blame them all day? Negotiations have been going on, perhaps for too long, but they are continuing. The arguments are still raging and I can only say that I hope a satisfactory conclusion will be reached ere long. There are many opinions as to whether the figure of 2·87 pence was right or whether it was too high, but that was the agreement come to, and all I can say, particularly to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), is that I hope they will be concluded as soon as possible.
    The Gas Council's borrowings average undoubtedly will have exceeded £1,600 million by early 1970–71 and will almost certainly have exceeded £1,800 million by early 1971–72; and further expenditure and borrowing will be needed if the gas already discovered is to be made available to consumers in the early 1970s. Unless it is intended not to take up the gas available and not to use it in the most economic fashion and at the most economic rate, it will merely lead to waste of Parliamentary time to reduce the final borrowing limit to the sums mentioned in these Amendments. I do urge the House to consider that very carefully.
    492
    Having dealt with what I thought was the general theme, apart from the usual remarks of the the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) about the House being dedicated to the proposition that all investment in nationalised industry is good—and I do not think he said very much else except to ask a more pertinent question: what did we hope to get?—I will move on. The argument is that the total benefit of conversion to natural gas at a present value of £1,400 million will average something over £100 million a year for 30 years, which is, of course, a substantial saving.
    Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman really must not laugh these things off. The amount of £100 million a year over 30 years is the value of the natural gas. That is not the question I have asked him. I pointed out to him carefully, and I repeated it, that the gravamen of the Prime Minister's statement on 16th January last was that revised Government policy rested most largely on import sav- ing. My first question was: what import saving will be created by this massive investment? Is he answering, £100 million of import saving per annum for 30 years? Is that his answer?
    Mr. Gunter Mr. Gunter rose—
    Sir G. Nabarro: Hurry up with the Civil Service!
    Mr. Gunter: It is not the Civil Service. That is just where the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I was referring not to the Civil Service but to "Gas Goes Natural", on page 15 of which the hon. Gentleman will find the figures I gave.
    Perhaps I may say a few words to the hon. Member for Finchley on one point which emerged in which I myself have always been interested: if at the end of 30 years, perchance, the natural gas has been exhausted, have we not wasted all this money on trunk pipelines? As a transport man I do not believe that in any case.
    I believe the finest asset this country could have, whether for natural gas or anything else, would be a system of underground pipelines. I am sure the hon. Lady will know that in America and elsewhere they are widely used for moving coal, grain, cereals and other things, so that it is not a wasted asset in that sense. But in any case, I want to tell her when

    493
    she speaks about the year by year, stage by stage development, on which I am not quite sure I followed her, that one simply could not have an uncontrolled programme. It is a rolling programme. At the end of each year the assessment is made and if further major considerations have to be made we can alter our programme. But it is quite impossible for me to tell her that there would be this compartmentalised 12-month by 12-month approach. As I have said, it is a rolling programme.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am not quite sure whether the phrase "rolling programme" really helps. Having looked at the programme, I suspect it has been arranged so that if the fourth and fifth years of the programme are not carried out, that is to say if the Minister does not get the extra borrowing powers that will render the expenditure in the first, second and third years largely abortive. There would have been another way of doing this; rather than putting pipelines everywhere across the country, these could have been introduced separately into certain areas, not introducing them into every area at the same time. The hon. Gentleman said that the programme could be checked. I would refer him to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 22nd May, 1968, at column 545. What did he mean?
    Mr. Gunter: The programme can always be checked year by year. There is the assessment every year, and of course gas is flowing into the grid and the marketing projections in the various areas of a country will be considered in relation to whether or not and how fast they are to be developed. That is the check about which I was thinking.
    I was asked by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) about the present position on the various gas banks. The actual gas discovered is over 3,000 million cubic feet daily or the equivalent of 36 million tons of coal a year. Of this, up to 250 million cubic feet comes from West Sole, where B.P. is operating, 600 million cubic feet will eventually come from the Hewett field (Phillips-Arpet), 1,600 million to 1,800 million cubic feet from Leman Bank (Shell-Esso) and. the Indefatigible field will give the remainder. There have also been to other discoveries on the Continental shelf—
    Mr. Lubbock: What is the figure for the Yorkshire field?
    Mr. Gunter: I could not give it offhand, but I will certainly see that the hon. Member gets it. The gas paid for already, that is, from B.P., is on a three-year price of 5d. per therm for the first 100 m.c.f.d. At Hewett, Phillips have a half share on a 25-year contract at 2·87d. per therm and Arpet are likely to accept the same terms.
    The hon. Member for Yeovil—I am sorry that he is absent—raised the question of licences, and rightly said that it was an act of faith and good conduct when the Conservative Administration issued those licences and we in 1965 renewed them. We held to the terms and conditions and the exploration's success was very good to the spring of 1967, although it has not been so good since. It has been a little disappointing, which accounts for the difference between the 13 and the 5 rigs. Those are the facts for which the hon. Member asked.
    The questions which remained unanswered are detailed, because we are in an area of uncertainty. I still say that, with the safeguards embodied in the Bill, within two years, possibly within 18 months, there must be a further debate upon progress when we have had the Report of the Select Committee and further information on prices. It is right and proper that we should allow the Gas Council to develop its plans over five years, but at the same time we must ensure that the checks are laid upon it in the manner which I have described.
    Mr. Lubbock: Would the right hon. Gentleman be so kind as to deal with my question about the consumption of coal by the area gas boards in the current financial year? The figure given is 8·6 million tons, in Sir Henry Jones' minutes of evidence. Does that still apply? How are the negotiations going on for the payment to be made by the Minister to the Gas Council under the Coal Industry Act, 1967, for the difference in cost between coal and the alternative sources of fuel?
    Mr. Gunter: I have not a quantitative figure in my hand, nor do I know the precise state of negotiations, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Before the Minister sits down, will he—[Interruption.] It is no good his wearily rubbing his eyes. He has given me an answer which is totally misleading and is seeking to purport to represent that it is an answer to a specific question which I put to him.
    I will repeat the question. If we make the massive investment for which he is calling in the Bill, what will be the benefit to our national economy in import saving—I repeat, in import saving? I hope that he understands those simple words. Good, the Civil Service have now provided him with an answer. He supinely referred me to a document called "Gas Goes Natural", which I have here, and to page 15, and he quoted me these figures:
    "This gives a total benefit at present value of £1,400 million which is equivalent to an average annual saving of £120 million for 30 years."
    What he actually said was £100 million annually for 30 years. That is the calculated saving in operational and capital costs in the United Kingdom of the gas industry. It is not the economy in imports: it is not an import saving.
    I now give the right hon. Gentleman a further opportunity to answer my straightforward and unequivocal question, arising from the Prime Minister's statement on 16th January. If we are voting the massive investment for which he is asking—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech and not an intervention.
    6.15 p.m.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, Mr. Probert, but we are in Committee—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. I was not aware that I had called the hon. Gentleman to make a speech.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I prefixed my remarks with the words, "before the Minister sits down", but I will wind up with just one sentence. What will be the import saving if we vote the massive sums in the Bill? I hope that I shall now get a reply as unequivocal as the question which I put.
    Mr. Gunter: I will not imitate the hon. Gentleman in rudeness. I did not
    496
    sit down wearily. I had something in my eye, and that is why I wiped my eye. I do not know why the hon. Member is in this place: he would make a fortune at the Palladium, I am sure.
    I will now give the answer. I will be short and precise, and I have no intention of answering it again—
    Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman is arrogant.
    Mr. Gunter: No, you are: that is the trouble.
    Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. The Minister has just called you arrogant, Mr. Irving. Would you ask him to withdraw at once?
    Mr. Gunter: No, I referred to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) as arrogant.
    The import savings were expected to be £50 million—
    Sir G. Nabarro: Ah.
    Mr. Gunter: For God's sake wait a minute. —£50 million in 1970, and will rise to £100 million in 1975 on the best assumptions. The precise figure depends on the assumptions made, but £100 million a year is a good guide in the period after the build-up. That is supplied by the Civil Service, and I am grateful for it.
    Mr. Peter Emery: I should like to bring the Committee back to the Amendments, which, it is clear, contain three different types. One is to reduce the immediate borrowing power of the Gas Council, the second is to limit the amount over the five years and the third is to limit the amount or scale of the borrowing power over these periods. I will try to deal particularly with these three elements.
    I must begin with one fair comment. That is that I am more than surprised, as I am sure is the Minister himself, that there has been not one speech from the Government's back benches on this matter. No interest has been shown there—although some of them are present now—when we are discussing the spending of £1,200 million. I think that that is a disgraceful state of affairs—
    Mr. Webster: I am a connoisseur of borrowing powers Bills and attend

    497
    regularly on these occasions. One of the reasons that I like them is that no members of the Government ever attend the debates or take part.
    Mr. Arthur Palmer: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the fact that I spoke at considerable length on Second Reading.
    Mr. Emery: I know only too well the interest of the hon. Gentleman in fuel matters, and my remarks were not directed at him. That is the last thing that I would want to do. This does go some way to explain to me the argument of the Minister that it is not necessary to exercise Parliamentary control on the expenditure of vast sums of money other than by Statutory Instrument. This is the difference between this side of the House and the Government. The Government believe that Parliamentary control will be exercised on the increased borrowing of £800 million if it is done by Statutory Instrument. Everybody knows that this will amount to a 90 minute debate and nothing more. This is inadequate, and that is why basically our Amendments are in the right sense. We are seeking to ensure that there will be greater Parliamentary control of Government expenditure, especially on vast capital sums.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) made it quite clear that hon. Members, whilst criticising the expenditure, were not suggesting that we were against a cheap fuel policy. This was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who wanted greater speed in the exploitation of natural gas. The price paid by the Government to the companies should give them a fair return for ensuring continued exploration in the North Sea, and also provide a reasonable price to both the large-scale consumer and the ordinary housewife. Too often the housewife and the smaller consumer are forgotten. I must, as I have done before, declare an interest in these matters, which I hope allows me to speak with some authority.
    The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) seemed not to care that the House was the right place for discussing financial matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) dealt more than adequately with this point. It is a terrifying situation for
    498
    the Whip of the Liberal Party in a speech on borrowing powers to suggest that it would be much better if the investigation of the expenditure of these vast sums of money was not dealt with on the Floor of the House. This would be untraditional and would neither benefit Parliament or democracy.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) gave a very good, limited speech, and his words should be reckoned with, since he was the Chairman of the Committee dealing with this matter. He suggested that it would be more in the interests of efficiency and economy if the Amendments were accepted for the time being until the views of the other power industries had been properly considered and adjudicated on and the report of the Select Committee is available.
    I do not know whether the basis of what I am saying is true or not, but it is being suggested by many opponents of gas that this borrowing powers Bill is being thrust through the House as early as possible, as the longer it is delayed the stronger will be the arguments for spending money in other industries in the nationalised sector of fuel and power. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde is relevant to this. When the report from the Select Committee is available we could come to a judgment, and our Amendments would allow the Government to deal with that point quite fairly.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) raised the point, which has been dealt with on Second Reading but not during this debate, that this money will be raised by taxation. Questions have been asked of the Government as to how they intended to do it. There is no doubt in my mind, and no doubt in the mind of the right hon. Member for Flint, West, that this money will be raised by taxation. The British public might pay a little more attention if they realised that this sum would be added to the spending power of the Government, and that they were to be called upon to provide the sum of £1,200 million over the next five years.
    I am concerned by the arguments that have been put forward both on Second Reading and today. First, they are based on a very doubtful and false piece

    499
    of logic and, second, we do not yet have full information. The arguments are based on the suggestion that the fuel oil tax will remain at 2·2d. per gallon. If that were altered, all the prognostications and statistics outlined for forward planning in the White Paper fall to the ground. I cannot say whether we on this side necessarily agree with that, but if that tax were reduced the economies of scale and the cost factors for the fuel industry would be altered. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House, but to be quite so certain in the presentation of the statistics of forward estimating is misleading, since at all times it has to be put in parenthesis that these statistics are subject to the fuel tax remaining at its present level.
    We are asked to make this judgment when we still do not know what total cost factors will be involved. We have one price, but until we have the price for all the fuels there will still be this enigma and question mark. It is reasonable and proper that the expansion should not be delayed, but it should go forward as a rolling programme that could be checked. These are not my words; they are the words of the Minister. I agree with him, but we want the check to come from the Floor of the House and for the industry to have, as in the case of most large industries, only the first bite to start with.
    I am also concerned that in the judgments which are being made the Government adopt an entirely different approach on spending and investment programmes for public industry and for private industry. I believe that there should be a single standard, and that it should be the one applied to private industry.
    If the right hon. Gentleman gave his wife £1,200 million, she would spend money much more rapidly than she does now. If we approve this vast sum for Gas Council borrowing in one single Bill, I believe that it will result in a greater freedom of spending than would be the case if the Council had to come back to this House more frequently. There would be more economy of spending if the amounts in the rolling programme were given only every two years or so. That is why, basically, it is wrong to approve a Borrowing Powers Bill such as this.
    500
    In our Amendments, we seek to reduce the overall amount from £2,400 million to £1,800 million, but that will not stop the industry going forward. We do not say, "You will limit your programme and stop your expansion." We say, "You must have your programme so prepared that you realise that you have not got final spending approval for the latter part of it." There is nothing unusual about that in small businesses or in industry generally, and that is the sort of financial stringency which we ask the Government to apply to the nationalised gas industry.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): If the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends feel so strongly about this, perhaps he will tell the House why in the Electricity and Gas Act, 1963, they sought powers which resulted in roughly twice the level of borrowing for the Electricity Council as that proposed in this Bill for the Gas Council. The figures were £2,300 million being raised to £4,400 million.
    Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman's mathematics are obviously not good. Let me give him a lesson in adding two and two together. If one increases £1,200 million to £2,400 million, that is an increase of 100 per cent,—
    Mr. Freeson: What is this, then?
    Mr. Emery: We propose a 50 per cent, increase. If the hon. Gentleman does not know the difference between 50 per cent, and 100 per cent,, it is about time that he returned to the back benches.
    Sir G. Nabarro: As I was present during the debates in 1963, moving restrictive measures from the Government benches, would not my hon. Friend point out to the Parliament Secretary that in those days our economy was highly expansive, utterly solvent and we were paying our way, and there were no restrictions on finance at home or abroad. Today, on the other hand, we are living in a siege economy, and such squander-mania on the part of nationalised industry is neither propitious nor justified.
    Mr. Emery: I think that we have dealt with that point long and far enough to have made it clear that the Government's argument falls to the ground. However, it allows me to underline the fact

    501
    that we are allowing an increase of one-third in the overall borrowing powers and a total increase of 100 per cent,, unless the Bill is amended. We feel that that is too much. Whatever may have been done in the past, even if it were right then, is not right in the present economic situation.
    How many people realise that the amount involved in the Bill is something over £20 a head for every man, woman, child, and old age pensioner in the country? That is the situation which this House has to present to the country to make people realise how much is involved.
    When one considers the overall factors, I would remind the House of these words. On 26th March, 1966, it was said that, as a condition of solving our economic problems.
    "… public expenditure, equally with private expenditure, shall not be allowed to exceed the resources that we can make available from our expanding production."
    I only wish that those words were being put into effect. But it is typical of the Government to say one thing and do another. Those words are taken from a speech by the Prime Minister.
    If in this Bill we were suggesting that the present level of production and productivity was allowing this sort of investment, it would mean that very little would be left for other investment either in the public sector or the private sector of industry, and that is known only too well.
    No private firm would approve of an investment programme of this character without much more information. We have only some very rough figures. They are £1,221 million in fixed assets, £276 million in conversions, £44 million in loans, and £53 million in the financing of expanding turnover. No board of directors or finance sub-committee would approve the type of expenditure that the Government and the Gas Council expect us to make on those overall round figures.
    The one achievement resulting from this debate may be that when nationalised industries ask for more borrowing powers we may have more information about the way in which tens upon tens of millions of £s are proposed to be spent. The figures exist. They could easily be incorporated in a memorandum to a Borrowing Powers Bill. That would allow Parliament to inspect the figures to a much greater degree than we are able at the moment.
    We would like to see a reduction in the total level granted, because we believe that, in the present economic circumstances, there ought to be greater economy from the Government. That is not evident at the moment, and I would urge my hon. Friends to support me in the Division Lobby on this matter.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
    The Committee divided: Ayes 105, Noes 141.

    Division No. 212.]

    AYES

    [6.28 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

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

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Emery, Peter

    Lane, David

    Astor, John

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

    Eyre, Reginald

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

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Foster, Sir John

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk C.)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Bell, Ronald

    Goodhart, Philip

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Goodhew, Victor

    McMaster, Stanley

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Grant, Anthony

    Maddan, Martin

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Maude, Angus

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Grieve, Percy

    Mawby, Ray

    Body, Richard

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Gurden, Harold

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    More, Jasper

    Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Munro-Lucas-Toorh, Sir Hugh

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Head, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Burden, F. A.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nott, John

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Crouch, David

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

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

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Peyton, John

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Jopling, Michael

    Pounder, Rafton

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kirk, Peter

    Pym, Francis

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

    Walters, Dennis

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Speed, Keith

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Stodart, Anthony

    Webster, David

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Tapsell, Peter

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Royle, Anthony

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Sharples, Richard

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

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

    Van Straubenzee, W. R

    TELLFRS FOR THE AYES:

    Silvester, Frederick

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Mr. Hector Monro and

    Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

    NOES

    Alldritt, Walter

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Paget, R. T.

    Anderson, Donald

    Haseldine, Norman

    Palmer, Arthur

    Archer, Peter

    Hattersley, Roy

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Hazell, Bert

    Parker, John (Dagermam)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Pentland, Norman

    Binns, John

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Boston, Terence

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

    Rees, Merlyn

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Richard, Ivor

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Brooks, Edwin

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

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

    Buchan, Norman

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

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

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Kelley, Richard

    Roebuck, Roy

    Carmichael, Neil

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

    Rose, Paul

    Chapman, Donald

    Lawson, George

    ROSS, Rt. Hn. William

    Coleman, Donald

    Ledger, Ron

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Ryan, John

    Davidson,James(Aberdeenshlre,W.)

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Dewar, Donald

    Lomas, Kenneth

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

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Loughin, Charles

    Slater, Joseph

    Dickens, James

    Lubbock, Eric

    Small, William

    Driberg, Tom

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Thornton, Ernest

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

    McBride, Neil

    Tinn, James

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McCann, John

    Tomney, Frank

    Ellis, John

    MacDermot, Niall

    Urwin, T. W.

    Ennals, David

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Varley, Eric G.

    Ensor, David

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Mackie, John

    Wallace, George

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Wellbeloved, James

    Fowler, Gerry

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wells, William (Waisa1l, N.)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Millan, Bruce

    Whitaker, Ben

    Freeson, Reginald

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

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Molloy, William

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Gardner, Tony

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Murray, Albert

    Woof, Robert

    Griffiths. David (Rother Valley)

    Ogden, Eric

    Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

    O'Malley, Brian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Oram, Albert E.

    Mr. Harry Gourlay and

    Hamling, William

    Orme, Stanley

    Mr. Alan Fitch.

    Harper, Joseph

    Oswald, Thomas

    Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 1, line 11, leave out from "million" to end of line 12.—[Mrs. Thatcher.]
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 105, Noes 141.

    Division No. 213.]

    AYES

    [6.47 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Carr, Rt. Mn. Robert

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Crouch, David

    Astor, John

    Body, Richard

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

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

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

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

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Bell, Ronald

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Burden, F. A.

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

    Emery, Peter

    Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langs tone)

    Royle, Anthony

    Errington, Siir Eric

    Lloyd Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Eyre, Reginald

    Longden, Gilbert

    Scott, Nicholas

    Foster, Sir John

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Sharpies, Richard

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    McMaster, Stanley

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

    Goodhart, Philip

    Maddan, Martin

    Silvester, Frederick

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maude, Angus

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick&L'mington)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Mawby, Ray

    Speed, Keith

    Grieve, Percy

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Stodart, Anthony

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Gurden, Harold

    Monro, Hector

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Nott, John

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Walters, Dennis

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Peyton, John

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Webster, David

    Jopling, Michael

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Pym, Francis

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Kirk, Peter

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Wilson, Ceoffrey (Truro)

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    mt

    Lane, David

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Mr. Jasper More and

    Mr. Anthony Graot.

    NOES

    Alldritt, Walter

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Anderson, Donald

    Haseldine, Norman

    Paget, R. T.

    Archer, Peter

    Hattersley, Roy

    Palmer, Arthur

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Hazell, Bert

    Psnnell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Bennett, James (G'gow,Bridgeton)

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Binns, John

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Bishop, E. S.

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Pentland, Norman

    Blenhinsop, Arthur

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea,S.)

    Boston, Terence

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Rees, Merlyn

    Brooks, Edwin

    Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

    Richard, Ivor

    Buchan, Norrnan

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

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

    Carmichael, Neil

    Keliey, Richard

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

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Roebuck, Roy

    Chapman, Donald

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

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Coteman, Donald

    Lawson, Ceorge

    Rose, Paul

    Concannon, J. D.

    Laadbitter, Ted

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Davidson,James(Aberdeen*htre,W.)

    Ledger, Ron

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Ryan, John

    Dewar, Donatd

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Lipton, Marcus

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Dickens, James

    Lomas, Kenneth

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

    Driberg, Tom

    Loughlin, Charles

    Slater, Joseph

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

    Lubbock, Eric

    Small, William

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Ellis, John

    McBride, Neil

    Thornton, Ernest

    Ennals, David

    McCann, John

    Tinn, James

    Ensor, David

    MacDermot, Niall

    Tomney, Frank

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Urwin, T. W.

    Faulds, Andrew

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Varley. Eric G.

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ry)

    Walker, Harold (Doncatter)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Wallace, Ceorge

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Fowler, Gerry

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wellbeloved, James

    Freeson, Reginald

    Millan, Bruce

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

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

    Whltaker, Ben

    Gardner, Tony

    Molloy, William

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Murray, Albert

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

    Ogden, Eric

    Woof, Robert

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Hamling, William

    Cram, Albert E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Harper, Joseph

    Orme, Stanley

    Mr. Harry Gourlay and

    Mr. Alan Fitch.

    Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 1, line 12, leave out'£2,400' and insert'£1,800'.—[Sir G. Nabarro.]
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 105, Noes 142.

    Division No. 214.]

    AYES

    [6.56 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Gurden, Harold

    Pounder, Rafton

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hall-Davis, A. C. F.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Astor, John

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Pym, Francis

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

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Bell, Ronald

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Royle, Anthony

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Jopling, Michael

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Body, Richard

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Kirk, Peter

    Sharpies, Richard

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

    Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Silvester, Frederick

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Lane, David

    SmIth Dudley (W'wick&L'mington)

    Bullus, Sir EriIc

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Speed, Keith

    Burden, F. A.

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

    Stodart, Anthony

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Lloyd Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Crouch, David

    Longden, Gilbert

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

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

    McMaster, Stanley

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margare

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Maddan, Martin

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Maude, Angus

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Mawby, Ray

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

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

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Walters, Dennis

    Emery, Peter

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Monro, Hector

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Eyre, Reginald

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Webster, David

    Foster, Sir John

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Goodhart, Philip

    NOTT, John

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Goodhew Victor

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Grieve, Percy

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Peyton, John

    Mr..Jasper More and

    Mr. Anthony Grant.

    NOES

    Alldritt, Walter

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Anderson, Donald

    Fowler, Gerry

    Ledger, Ron

    Archer, Peter

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Freeson, Reginald

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Lipton, Marcus

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Gardner, Tony

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Binns, John

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Boston, Terence

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    McBride, Neil

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

    McCann, John

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Brooks, Edwin

    Harming, William

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Harper, Joseph

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Carmichael, Neil

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mackenzie,Alasdair-(Ross&Crom'ty)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Haseldine, Norman

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Chapman, Donald

    Hattersley, Roy

    Marks, Kenneth

    Coleman, Donald

    Hazell, Bert

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Concannon, J. D.

    Heifer, Eric S.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Millan, Bruce

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hooley, Frank

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

    Dewar, Donald

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Molloy, William

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Dickens, James

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Driberg, Tom

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Murray, Albert

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

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

    Ogden, Eric

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Ellis, John

    Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

    Oram, Albert E.

    Ennals, David

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Orme, Stanley

    Ensor, David

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Kelley, Richard

    Paget, R. T.

    Faulds, Andrew

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Palmer, Arthur

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lawson, George

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Ryan, John

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Penuand, Norman

    Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, s.)

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

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Whitaker, Ben

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Slater, Joseph

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Rees, Merlyn

    Small, William

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Richard, Ivor

    Symonde, J. B.

    Willliams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Roberts, Cwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

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

    Tinn, James

    Woof, Robert

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

    Tomney, Frank

    Roebuck, Hoy

    Urwin, T. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Mr. Harry Gourlay and

    Rose, Paul

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mr. Alan Fitch.

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Wallace, George

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  POWER OF ELECTRICITY COUNCIL TO BORROW FOREIGN CURRENCY BY ISSUE OF SECURITIES
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 14, after'currency' insert
  'not exceeding ten times the Council's average annual earnings of foreign currency over the three years immediately prior to the borrowing'.
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 13, in Clause 4, page 3, line 35, after' currency', insert
  'not exceeding ten times the Council's average annual earnings of foreign currency over the three years immediately prior to the borrowing'.
  Mr. Ridley: I make clear that we intend this Amendment to apply to all the borrowings of foreign currency under the Bill. We have not put down Amendments referring to the North and South of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Boards, but it is our intention to apply the same criteria there. We apply this criterion to the earnings of the nationalised industries concerned in foreign exchange as some sort of control of the amount of borrowing undertaken under this Clause. The capital of nationalised industries is capital provided by the State. The fact that the separate stock issues were withdrawn 13 years ago and all consolidated in Treasury issues proves that this is the verity of the matter.
  The present Government have not changed that position. In the White Paper, Cmnd. 3437, they said:
  510
  "Alternative public sector borrowing arrangements will be kept under review, but nothing would be gained by going back to separate stock issues for the nationalised industries. These would involve serious problems of market management and would not create any additional savings."
  I believe that to be so. One can go so far as to say that capital of State industries is a fairly meaningless concept. It is money spent by the State on assets which will last longer than others. The idea that we are operating normal commercial concerns and can draw a meaningful distinction between capital and revenue makes very little sense in relation to nationalised industries.
  The Government have from time to time tried to pretend that capital is of a different nature and we have had talk about below the line, national loan funds, and Government investing. The result of this wrong thinking has been a complete run-away in capital expenditure by nationalised industries. The Government's whole capital investment, as they call it, has trebled in the last four years. This colossal increase is due, in small part, to the different terms accorded to capital expenditure from those accorded to revenue expenditure. What has obviously encouraged the Government to allow these two nationalised industries to borrow in the foreign currency market is the fact that B.O.A.C. has borrowed some dollars to build hotels in America, and it seems to the Government to be a convenient way of raising some foreign cash.
  I do not want to discuss the B.O.A.C. matter. It would be out of order to do so. We on this side are against B.O.A.C. running hotels, because that is not the purpose for which the Corporation was set up. However, that is another matter. The question here is: should the Corporation or, indeed, any other nationalised industry be allowed to borrow money; and, if so, on what criteria and how much?

  511
  The second thing which is obviously in the Government's mind is their orders to private industry to borrow abroad for the maximum amount of investment abroad. The Government obviously think that this can be to some extent reproduced in the nationalised industries by requiring them to borrow abroad for some of their investment. I do not believe that investment in this sense is the same in a public industry as it is in a private concern. Therefore, we are left with the argument that this is some way of saving foreign exchange.
  Therefore, looking at this from a foreign exchange—a balance of payments —point of view, the immediate short term result, when the nationalised industry gets its foreign exchange, will be a profit to the balance of payments: it will receive money which will come across the exchanges and put us into credit. In the long term, it clearly will not be so. The nationalised industry will presumably invest this money in plant and facilities in Britain and it will have to pay interest across the exchanges every year. It will, in addition, at some time have to repay the principal, or it may repay the principal year to year, or it may have to renew the principal. Long term, this will be adverse to the balance of payments.
  The confusion here is between borrowing abroad for investment abroad and borrowing abroad for investment at home. It is much easier to make out a case for borrowing abroad for investment abroad than it ever could be for borrowing abroad for investment at home. Although the B.O.A.C. case may be justifiable, it quite clearly is less justifiable in the case of the Gas Council and the Electricity Council, which will not be making profitable investments abroad. If I were wrong on this, I would retract this argument; but I am certain that nobody will say that the intention is for the Gas Council and the Electricity Council to start building power stations or gas works in foreign countries as a means of earning foreign exchange.
  Indeed, the bodies concerned are practically not earners of foreign exchange at present. The only source of foreign exchange from the operations of the bodies concerned will be payments under the Channel link to the Electricity Coun-
  512
  cil for electricity sold for France, though I would concede that there may be indirect exports due to other bodies benefiting from these activities.
  We have the peculiar position that the Government seek powers for these industries to borrow abroad for investment, presumably at home, which in the long term is counter to the balance of payments and which apparently has no economic justification. This is an additional way in which the Government can borrow foreign exchange. I come back to where I started: it appears that the Government, dressed up as the Electricity Council or the Gas Council, will now try to borrow more money from abroad.
  7.15 p.m.
  This is not something that we on this side smile upon. If the Government want to borrow more money from abroad, it would probably be more advisable for them to do it themselves and not to pretend that it is one of these nationalised industries doing it.
  Mr. Palmer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not overlooked the fact that professor Sir Ronald Edwards, the Chairman of the Electricity Council, has advocated this course quite independently on his own account for quite a period. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suppose that the incentive necessarily comes from Government.
  Mr. Ridley: I do not know whose idea this first was. I am merely commenting on the proposal which is being made by the Government. If Sir Ronald has advocated this for some time and it has not been adopted till now, it may well be that there are very good reasons why it has not been adopted earlier. I am trying to enumerate argumemts against this proposal. I would not be so dogmatic as to say that this is utterly and completely wrong. I am simply pointing out the disadvantages in the proposal put forward by the Government. I must conclude that it amounts to a further means for the Government to borrow money abroad, which is not a thing that I would say that they should not do. However, on the whole, it seems to have very little to do with the power industries, which may well be why the Chief Secretary is to answer this debate, because this is a financial matter and it

  513
  has nothing to do with the power industries.
  We believe that the justification for borrowing abroad would be there only if this money were to be invested abroad and were to produce foreign earnings. The Amendment would link the amount of borrowing to the amount of foreign earnings. As we cannot predict what future foreign earnings will be, we have had to link it to past foreign earnings. The principle is right, although we have had great difficulty in framing an Amendment which would make sense in this respect. The principle is right that the point of this borrowing in relation to a nationalised industry should be only to allow it to maximise its earnings of foreign exchange. As clearly neither the Gas Council nor the Electricity Council will benefit from this, it amounts to a disapproval of the proposition.
  I hops that the Chief Secretary will tell us what the earnings of the Gas Council and the Electricity Council have been, either pluses or minuses. I am sure that he will tell us what the effects of these investments would be on our balance of payments. We also want to know how much borrowing he envisages there will be, whether there are distinct proposal;; or whether it is just a reserve power, and how much he believes will be borrowed at any specific time.
  Subject to the right hon. Gentleman's answers to these questions, I must say that the proposal seems at first sight to be a concealed method by which the Government can borrow further foreign exchange and does not seem to be remotely connected to the ability of the Councils concerned to earn foreign exchange. That is what we would like to see them doing.
  Sir G. Nabarro: When I first read the Bill I was shocked to see that a Socialist Government, responsible for the nationalisation of the coal, gas and electricity industries, should be suggesting that these industries would, in future, in part measure, be financed with foreign money. Surely one of the arguments for nationalisation was that the Government should have absolute control over the policies and activities of these industries. Now for the first time nationalised industries are to be made subject to a degree of control in the event of loans being negotiated from oversea.
  514
  It cannot mean anything else. I do not accept that there is any analogy between these industries and the minute foreign borrowings of B.O.A.C. or a corporation of that kind to create assets abroad. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said, we would quarrel with the principle that B.O.A.C. should be allowed to run hotels, anyway, but under this Government I suppose it could be given a writ to run anything. If that happens, I suppose that they must raise a certain amount of money abroad, but the industries we are discussing now—gas and electricity—are concerned entirely with indigenous products. They export nothing and import nothing, so far as I am aware—
  Mr. Lubbock: Yes, they do.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman should not get touchy yet. They import nothing save only raw materials they propose to convert to more sophisticated products, as in the case of methane from North Africa. I expect that that will stop quite shortly—
  Mr. Lubbock: No.
  Sir G. Nabarro: When the contract expires. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would let me make my speech without sitting behind me yapping. I will give way if he wishes now, in order to quiet him.
  Mr. Lnbbock: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "shortly". The importation of natural gas from Algeria will continue throughout the period during which the Bill will be in effect when it becomes an Act.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I repeat "shortly" —that is, relatively a very short term compared with the North Sea gas element in the Bill, which is the major consideration so far as the gas industry is concerned.
  Borrowing money abroad is an entirely novel departure. No money could be borrowed abroad without a Treasury guarantee. I am glad that the Chief Secretary immediately nods assent. Therefore, it is really the British Government borrowing abroad. The right hon. Gentleman nods dissent now. It is the British Government borrowing abroad. If a nationalised corporation negotiates

  515
  a debt in the form of a loan in a foreign country, whatever the terms, no money would be available without a guarantee from the British Government. That is manifest, because the British Government own the assets in these industries. Therefore, it amounts to a British Government loan being negotiated abroad.
  The fault with a system of this kind is that it abrogates absolutely my principles and conception of what proper capital formation should rest on in the case of entirely indigenous industries that are not concerned, in their normal course of business, with importing or exporting, save only the exception I quoted a moment or two ago. All sound capital formation should rest on savings, but today it does not, because the British people have not enough confidence in the present Government to furnish a sufficient flow of savings to add in the aggregation to the capital formation needed for public corporations and similar ventures.
  I do not believe that the measures proposed in the Bill are desirable or necessary. I do not believe that they will ever be used. Perhaps Sir Ronald Edwards recommended them. He is leaving his post shortly. I shall not comment on many of his recommendations; I have no high regard for them. Before the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) cackles, for we are old adversaries in this field, I remind him that more than 10 years ago Sir Edwin Herbert, in the Herbert Report on the electricity generation industry, strongly recommended that the Electricity Council should raised a substantial part of its capital on the open money market here in Britain. The Tory Government never implemented that recommendation, nor have the Labour Government. Neither could implement it, because the money could not be raised in sufficient sums without a Treasury guarantee or, in effect, an underwriting by the British Government.
  I do not believe that we are ever likely to use the provisions in Clauses (2), (3) and (4). For that reason, as a simple expedient to ventilate my objections to these arrangements, I am supporting the Amendment.
  516
  Are we so bankrupt that we are incapable of finding our own capital for our own nationally-owned industries within our own country without going begging cap in hand to a foreigner to put part of those industries in pawn? That is what it amounts to. It is morally defeatist to do so because these are British industries. It is financially improvident to do so because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, it represents throughout the term of the loan, both in respect of repayment and the interest, a drain on our balance of payments. In my judgment it is economically unsound.
  For all those reasons, I object to the proposals. I consider them unnecessary and hope that they will never be used. I believe that this view is held by the whole of my party.
  Mr. Palmer: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) used to make speeches in the past as he does now. I have rather a better memory of his speeches than he appears to have. I can remember when he often used to argue that the nationalised industries should be the subject to the disciplines of the market. He suggested in those days that they should raise capital on the market if they could. He did not always think that they could, but he felt that they should do so ideally.
  Therefore, I was rather startled to hear him making the speech he has just made. I am surprised even more that the Conservative Party should be arguing in this way. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have often advocated that the nationalised industries should be publicly-owned commercial undertakings. If that is so, surely they should be able to raise loans from time to time, if they are in a strong enough commercial position, on their own credit? True, that credit is Government-guaranteed, for they are publicly-owned industries, but if it suits them from their financial point of view, perhaps to tide them over a temporary difficulty, such as paying interest on loans for investment not yet remunerative why should they not do so?
  The hon. Gentleman has been expounding a curious economic nationalism. I cannot understand the suggestion that because an undertaking happens to be publicly-owned it should not raise money

  517
  on its credit and that of the Government in a favourable market even if the market is overseas. It is a commercial transaction like so many others and should be seen as such.
  There is bound to be a limit on such borrowing, but, as I argued on Second Reading, if the Electricity Council could have raised some money abroad a year or so ago, this would have helped it to pay the interest on its long-term capital which is not yet remunerative because it was forced by the National Plan to look perhaps too far ahead. In that case it is possible that electricity prices need not have been raised as they were.
  When I referred to what Sir Ronald Edwards said, I was speaking from my memory of his speech or lecture. As I recall it, he was advocating overseas borrowing from a limited point of view in a commercial context not as an alternative to major Treasury lending.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ridley: Since the hon. Gentleman has admitted that the Electricity Council over-invested, is it not rather a miracle that it did not manage to borrow any more money in order to over-invest that as well? Surely this is why nationalised industries are not commercial undertakings.
  Mr. Palmer: I have been frank enough to say that the fault has been largely that of the Government in that they encouraged the electricity industry to invest too far ahead on the assumption that productivity levels in the country would be higher than they have turned out to be. The electricity industry was obliged, so to speak, to over-estimate on its load forecasting and its advance arrangements for new plant. That plant at the moment is not entirely remunerative but it will be. The load will catch it up.
  I am not a financial expert. I am merely an engineer. But, unlike other experts, financial experts are often as wrong as right. I look at this proposal from ordinary common logic which is rarely wrong. The Electricity Council was anxious to borrow abroad to tide it over a temporary difficulty. It would have been sound common logic if the Government earlier on had given it permission to do what it wanted to do.
  The arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury
  518
  (Mr. Ridley) and by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South were a little forced, I thought. I am doubtful whether they really believe in them. It seems to me that they are simply looking around for something to say on this matter because they feel that they must say something on this part of the Bill.
  I suspect that if, some years ago, Conservative Ministers had been approached by the Electricity Council with this kind of request, they would have acceded to it in the way that my right hon. Friend has sensibly acceded to it. The request has not come from the Treasury and probably the Treasury is still doubtful about it though my right hon. Friend's presence reassures me. But because the Treasury may be doubtful does not necessarily mean that the proposal is a bad one. I believe that the initiative has come from the industries concerned and I am glad the Government have acceded to it.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Did I clearly understand the hon. Gentleman to say that it would have been a good thing if the electricity industry had borrowed overseas a year ago?
  Mr. Palmer Mr. Palmer indicated assent.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Then supposing the industry had borrowed one thousand million Eurodollars a year ago, it would have to repay in principle 17 per cent, more than what it borrowed, which would have been a good argument for not borrowing it a year ago.
  Mr. Palmer: These are problems which arise from devaluation and from the general financial position of the country and I do not think that they would bear more heavily on the electricity industry than on industry generally. The hon. Lady has put a much broader argument. I am keeping the case to the narrower one of the interest of electricity supply and of gas if necessary. If the nationalised industries are to be efficient, they must have reasonable freedom in matters of this kind. I am genuinely puzzled that the Opposition, who so often talk about financial judgment and running the nationalised industries on commercial lines, should be opposed to this reasonable proposal.
  Mr. Lubbock: The speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer)

  519
  was full of sound common sense. I agree that we should try to make the nationalised industries behave more and more as commercial enterprises. I thought that was the view of the Opposition as well until I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on Second Reading and to the speeches of the hon. Members for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) this evening. They seemed to take an opposite attitude.
  I am unable to follow their reasoning. In any case it is inconsistent because the hon. Lady said on Second Reading that the Minister should not introduce this power in the Bill, enabling foreign currency to be borrowed, because at the same time he was encouraging investment by foreign companies in the North Sea and part of the earnings from those operations would go overseas. She is saying, in effect, that the whole of the prospecting industry in the North Sea should be nationalised so that none of the profits from the operations go overseas. That is the logic of her contention.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Will the hon. Gentleman quote me directly on this point? The main reason that one should be wary about letting nationalised industries borrow in overseas currency—that is the only thing we are talking about—is that they have no money to repay in the coin in which they have borrowed. If they borrow dollars, they have none coming in with which to repay what they have borrowed. Perhaps the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will tell us whether the Exchange Control Department of the Bank of England would give permission to an ordinary commercial enterprise with no overseas currency earnings to borrow in overseas currency for investment in this country, because that is the only acid comparison with what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
  Mr. Lubbock: That was a long and intellectual argument and I am happy to be generous and quote the hon. Lady's Second Reading speech. She said, referring to the Minister's argument:
  "That is already partly modified by the fact that a lot of the capital which has gone into developing North Sea gas has been foreign, and that foreign capital has to be serviced, which means a lot of money going out annu-
  520
  ally."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 564.]
  So she is suggesting that no foreign operators should be allowed into the North Sea and that the operations should be undertaken entirely by nationalised industries. I do not agree with her.
  Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman is not on the right point.
  Mr. Lubbock: I do no believe in nationalisation. I am much happier for there to be a number of different companies prospecting in the North Sea, some of which, admittedly, are in public ownership, and I have supported that case in arguments about it before. The quicker the resources are developed and the more agents prospecting in the North Sea the better it will be for our economy.
  I dislike the chauvinistic argument of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South about participation of foreign investors in the operations of nationalised industries. I cannot see anything wrong with such participation. It is not, as he put it, going begging cap in hand to the foreigners, putting part of those industries in pawn. Local authorities borrow from overseas financiers and I do not think he says that, because they have access to this money, they have pawned the town hall of South Worcestershire, if there is one. There probably is not one. It is probably too insignificant a place to have one. [Interruption.] That is his contention. He has put forward a chauvinistic argument and I am entitled to reply to him in my own way. Because local authorities have access to sources of foreign currency does not mean that they are going begging cap in hand to foreigners, putting part of their assets in pawn. I had thought better of the hon. Gentleman. I have often listened with great pleasure and approval to his speeches in energy industry debates. But he has sunk pretty low on this occasion.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Since I am such a low creature I had better explain to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, there is not a town hall in South Worcestershire. Only boroughs have town halls. South Worcestershire is an administrative centre. But I remind him that Evesham is where Parliament began. We are talking about the gas and electricity industries. Gaz de France and Electricité de France are nationalised corporations. But we would

  521
  not see a Frenchman borrowing sterling to pay for capital investment in France— not on your life. General de Gaulle is too fly for that.
  Mr. Lubbock: I am not sure that the nationalised industries in France do not have equivalent powers to those given to our gas and electricity industries in this Bill.
  Sir G. Nabarro: But I am sure.
  Mr. Lubbock: Perhaps the Chief Secretary to the Treasury can enlighten us. I shall be delighted to have a conversation with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South afterwards about it. As I said on Second Reading, I am glad that we do not have to debate the borrowing powers of Gaz de France and Electricite de France or of E.N.I, and I.R.I. The hon. Gentleman said that he imagined the theory was that the Government should have absolute control over the policies and activities of these industries and that that was the whole point of nationalisation. To me it is not. There could be nothing less likely to lead to a profitable and healthy operation of these industries than to have detailed interference on a day-to-day basis by Ministers. I am not criticising these Ministers, but I do not think that a Minister of the Crown is the right person to operate these industries.
  Following on the argument of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central, if we want these industries to behave more like ordinary public companies, we have to allow them a degree of commercial freedom which might include the ability to borrow overseas. If a public company has this power, I cannot see why the gas and electricity industries should not have it, too. There is a precedent for it. B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.—
  Mrs. Thatcher: They make foreign exchange earnings.
  Mr. Lubbock:—can already raise loans overseas, as the hon. Member for Finchley knows. What has not been made clear to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who implied that he did not know where these proposals originated, is that they came as a direct request from the industries concerned. If he had read the Memorandum on the Gas and Electricity Bill, which was submitted to us at the time the Bill was presented, he would have found in paragraph 9
  522
  "… it is the desire of the industry concerned …"
  Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary made it clear on Second Reading that the two industries had made this request to him. It was not an idea which originated with the Government. The hon. Gentleman also pointed out—and this is relevant to the discussion—that it may happen on occasion that opportunities arise of borrowing more advantageously overseas than from the National Loans Fund. If, therefore, a lower rate of interest is being paid on borrowings from overseas, it means that the gas and electricity industries will be able to make a larger profit. Thus, the consumer of gas and electricity in this country will derive some benefit.
  The only argument remaining with which we have to deal is that, because the gas and electricity industries do not engage in operations overseas, as do B.O.A.C. and B..E.A., they are in a substantially different position. B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. might wish to develop hotels in foreign countries as a means of attracting more passengers. Although there may be arguments whether it is legitimate for airlines to enter into these operations, they have been approved by Parliament. Therefore, it might be convenient for them to borrow foreign currency for the purpose of constructing these hotels.
  Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that, during the period covered by the Bill, capital expenditure will need to be undertaken overseas by the gas industry? The Gas Council has an investment in a company called British Methane, Ltd., which operates ships bringing liquified natural gas from Algeria. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that British Methane, Ltd., might wish to develop terminal facilities in Algeria for use in association with these ships and that it might be able to do it more efficiently than our Algerian partners?
  The Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading said that there were no concrete plans for the use of foreign money, but, if we are looking at the position of the industry over five years, we must envisage possibilities of the kind that I have mentioned. If, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South says, the powers will never be used, why are we bothering to argue about the Clauses? However, if there is a chance that it

  523
  might be extremely convenient for the gas industry to have this power legitimately for operations directly relevant to the importation of natural gas, it would be sensible for the House to allow these Clauses to go through.
  7.45 p.m.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I think that we must welcome these Amendments in the sense that they are probing Amendments and give one an opportunity for explaining new development, because new development is certainly taking place and it is right that the Government should explain it and seek the approval of the House. If the Amendments are not probing Amendments they will not get my approval, because they will result in the amount borrowed abroad being reduced to zero, which is not a very—
  Mrs. Thatcher: They were meant to do that.
  Mr. Diamond: If they were meant to do that they were meant to be wrecking Amendments.
  I now turn to the more constructive side, namely why these powers are introduced and why we hope the House, including the Conservative Party, will come up to date and have regard to what is happening in the world around, and perhaps even go so far as to forget their economic nationalism and permit nationalised industries to be as commercial in their outlook as they would wish them to be and as the Government would wish them to be.
  Broadly, the situation is that in recent years an entirely new market has developed—a getting together of those with capital available—which is fortunately to the advantage of this country, and particularly to the advantage of the City where the expertise is unexcelled anywhere in Europe. A market has developed as a result of which foreign savings can be tapped as well as domestic savings. That is sensible. Those who say they are in favour of savings should add, "wherever they come from".
  What has happened in the commercial world, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) knows full well, is that advantage has
  524
  been taken from time to time by a number of organisations of borrowing in this internationally created finance market, sometimes called the international bond market and sometimes more narrowly referred to as the Euro-bond market. What is proposed, and what the Amendments seek to deny completely, is that nationalised industries should have power to borrow in this market under conditions which seem to the Minister sensible having regard to the needs of the industry, and which seem to the Treasury right and proper having regard to the economic and financial position of the country. That seems a sensible thing to encourage.
  To answer the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), it is something upon which other Governments look favourably. I do not know whether he or the distinguished President to whom he referred was the more fly, but it is a fact that the French railways, electricity and telecommunications industries have made an issue of Euro-bonds. Each issue was for under £10 million, each stock carried a maturity of around 15 years and carried a yield redemption of rather over 6½ per cent,—
  Sir G. Nabarro Sir G. Nabarro rose—
  Mr. Diamond:—and each stock was guaranteed by the French Government.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these were issued in utterly different circumstances. They were issued within the Common Market to overcome the exchange control manipulations and difficulties that there might be, for example, between the Deutsche-mark, on the one hand, and the French franc, on the other. There is an economic and financial wall round the Common Market today. We are entirely separate from it. Our exchange control assures us of that. Therefore, there is no analogy in what the right hon. Gentleman is now quoting for Euro-bonds.
  Mr. Diamond: I will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman by inviting him to consider what he said first and what he is saying now. That is his own affair. I am concerned to tell the House the facts of the situation and to make it clear that there has been a development of this kind of market which is widely

  525
  used for commercial purposes and by foreign Governments and foreign nationalised industries for borrowing for domestic purposes of their own. It is against that background that we concern ourselves with these proposals.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, these proposals stem from the initiative of the industries concerned. There is no question of the Government having approached these industries and said, "We insist on your borrowing on the Euro-dollar market". The initiative came from them, and the question which we have to ask is, as a market of this kind has developed and is developing, and as nationalised industries need funds from time to time for their investment, and as they have asked about the possibility of borrowing on the Euro-dollar market because there are times when it might conceivably be more economical to do so—and surely we are all in favour of nationalised industries being as economical as they can be in their activities—is it right for us to refuse this power? I should have thought that there was no argument for refusing it. The power cannot be acted on except in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Treasury.
  Mr. Palmer: This is a return to the old tradition for the electricity supply industry, because before, when it was a regulated utility, it did from time to time borrow abroad.
  Mr. Diamond: I am saying that it is a sensible and natural development that nationalised industries should, on the terms and conditions laid down, and with the consultation to which I have referred, exercise the right to borrow abroad, but before they can exercise that right the House must afford it. What we are considering is the affording of the right.
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that there are no specific proposals before the House. There are no proposals which the Government have in mind. As the Bill is intended in any event to give these institutions the power to borrow, the opportunity is being taken to give them power to borrow abroad. In the same way, when local authorities who ask for this power bring legislation before
  526
  the House, the opportunity will be taken on those occasions to give them that additional facility, again in consultation with the Treasury to make sure that, in a sense, the borrowing does not act against the general interest.
  I turn, now, to deal with the arguments which have been addressed to me about why these powers should not be granted. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury says that there will be a short-term advantage to the balance of payments, but a long-term disadvantage. He knows that the situation which his Government left to this Government was one in which this country had to a large extent borrowed short and lent long. All that happens if someone borrows long is that more stability is created, and there is more balance in the borrowings and lendings than previously. Instead of having to match long lendings with short borrowings, one can to some extent match long lendings with long borrowings, and that is what any sensible financier seeks to do. It is not what the previous Government achieved. It is not what they sought to do, but that is the sensible way to plan borrowings and lendings. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is of short-term advantage to the balance of payments, and of long term advantage, also, in the sense that there is greater balance in the borrowings and lendings in the financial situation with regard to overseas borrowings and lendings.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was no economic advantage. That is not so. The borrowing power will not be used unless there is an economic advantage in the sense that the nationalised industry, after paying the going rate for borrowing on the Eurodollar market, and after paying the costs of borrowing—which do not apply to borrowing from the Government—will be borrowing at a slightly cheaper rate than borrowing from the National Loans Fund. When such circumstances, if ever, arise, there will be an economic advantage if the nationalised industry avails itself of that opportunity.
  I was asked whether there were any distinct proposals. We have none in mind. These are reserve powers which are being taken on this occasion.
  I have answered the point raised by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South

  527
  about what France does. He thought that the Government's philosophy was to have control over the policies of nationalised industries. There is no diminution of control over the policies of nationalised industries by giving them the power to borrow. This power to borrow on terms which are satisfactory to the Minister, and in consultation with the Treasury, does not affect their investment.
  I dissent totally from the attitude of the hon. Gentleman who regards this as begging cap in hand from a foreigner. I hope that even he may be brought up to date and realise what is going on in the world, and will wish our nationalised industries to conduct themselves with good sense and with good commercial modern practice.
  Having regard to the fact that these are sensible powers, that they are used by commerce and by nationalised industries abroad, that this is a growing market, that there might be some economic advantage, and that there is certainly a balance of payments advantage, and, finally, that the Amendments are wholly wrecking, I hope that they will not be pursued.
  Mrs. Thatcher: The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase, "these powers are used by commerce". He deliberately did not answer the specific point which I put to him. Will he please answer it now? If a commercial enterprise which had no foreign exchange earnings applied for a loan in foreign currency to invest here, would he authorise that loan?
  Mr. Diamond: I thank the hon. Lady for reminding me of the fact that I omitted to answer her. I apologise for any discourtesy. It was certainly not intended. I am grateful for the opportunity of bringing her, as well as her colleagues, up to date.
  There is no reason why an appropriate borrowing by a commercial firm on the Euro-dollar market for investment domestically should be refused exchange control on the ground that it has no foreign income. The investment would be subject to control, but it would be approved if it were a proper investment, and it would not be a condition of the approval that there had to be correspond-
  528
  ing foreign income. I have not compared that with the B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. who have foreign income, because it is an irrelevant issue, not because it does not add strength to my case. It is not a requirement that there should be foreign income.
  Mrs. Thatcher: It may not be a requirement, but how many times has it happened recently? Obviously the right hon. Gentleman cannot give an example, otherwise he would have done so. Perhaps I shall put down a Question asking how many times applications have been made under those circumstances, and how many times they have been granted. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is using a kind of double negative. There is no reason why they should be refused, but somehow or other they are not very often granted.
  We are in great trouble with dollar loans already, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. A fortnight ago he had 1,500 million dollars outstanding to the I.M.F., repayable by 1970. He had other short-term loans outstanding. He could not repay that loan because he did not have the dollar currency. With 1,500 million dollars already outstanding, he had to trot off to the I.M.F. for another 1,500 million dollars. He is already in difficulty. By 1971 he has got to repay 3,000 million dollars and he has not a dollar to do it. He has not a hope of repaying that money, and just at this time he proposes to give enormous powers to borrow more and more dollars.
  8.0 p.m.
  The right hon. Gentleman used a false equation. He said, "Yes, if you borrow long perhaps it balances long lending." I do not know of any equivalent long lending by the Government of this country which would balance the liability which they have to the I.M.F., and he knows that there is not any. He is in difficulty, and as long as he goes on borrowing and borrowing and borrowing with no hope of repayment so long will this country be in financial and economic difficulty. I very much deprecate his attitude. This is the way banks have gone bust, and this is the way this Government will make this country go bust.
  Sir G. Nabarro: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question before we

  529
  part with this Amendment? He inferred —I believe he actually said—that the House of Commons would be fully apprised of any approvals given by the Treasury to borrow abroad. In what form would the House be apprised of those approvals?
  Mr. Diamond: I did not say anything about it.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Then I must press the right hon. Gentleman. Are we to be bereft of any information as to approvals given to these Boards to borrow abroad? Are we to have no knowledge of it? Is there no official publication which would give Members of the House of Commons particulars of sanctions given by the Treasury to these nationalised boards to go abroad and borrow?
  I wish the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps reconsider what he said earlier and reconsider his last reply, that the House of Commons is not to be informed. Well, in what form then may the House of Commons be informed?
  Mr. Diamond: I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman—
  Sir G. Nabarro: I realise that.
  Mr. Diamond: —and I would hope to afford any information which is appropriate and reasonable. I was only pointing out that with regard to this topic I did not say that it would or that it would not. I made no reference to this topic. Now I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that if members of the Opposition, for example, require information of approvals given by the Treasury to these boards to borrow abroad they can obtain that information only by Parliamentary Question?
  Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman seems so concerned to put words into my mouth. I did not say anything on the issue at all. If he is asking now what are the methods, then I am bound to say that I am not fully informed at the moment, but I am most anxious that information should be given, and certainly there would be the method of the Parliamentary Question, because any approval given by the Treasury or by a Minister is approval given by a Minister responsible to the House of Commons, and of course there
  530
  would be an answer to a Parliamentary Question.
  I imagine—but I am not absolutely sure about this—that these matters would be included in the annual reports of the nationalised industries concerned. Certainly it is the case that Treasury guarantees are notified to the House wherever liability—I think I am right in saying this, but I am speaking off the cuff— wherever liability is entered into which is not shown in the form of a Vote and would not necessarily go before the House otherwise, but is entered into in the form of a guarantee. It is the practice for a note to be laid by the Treasury. Therefore, whenever any of these loans took the form of a Treasury guarantee—and this, it is anticipated, would almost be universally the case—in every single case, the fact of the Treasury guarantee would be before the House. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing here which one would want to hide. One would be anxious to give the House full information about it.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman has given me exactly the answer I was seeking. He has just used the term "practice of the Treasury". It is the statutory requirement upon the Treasury that I am suggesting. For example, with the Scottish Electricity Boards statutory requirements in regard to all Treasury guaranteed loans to the Boards is dictated in Section 14(5) of the Act of 1943 thus:
  "The Treasury shall, so long as any such guarantees "—
  that is, guarantees in relation to loans—
  "are in force, lay before both Houses of Parliament in every year within one month after the thirty-first day of March a statement of the guarantees (if any) given during the year ended on that date, and an account of the sums (if any) which during the year ended on that date have been either issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this section or paid in or towards repayment of any money so issued."
  That is the statutory requirement with the Scottish Electricity Boards for Treasury approvals in relation to loans.
  Why is there no similar undertaking now being given by the Treasury of a statutory requirement in relation to loans by English electricity boards or English gas boards in Clause 2 of this Bill in relation to borrowing abroad? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would now consider why there is this inequality, this

  531
  incongruity, between the Scottish Boards' statutory requirements and the lack of such statutory requirements here in England.
  I am coming back to the Amendment, Sir Beresford. That was only a passing reference to the Act. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would no doubt be the practice of the Treasury to furnish Members of Parliament with full information of the habits of the Treasury. It should be a statutory requirement in Clause 4 of the Bill, as there is for the Scottish boards. I should be out of order in arguing about that now and I will deal with it when we reach Clause 4. As there is this requirement in relation to the Scottish Boards will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to introduce in another place similar requirements for the English boards, so that Members of Parliament may year by year be fully apprised of and acquainted in retrospection with all loan approvals—that is, for loans overseas—under this Clause, and which have been given during the year before by the Treasury?
  Mr. Diamond: We are all grateful to you, Sir Beresford, for allowing this discussion—
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Beresford Craddock): I do not like to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but we are getting a wee bit wide, and so perhaps we can get back to the Amendment.
  Mr. Diamond: I hope that in the circumstances you will permit me, although the discussion has gone a bit wide, to reply to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman, Sir Beresford.
  In reply to the hon. Gentleman, the Government would not propose to introduce such legislation, as it is totally unnecessary. The legislation already exists. I have previously explained to the hon. Gentleman what I knew to be the practice because I have practised it. I am now informed and happy to tell the hon. Gentleman—and I am grateful to him for having asked me about it so that one may clear it up now—that guarantees by the Treasury have by Statute to be notified to Parliament for all loans to nationalised industries, which would include borrowing abroad. I have the Gas Act, 1948—which I have very
  532
  good reason to remember—and Section 45(3) reads:
  "Immediately after a guarantee is given under this section, the Treasury shall lay a statement of the guarantee before each House of Parliament."
  I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to allay the anxieties of the hon. Gentleman. One is always anxious to allay the hon. Gentleman's anxieties. Perhaps now, therefore, the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment would feel the matter to have been adequately discussed and seek leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment negatived.
  The Temporary Chairman: The next Amendment is No. 7, with which we shall be able to consider Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 18, leave out' securities' and insert' stock or bonds', No. 14, in Clause 4, page 3, line 36, leave out'or other securities', No. 16, in line 39, leave out' securities' and insert' stock or bonds'.
  Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 15, to leave out'or other securities'.
  This group of Amendments is proposed to delete the word "securities" whenever it occurs and to confine the foreign borrowings of these nationalised industries to stocks or bonds. I admit there may be some explanation for the use of the word "securities" which has not occurred to any of my hon. Friends and I, but we understand that it can mean any form of capital share at all. We are reinforced in this by the definition of the word "securities" given in the Gas Act, 1948:
  Securities', in relation to a body corporate means any shares, stock, debentures and debenture stock of the body corporate."
  That is in relation to a body corporate and therefore to a privately-owned concern, not a nationalised industry. Clearly, this wording means anything, through the whole spectrum of the different types of share—equity, debenture, preference or loan. So we have here the curious proposal that shares which could conceivably be ownership shares or debenture shares could be sold by the Electricity Council or the Gas Council to foreign owners. It is a little galling for Conservatives who have resisted the nationalisation of gas and electricity to find that it is now proposed by a Socialist

  533
  Government to "flog it to the wogs". If that is really the meaning of this Clause I do feel that we are owed at least an explanation.
  Equity would easily be created by selling shares which gave the right to vote the directors and the policy of the concern; and under this Clause it would be perfectly possible for the Government to create enough equity shares to constitute control, and to sell them to persons abroad in exchange for foreign currency. It may be they could use it to create debenture shares and could sell abroad to foreign persons debenture shares which gave foreign persons the ownership of gas works, power stations and assets of these councils in this country. Quite simply, we do not see the point of doing that. There is a great deal to be said for selling equity or debenture shares but at least they should be sold to the British people. If that is to be done, if industries are to be denationalised, let us have first crack of the whip and let our investors have the first opportunity to buy these concerns. But I cannot believe that that is what the Government mean.
  I can only assume that the two debates —this and the last one—should perhaps have been taken together; because clearly the Government are using nationalised industries as a stalking horse for borrowing more. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is absolutely right. We have borrowed enough during the currency of this Government and £3,000 million should do. To approach foreign investors to borrow more through these boards may well have necessitated that these conditions be put in, providing that some share of ownership goes with the loans. It may be that the gnomes of Zurich say, "We will give you a little more money but we would like to have charge of the assets or a share of the ownership ". That may well lie behind it. We do not know.
  We believe that the Government should be more careful than to put into Bills words which could be interpreted in that way. But I had better not let my fancy run too far until the Chief Secretary has told us what "securities" means in. this context, and perhaps we can then consider the matter again.
  Mr. Diamond: Fortunately, I know the hon. Gentleman's international views far too well to be put off by his refer-
  534
  ences to wogs and the gnomes of Zurich. Of course he was right to ask for an explanation of the words used here and I will be only too glad to give it to him. As I explained in a previous debate, and in view of what he has said may I repeat, the Government have no specific proposals in mind, nor are the Government taking the initiative in this matter. The initiative stems entirely from the nationalised industries. It follows, therefore, as there is no specific proposal, that one cannot define in a narrow way what form the borrowing might take. One has to define it in a broad way lest a proposal should emerge which it would be the desire of the nationalised industry to undertake, which would seem right to my right hon. Friend the Minister and would have the approval of the Treasury and yet would be impossible of achievement because of a too narrow definition having been used in the empowering section. It is proposed, therefore, to use words which are admittedly somewhat broad.
  8.15 p.m.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no intention of issuing debentures carrying charges on these stocks. We have no intention of issuing equity shares. The hon. Gentleman knows that the capital of certain of the nationalised industries has been remodelled somewhat, but there is certainly no intention of doing any of those things. It is merely a question of the need to use a broad definition when powers are being sought and when a specific proposal is not in mind. If it was a specific proposal one could deal with the matter more narrowly. The definition which the hon. Gentleman quoted from the Gas Act does not apply to the current Bill so what he envisaged there has no authorities in that particular Act.
  I recognise that the term is a broad one, but I am advised that there are methods for unsecured borrowing, non-participating borrowing, which nevertheless might not be covered by words such as "stocks" and "bonds" only. There is, for example, a promissory note, which would not be covered by such a term. In order not to deny the opportunities of the kind of borrowing which a nationalised industry would wish to undertake and which would be approved by my right hon. Friend and the Treasury, it

  535
  has been thought wise to define the matter somewhat broadly.
  Mr. Ridley: I must say we are a little surprised that such a large sledgehammer has to be taken to crack the nut of a promissory note; but in view of the right hon. Gentleman's kind response to what I have said and in view of his well-known predilection against selling equity shares in public enterprise, we can all, I suppose, let the matter rest there. I beg leave to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 25, to leave out from' 1957' to end of line 28.
  The Temporary Chairman: Amendment No. 17 can be taken with this Amendment.
  Mrs. Thatcher: This is a small probing Amendment seeking to delete the latter part of subsection (2). I wonder if the Chief Secretary can tell us if this section means what I believe it is intended to mean? I should have thought it was intended as a kind of bridging section, because while one loan is being raised with which to repay another the limit will be temporarily exceeded while the second loan is being raised. What bothers me is this: if these powers had been in existence and operated a year ago, and exercised in terms of raising a dollar loan, how would that equivalent have entered into the borrowing limit? Presumably, it would have entered into that limit as its sterling equivalent at the time the borrowing was made so that when the loan came to be repaid it would have required 17 per cent, more in its sterling equivalent to repay it. That would not have made this subsection merely a bridging subsection. It would have taken its powers right over the limit permitted by Parliament. Is that correct?
  Mr. Diamond: The hon. Lady is quite right to say that the purpose of these words is to provide a bridging operation for that limited amount and that limited period and it is an essential provision to protect the first lender. Otherwise, there might be claimed to be an invalidity at the point of repayment because the borrowing power would have been exceeded. Fortunately, we do not have to
  536
  consider the somewhat theoretical and academic situation which the hon. Lady described and which I would have to consider carefully to see to what extent it was affected by these words. Suffice it to say that she is right on this occasion, as on most others.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how, when a loan is borrowed in foreign currency, it is calculated in terms of sterling for the purposes of the borrowing limit? If a loan is borrowed in foreign currency the amount borrowed enters into the total limit and presumably it does so as its sterling equivalent at the time of borrowing.
  Mr. Diamond Mr. Diamond indicated assent.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Then, my other conclusions must follow, but on this occasion I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 6
  POWER TO APPOINT FURTHER ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF GAS COUNCIL
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The short title of the Clause is, "Power to appoint further additional members of the Gas Council," and I want to know, primarily, what for? The Gas Council is already a large and somewhat unwieldly body. Reference to its Annual Report and Accounts for 1966–67 shows that it has sixteen members, of whom twelve are members of the area board, two are full-time members of the Gas Council, one is the Deputy Chairman and the other is the Chairman, Sir Henry Jones. Why do we want the Council to have more than sixteen members?
  The Council is largely a functional body. The Chairman of each area board reports the activities of his organisation and there are four men at the centre. It is well known that the bosses of

  537
  nationalised industries are very difficult to find. There is a shortage of talent. Men and women seem reluctant to serve on the boards of nationalised industries, not only because they do not pay commercial rates, but also because the freedom and the enterprise manifest in non-state undertakings, that is, in the private sector of industry, trade and commerce, is, to genuine businessmen, infinitely preferable to a quasi-bureaucratic function on a State board.
  There was recently the extraordinary spectacle of a Deputy Chairman of the Railways Board being appointed at a salary of £500 per annum more than that paid to the Chairman. This is a passing reference, but it has a great bearing on the Clause, which would recruit two additional members to the Gas Council.
  Where will they be obtained? What will their quality be? What are they to be paid? Will the Minister confide in the House, first, about why he wants these additional men, since the Gas Council has no added burden of responsibility so far as I know; second, where he hopes to recruit the men in appropriate quality; and, third, what he intends to pay them? We would not like the mistake repeated which was made with the British Railways Board.
  The Minister, who is listening to me intently, of course, will know that there is a great deal of derangement in the salaries of the chairmen and deputy chairmen of nationalised boards. I will not go through the whole gamut, but they include the salary of Lord Robens and of the Chairman of the Electricity Council, the Chairman of the Gas Council, the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation, the Chairman of B.O.A.C. and the Chairman of B.E.A., and there is no uniformity or relationship between these salaries.
  Therefore, every time it is built into a Bill that a nationalised board is to be enlarged, as in this case, it is pertinent and propitious for hon. Members to make some inquiries about the kind of recruits, where they are to come from, the salaries they are to receive and, above all, why they arc necessary. There are sixteen members on the Gas Council at the moment, and I doubt whether it will be a better organisation for having eighteen.
  538
  I hope that I shall have explicit answers, particularly on the important matter of salaries.
  Mr. Gunter: I had never expected that we should be involved in a wide-ranging debate, on this Clause, about the salaries paid in nationalised industries and I do not propose to participate in one. We are all aware, of course, of the anomolies and the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is quite right that there is some difficulty in recruiting what one might regard as the right men for the salaries being offered in nationalised industries. This is very much a matter of consideration by the Government at the present time.
  I do not propose to enter into any discussion on the salaries that are to be paid. As I said in the Second Reading debate, there is need to strengthen the Gas Council, which will be required, in the period that lies ahead, to bear even greater responsibilities. We are passing from a period of the manufacture of town gas, diversified all over the country, to a period when there is one common supply. The Government think, and so do the Gas Council, that in the area of marketing and financial control it would be advantageous to strengthen what in essence, leaving aside for the moment the 12 area board chairmen, is a small Board. That is why we have suggested that there should be two additional members of the Gas Council.
  8.30 p.m.
  The hon. Member will recall that in my Second Reading speech I stated that we were giving consideration—and I hope this will be in the next Session of Parliament—to bringing forward suggestions on how the structure of the industry might be adapted to meet the requirements imposed by the introduction of North Sea gas. As the first step, with the introduction of natural gas, it was necessary to strengthen the Board, particularly in the area of financial control. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if we do not make this the opportunity for a general debate on salaries in nationalised industries.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I see no reason for a general debate, but I wish the right hon. Gentleman would answer my explicit question. What is he proposing to pay the two additional members of the Board?

  539
  If the hon. Gentleman comes to the House and asks for permission to recruit two additional members to the Board, he must tell the House what he will pay them. Why not?
  Mr. Gunter: I will certainly inform the House at the appropriate time what the pay will be, "but not tonight, Mary ".
  Sir G. Nabarro: I refuse to be called "Mary" by the right hon. Gentleman. Why not tonight? This is the Committee stage of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will not get along very well with me in the future if he behaves in this rather arrogant and overbearing fashion. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked a perfectly simple and reasonable question. He is proposing two additional members for the Board. How much will he pay them? Why is this not a propitious occasion on which to tell the House of Commons? They are being paid out of public money. Why is the right hon. Gentleman such a retiring and reticent creature this evening in this important matter?
  Mr. Gunter: I cannot indict the hon. Gentleman of those two things anyway!
  Sir G. Nabarro: I do not wish to be indicted of anything. I merely wish the right hon. Gentleman to perform his Ministerial duty, which is to tell the House of Commons, as he appoints the two additional members of the Board, how much he proposes to pay them on first appointment. If not tonight, when
  540
  does he propose to tell the House the salaries he intends to pay and whether they are more or less than those of the existing Chairman and Deputy Chairman? It is no good his replying that of course he will not pay them more than the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman, when a member of his Government has just appointed a Deputy Chairman to the British Railways Board at a salary higher than that of the Chairman of the British Railways Board. It is that kind of anomaly that I am seeking to obviate by my penetrating questioning this evening. It will not do the right hon. Gentleman's public reputation any good if he runs away from answering the questions I put to him on this important matter. I give the right hon. Gentleman a final opportunity to do the proper thing and reply to my questions.
  Mr. Gunter: I have replied to the hon. Gentleman's question. I will inform the House at the appropriate moment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.

  Clause 10
  PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 9 IN ENGLAND AND WALES
  Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 7, line 13, leave out "states" and insert "contains a statement".
  8.35 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  I would suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we also discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 34 and 35.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): If the House agrees, so be it.
  Mr. Mackie: The Amendments to Clauses 10, 11 and 17 pave the way for introduction of new Schedules introduced to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) during earlier debates. We are grateful to him for raising the matter. The new Schedules are a rather more elaborate affair than the Amendment he proposed himself at one stage, but I hope that he will agree that they do what is needed, and deal fairly with both landlords and tenants.
  The purpose of the new Schedules is purely to provide for the transitional problem which may arise where a landlord has served a notice to quit shortly after the Bill was introduced into Parliament, when he could not reasonably be expected to have known its detailed provisions as to the form of notice that would entitle him to claim exemption from liability for the payment. The effect of the relevant provisions of the Bill before amendment was that the new sum for which Clause 9 provides would be payable where notice to quit was served at any time after the introduction of the Bill, and did not take effect before the Bill had become law. The landlord would not be liable for the payment, however, if the notice stated that it was
  542
  given on one or more of the accepted agricultural grounds or hardship listed in Clauses 10 and 11.
  As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West pointed out, a landlord who served notice to quit soon after the introduction of the Bill might well have failed to appreciate the effect of these Clauses, and might have served what is known as a plain notice to quit—that is, a notice which does not specify the grounds on which it is given—for a straightforward agricultural purpose without realising that the notice was not in a form that would allow him to escape liability for the payment. The Schedules give him a second chance.
  This is a purely transitional problem, and the Schedules apply only to notices to quit served between the introduction of the Bill and the date when it becomes law.
  Schedule A relates to England and Wales. Paragraph 1 allows the landlord to import into such a notice to quit a statement of the grounds on which it was given. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 give the tenant an equivalent right of reference to the Agricultural Land Tribunal if he doubts whether these grounds do in fact justify the landlord in claiming exemption from payment under Clause 10. His rights under these paragraphs are relevant only to the question of whether or not the landlord is liable for the new payment: they do not give the tenant any rights to contest the effectiveness of the notice to quit in other respects.
  It is a matter requiring some legal expertise to set out the rights and counter-rights of the two parties in a way which will cover the various circumstances in which they are likely to find themselves. The wording of the Schedule is somewhat intricate; but its effect is as I have described.
  The purpose of the Scottish Schedule B is the same, except for provisions contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 to deal with types of case which can arise only in Scotland.
  Mr. Anthony Stodart: When I suggested that there was a gap in what was intended, which I believe, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, was a good one, I did not anticipate that quite so much writing would be required. I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for what he has said.

  543
  Initially I thought of the problem in a Scottish context in view of the number of removals that there tend to be in Scotland at the Martinmas term, and it was on the Scottish Qause in the Committee that I raised the point that an injustice might be done, and the Under-Secretary of State admitted at the time that it was an interesting point and one worth looking into. At a subsequent stage I mentioned that the problem might arise in England as well. I suppose therefore that it is inevitable that one feels a certain amount of satisfaction that one has been responsible for bringing to the notice of the Government something that has not previously been thought of. The Government have responded well to this and I am most grateful to them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Clause 11
  PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 9 IN ENGLAND AND WALES
  Lorts Amendment: No. 6, in page 9, line 30, after "(iii)" insert:
  "or the matter mentioned in paragraph (c),".
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendments: Nos. 7, 17, 18, 19 and 20.
  Mr. Buchan: During the Committee stage in another place the Government said that we were in agreement in principle with an Amendment which had been tabled and which would have had the effect of allowing a landlord to seek the consent of the Land Court to dispossess a successor who was a near relative and therefore could not be dispossessed under the Act of 1958, but who already had another agricultural holding capable of providing employment for two men. There were, however, a number of objections to the Amendment as tabled and the Government undertook in another place to put down an Amendment at a sub-
  544
  sequent stage which, while meeting the principle of the original Amendment, would also meet the objections to the original proposal—the question of the two holdings. These Amendments we are now discussing were introduced at the next stage of the Bill. The main Amendment is No. 17 and the others are consequential on it. The effect is to add a further type of case in which the Land Court are required to consent to the operation of a notice to quit given to a near realtive. They will have to consent if they are satisfied that the successor is the occupier—whether as owner or tenant—of other land capable of providing full-time employment for the occupier and at least one other man.
  There are two provisos. First, the new provision will apply only where the tenant is already in occupation of the other land before he inherits the holding to which the notice to quit relates. This means that the provision will not apply where a successor has inherited two holdings simultaneously. Otherwise, it would have been necessary to place on the Land Court the difficult task of considering which of the two holdings the successor should be allowed to retain. This situation can only arise where the successor has inherited two holdings simultaneously which were both already in possession of the deceased tenant. If we did not exclude this case therefore we would have allowed the breaking up of land which has already been in the occupation of one individual. The Amendment also includes the case where the other land occupied by the successor forms a single agricultural unit with the holding which he has inherited. If we had not made this exclusion, which was strongly pressed by the Scottish National Farmers' Union, it would have involved breaking up an existing agricultural unit which would have been at variance with our general farm structure policy. I think the House will agree that this Amendment is satisfactory. It allows a landlord to repossess a holding which has fallen to a successor who already occupies another sizeable holding; but does not allow him to do so where it would involve breaking up an existing agricultural unit.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Stodart: It was my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) who, in Committee, first planted the seed

  545
  which has resulted in this change. He tried to meet the point simply, perhaps over simply since he attempted to say that a farm should pass to a near relative so long as that near relative was not the owner or tenant of another agricultural holding. When one considered the matter further one realised that that sort of drafting would have included occupation of a non-viable holding. I have no doubt that the Minister is pleased to move the Amendment because in Committee he remarked that he could hold out no hope of a change in this direction.
  A more elaborate attempt to make this change was made in another place, but that was rejected because it would have allowed the landlord to escape the restrictions placed on him by this legislation in the case of a near relative of a former tenant who owned a farm, even if he did not have working possession of it.
  The Government said in another place that they would do their best to move in the direction of the change which has been proposed. While I do not wish to seem grudging about it, my general reaction to the principle behind these provisions has not changed and I do not think that the Minister would have expected such a change. However, this is a welcome condition and I am obliged to the Government for having made this proposal. They have made the Clause at least that much less objectionable than it previously was.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Clause 14.
  PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 12 IN SCOTLAND.
  Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 13, line 25, leave out from "section" to second "the" and insert:
  "7 of the New Town (Scotland) Act 1968".
  Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is a drafting Amendment in that it takes account of the fact that since the Bill was first introduced the New Towns (Scotland) Act, 1968, has been passed.
  Question put and agreed to.

  New Clause
  LANDLORD'S POWER IN CERTAIN CASES TO REQUIRE TENANT TO PURCHASE HOLDING
  Lords Amendment: No. 21, after Clause 19, in page 19, line 3, at end insert new Clause "A": —
  "A. In any case in which, in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, a landlord is precluded from giving an incontestable notice to quit to a tenant who has acquired right to the lease of an agricultural holding, the landlord may give notice to the tenant requiring him to purchase the holding and in any such case the tenant shall purchase the holding at such price as may be agreed between the parties or, in the case of dispute, as may be fixed by the Scottish Land Court who shall fix the said price on the basis of what price the holding would realise if offered for sale in the open market with vacant possession."
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  I hope hon. Members will bear with me for a few minutes to allow me to explain why we do not agree with this Amendment. This House has not had any previous discussion on the proposal embodied in the new Clause. The proposed new Clause would be at variance with the principles of Part III of the Bill. Part III is designed to give security of tenure as a tenant to a successor to an agricultural holding who is a near relative of the deceased tenant. The effect of the new Clause would be that in cases where under Clause 18 a landlord loses his present right to give a successor an incontestable notice to quit, he would have a right to require the tenant to purchase the holding at an agreed price, or failing agreement, at a price fixed by the Scottish Land Court on the basis of the open market value with vacant possession.
  Whatever the merits of the proposal, the new Clause as it stands would not do. It does not say what is to happen if the tenant does not purchase. Presumably the intention is that the landlord would then be able to serve an incontestable notice to quit, but it does not say so. To that extent the Clause is not satisfactorily drafted.
  There are much more serious objections. If the landlord is given the right to insist on the tenant purchasing the

  547
  holding at open market value, it seems likely that this power would be exercised at least as often as the old power to dispossess under Section 6(3), of the 1958 Act. I suspect that it may be argued that the tenant should be able to raise the money to purchase it on the security of the holding. We all know that it is not always possible at all times to raise money when it is wanted. Acceptance of this new Clause would perpetuate that sense of insecurity which it is our purpose under Clause 18 to remove. A tenant would be just as uncertain as he is today about the fate of his farm when he dies. If this new Clause were accepted we are sure that it would be likely to create as much hardship as that which we have been trying to remove.
  It may be argued that the inclusion of the new Clause would afford a fairer deal for the landlord by allowing him to realise his farm. We have looked at Clause 18 a great deal from the landlord's point of view and have introduced Amendments to add to the circumstances in which the landlord may disposses even a near relative. There are likely to be many occasions in which a landlord will be able to realise the value of his farm if he so wishes, but we could not possibly accept this new Clause. It is at variance with the principle of this part of the Bill.
  A letter which we received at the Scottish Office from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland may be of inerest to the House. It says:
  "I am writing to affirm that the Union strongly object to the provisions contained in Clause 20 of the Bill as amended on Report in the House of Lords, and would urge the Government to take the necessary steps to have this Clause removed…. One of the main objections is that, while the tenant's successor may be perfectly capable of financing the running of a tenanted farm he may not be in a position to raise the necessary capital to actually purchase the holding. This could lead to the type of hardship which is the very thing the Government are trying to minimise by the new proposals on succession to farm tenancies."
  In view of all this, I hope that the House will conclude that the Government are right in advising that the proposed new Clause should be rejected.
  Mr. Stodart: I hope that I can say that my attitude, and the views that I have expressed, during the several hours
  548
  of debate that we have had on this part of the Bill has been based solely upon what I believe will be the effects of the Government's proposals on the efficiency of the agricultural industry. It is perfectly apparent that my views are not shared by others. Despite that, we can still no doubt speak to one another amicably.
  Since the main debates took place in Committee and the tumult and the shouting died down, it is interesting to observe the reaction which is now taking place in Scottish agricultural circles. It is not surprising that the representatives of those who own land, namely, the Scottish Landowners' Federation, continue not to be pleased. Despite the views the Secretary of State just read, sent to him by the Scottish National Farmers' Union, it must surely be mortifying to him to have his hand, if not bitten, at least snapped at by those whom he has sought to feed, because many branches of the N.F.U.—if he reads the agricultural Press, as I am sure he does, he must have noticed these reports—have been making a point of saying that they did not ask for this legislation as it has been presented to the House but only for the rights of what they describe as a competent son; not the near relative as it is defined in the Bill.
  Under the present position in Scotland —or, perhaps I should say, the position up to this present legislation—certain members of a family could inherit the remainder of a lease. At the end of that lease the landlord could, if he wished to do so get possession. Under the proposed legislation, which is now in its final stages, a farm can be passed to a near relative, admittedly under certain restrictions, for perpetuity.
  The proposed Clause would permit a landlord, faced with such a succession, to insist upon the new tenant purchasing at vacant possession value on the open market. The right hon. Gentleman asked a very pertinent question which had struck me: what happens if he does not? In Committee we moved several Amendments. Two of our suggested improvements feature in the Bill—those about the successors having to be qualified, although here again it did not go quite as far as we should have liked, and the one which has just been dealt with about the successor not working another farm.

  549
  There are other Amendments that I should like to see, and I do not doubt that in due course we shall see them. But it would be less than honest of me if I said that I approve of the proposed new Clause. I do not think that it in any way meets the situation. I hope that I am continuing the approach which I have adopted throughout when I say that I do not think that this is the right way TO tackle a problem which has for long proved intractable, but which I believe— and being a farmer I am a perpetual optimist—is capable of solution if the two sides involved are prepared to talk together, and when doing so to indulge in a certain amount of normal give and take.
  Therefore, I do not propose to resist the Government's intentions on the Amendment, though I can, of course, only advise my hon. Friends.
  9 p.m.
  Sir Frank Pearson: As a mere English Member I hesitate to intervene on what is essentially a matter concerning the Scottish landlord. But although the intricacies of the tenancy law in Scotland may not be altogether a subject for an English Member to speak on, there is an underlying principle of equal importance to England, and it is on that principle that I should like to say a few words.
  Those of us present who went through the Committee stage will remember the circumstances in which Clause 19 was introduced. The reasons for its introduction were never really justified to the Committee. The Minister had a bright idea that it should be introduced at a late stage, but those of us who knew anything about the background knew that political pressures had been exerted over one or two cases of genuine hardship, pressures to which the Minister gave way, probably against his better judgment. In giving way and legislating for a hard case the Minister has made bad law.
  The principle underlying the Clause is thoroughly bad. Although the other place may not have drafted its new Clause in the best possible way—and I accept that certain criticisms can be made of it—the other place was trying to achieve something with which I have the greatest sympathy.
  Under Clause 19, near-relatives are to be given nearly permanent security of
  550
  tenure. A daughter, who may marry anyone—may not marry a farmer but a dentist or a writer to the signet—as long as she has reasonable knowledge of agriculture is to be given security of tenure. It will be similarly the case with widows. But the practical result will be that the landlord will not be able to get vacant possession of his land.
  In these cases, we are not dealing only with large landlords. Very often we shall be dealing with people who own a couple of hundred acres or so and to whom the value of their holdings will be of intense interest and meaning. In depriving owners of vacant possession when tenants die we shall be robbing them, on a 200-acre farm, for example, of £20,000 at £100 an acre—the difference between the value of vacant possession and the value of possession under tenure. That is the extent to which the owners are likely to be robbed by this provision.
  I believe that the introduction of the Clause is totally retrograde and a further step towards undermining the efficacy of the landlord-tenant system. I do not know what the Government attitude towards that system is. I do not know whether they regard it as good or not. I do not really care very much. But I do say that, if the tenant farmers are to be asked to carry the capital value of the land which has been carried by the landlords up to date—because that is what will happen if the landlord-tenant system breaks down—agriculture will find it very difficult to raise the capital to carry on. By this provision, we shall be forcing very often the small landlord to hold his farm under tenancy or to sell it at a very substantial loss, and when the Minister talks about hardship it would be as well to weigh up just where the hardship lies.
  Mr. Buchan: But that is precisely what we propose. We have written into the rest of the Bill, to which the hon. Gentleman is not referring, the question of relative hardship between landlord and tenant. The situation he envisages is taken care of in the rest of the Bill.
  Sir Frank Pearson: Does the hon. Gentleman say that the question of hardship from the landlord's point of view will be taken care of when these cases arise? Will he confirm that?
  Mr. Buchan: Yes. It is already confirmed in the Bill and in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act.
  Sir Frank Pearson: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. Where we get a small landlord owning a relatively small acreage, and where the operation of this Clause would lead to the loss of at least £100 an acre, I hope the tribunals which will deal with these matters will take account of the hon. Gentleman's words. If he gives me that assurance I shall be very much more satisfied than I have been on this matter. I do not want to detain the House much longer.
  Mr. Buchan: Hear hear.
  Sir Frank Pearson: I have made a valid point. I hope that, when the Minister of Agriculture considers the situation in England, he will bear in mind the fact that the landlord-tenant system has served agriculture well. If the Minister undermines it unduly, the agricultural industry will suffer. It is all very well to talk about hardship. One may get hardship in certain cases, but consider the hardship on both sides and consider the contribution to agriculture that landowners have made in the past and are making today.
  We accept that the Clause has certain flaws in it, but we would not wish to divide upon it. However, I hope that I have made clear to the House that the feeling and philosophy behind Clause 19 is totally irregular. I reject it and have every sympathy with the new Clause passed by their Lordships which, for various technical reasons, we are unable to accept.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) has gone far to eliminate the impression given by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that the opposition to this important addition to the Bill was somewhat more muted and that now the light of reason has been cast upon our councils here.
  It comes as no surprise that the hon. Member for Clitheroe should find underlying the new Clause proposed in another place certain thoughts with which he is in sympathy, because he has never made
  552
  any secret of the fact that he considers the landlord a more efficient farmer than the tenant. This has been the drift of all his contributions to the discussion on this important matter.
  It has been hard for hon. Members on this side to understand the logic behind the hostility of the Opposition to this new Clause which was attached to the Bill at an earlier stage. I speak with considerable satisfaction having, prior to the Government's intervention in the matter, brought forward a Bill to secure the very purposes which this Clause has now secured. Whatever may be the views of the scattered branches of the National Farmers' Union, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West referred, at least the Caithness branch of the N.F.U. has been categoric in its support for the Government. At my last meeting with that branch two weeks ago it echoed the words of the letter of which the Secretary of State has spoken tonight. Some concern was expressed at the possibility that the Government might countenance the quite unworkable proposals put forward in another place which would strike at the principle underlying the new Clause guaranteeing to the near relatives of deceased tenant farmers security of tenure.
  I welcome the assurances which we have had tonight from my right hon. Friend and from the Opposition that they will accept the view of the Government on this matter. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Measure which he has introduced. It will give much satisfaction to the fanning community throughout Scotland. This new Clause is one of the frequent examples of the benefits which are derived for Scotland from being able to attach to a United Kingdom Bill a provision of purely Scottish content.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: The question of security of tenure was debated at considerable length both in Committee and on Third Reading, and I had hoped that we had heard the last of it, because it is a piece of legislation which is welcomed throughout Scotland, and Scotland only is concerned with it. I am disappointed that the matter is causing so much heart burning on the southern side of the border,

  553
  because it does not affect that area at all.
  It seems to me that the Opposition are unduly concerned about the effects of this Measure, because anyone with any experiencs of agriculture must realise that security of tenure is essential in the long-term interests of farming because it is a long-term business. For that reason I am disappointed to learn that many landowners are so concerned about this legislation.
  It is important to note that the N.F.U. has supported this measure from the outset and that it has expressed its opposition to this new Clause. It must be clear to anyone that if we accept the Clause now it will make nonsense of all that we passed at earlier stages. I therefore think that we on this bench should be consistent and support the Government in refusing to accept the Clause.
  I do not follow the argument about hardship to the landlord, because the opportunity will be there to apply at regular intervals for an increase in rent, and if there is any dispute about who will fix it, the Land Court will step in. I do not think that any Government body, certainly not in Scotland, enjoys the confidence of the people whom it serves in the same: way as the Scottish Land Court does. It has always been regarded as a most impartial body from the day it was set up, and in my opinion its status under the present chairman and members has never been higher, and that is saying a great deal. I am sure that if a case is referred to the Court, if it approves of the successor to the tenancy, it will fix a fair rent and ensure that the proprietor receives justice in every respect.
  I support the Government in rejecting the Clause.
  Mr. J. B. Godber: I have taken careful note of what was said by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), that this matter affects only those North of the Border, and therefore I do not wish to intervene for more than a few moments. I do so only to make clear our position on this matter. In Committee upstairs we opposed the introduction of this part of the Bill. We felt that it was wrong, and that its repercussions could be bad. We believe that it could harm the landlord— tenant system, but if the Government pro-
  554
  pose to go through with it in relation to Scotland, that is a matter for them, and they have taken their decision.
  This is not the best way of dealing with the matter. We would have liked to have seen the total rejection of this part of the Bill. We think that that is the only effective way to represent our views. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not become infected with the unfortunate attitude of the Secretary of State for Scotland which I believe is doing harm north of the Border. So long as it is kept north of the Border, it is not for me to intervene. If, however, it were suggested we should do anything on these lines south of the Border I would be very greatly concerned indeed. I believe that it would do grave harm to the health of British agriculture, and I wish to say that publicy and clearly.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that, oddly enough, the English and Scottish N.F.U.s are at variance in much the same way as he is with the Government on this, and that we do have a real division among experts?
  Mr. Godber: If I may, by leave, respond to that question, I would accept that that is so. We do not, on either side of the House, always agree with the N.F.U. in either country. We have our own views. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes hon. Gentlemen opposite agree. I just wanted to make clear that we do not want penetrating south of the Border any Scottish ideas on this matter.
  Mr. Ross: By leave of the House, I would say that I think this attitude to the N.F.U.s is very interesting indeed, and the views of the N.F.U.s and how they change. I would say to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) that this was not a sudden thought of the Government or of the Scottish N.F.U. In fact, we have had discussions with the landowners and with the N.F.U. over quite a long time to see whether or not there could be some amicable arrangement about this, and it was obvious there was not, and that the Governmen would have to take action.
  It has been supported by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, and it has been applauded by the tenant farmers of Scotland. We from Scotland in this House are sometimes accused of not

  555
  being able to take the right action at the right time in respect of something which is purely Scottish. I would have thought that every Member in the House would have been proclaiming that here is an opportunity when the House of Commons can respond, and respond quickly, by means of a United Kingdom Bill, to something which Scotland wants. This shows just exactly how this House can do it.
  Is it right? I started to wonder whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stoddart) was opposed to the principle or not, because at one time he seemed to imply that his views on Clause 18 were well known—that he was ag'in it—and then later on he talked about an intractable problem, appearing to say there was no way of solving it, of improving the position of the tenant farmers without undermining altogether the position of the landlords. He knows quite well that this is the point. We tried to get them to solve it, and they did not, and we must come down on one side or the other. Hon. Gentlemen opposite from Scotland came down on the side of the landowners. We on this side, with the help of the Liberal Party, came down on the side of the tenant farmers. Let that be clear.
  I, too, read the agricultural Press in Scotland, and I also read the letters which come to me, and not a single letter has come to us from any branch of the N.F.U. complaining of what we have done.
  Mr. James Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman says that in particular the Liberals came to the aid of the Government in favour of the Government's view. May I make it quite clear, as a member of fairly long standing of the Scottish N.F.U. in the Aberdeen and Kincardine area, that owner-occupiers in Scotland, certainly in the north-east, would be every bit as much in favour of the Government's view as would the tenant farmers?
  Mr. Ross: I am very glad to hear that, because there have been some cases where landowners who are also fanners actually resigned from the N.F.U. because of the support it has given the Government on this.
  556
  One other point which was mentioned, I think by the hon. Member for the Member for Clitheroe, was the question of the small owner. In this respect, the rights where there is hardship are also written into the parent Act, the 1949 Act, as amended by the 1958 Act. There might be some differences as to what is a small owner, a small landlord, and when an hon. Gentleman starts talking, for example, of 200 acres which, at £100 an acre is, according to my arithmetic, £20,000, I can ony say there are parts of Scotland where that owner would not be regarded as a small landowner. I want to assure him that my concern is for Scotland. My concern is to be able to meet the needs of Scottish agriculture and I am very glad that we have the majority support in the House in respect of this and that the right hon. Gentleman has not a single Scottish Tory Member behind him on this occasion. There is not one here, though he has one on the sidelines.
  I am perfectly sure that we have in this the fairly full support of everyone and I want to think my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). There should not have been any fear about the attitude of the Government towards this Clause put in in another place. As the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) nas rightly said, if there are certain points to be decided by the Scottish Land Court, that court has a status which I believe is quite unique in the annals of Scottish law, in the confidence that is placed in it by those who deal there.
  Mr, Hector Monro: I am here.
  Mr. Ross: Just in time. There may be heartburning south of the Border about what we are doing but it is heart warming and cheering north of the Border and in this matter that is what is wanted.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  Clause 28
  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR GENERAL DRAINAGE CHARGES
  Lords Amendment: No. 22, in page 24, line 8, to leave out from "for" to "and" in line 12 and insert:
  "any of the years ending with 31st March, 1969, 31st March, 1970, or 31st March, 1971, in

  557
  respect of which the authority have not already made a determination under this subsection,".
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Hoy): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This will extend the transitional provisions for drainage charges to include the financial year 1968–69 as well as the years 1969–70 and 1970–71. This is required to meet a. local problem in the Gwynedd River Authority area in north-west Wales. In 1967–68 the amount of the general drainage charge was very much higher in this area than in any other river authority area. Moreover, if the authority had raised a general charge for the year 1968–69 under the 1961 Act as it stands, the amount would have been further increased because there has been an increase in the precept on local authorities.
  The high rate of charge in this area is due largely to the method of calculating the charge prescribed in Section 2 of the 1961 Act. The Bill provides a new method of calculation which makes the charge more closely equivalent to the contribution which the general ratepayer makes to the river authority precept. If the Gwynedd River Authority were able, as it would like, to use this new method of calculation for 1968–69 the charge would be reduced from 1s. 6½d. to 11½d. in the £. This relief would be most welcome to farmers in the area.
  The Amendment would make it possible by enabling the Gwynedd River Authority to make determinations for the year 1968-69 under subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 28 so that it can raise the general charge on a Schedule A basis but use the new method of calculating the amount of the charge under the provisions of Clause 28(3) of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve this Amendment.
  Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the very clear way in which he has explained this Amendment. We on this side and certainly any hon. Members who know anything about the problems of the Gwynedd River Board will be only too glad to assist it in any way. The Board has had many problems over the years. I remember them in the past and if this Amendment will help I am very glad. The Board is in a unique situation in regard to the problems it has had to face and I am glad to know that special action
  558
  has been taken to help in this area. I greatly welcome and commend this Amendment.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 35
  REGISTERS OF DRAINAGE HEREDITAMENTS
  Lords Amendment: No. 23, in page 31, line 7, leave out
  "and maintain in the prescribed form" and insert "in the prescribed form and within the prescribed period or such longer period as the Minister may allow in any particular case,"
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we discuss at the same time Lords Amendments No. 24, in page 31, line 11, at end insert:
  "( ) to maintain the register and map prepared by them in pursuance of paragraph (a) above and to alter the register or map in such circumstances and in such manner and within such periods as may be prescribed;"
  and No. 25, in page 31, line 14, leave out 'by' and insert "at prescribed places by members of".
  Mr. Hoy: These three Amendments provide for additional matters which the Minister may need to prescribe in Regulations for the register and map of drainage hereditaments which each drainage board will be required to prepare and maintain for public inspection. The register will show the valuation of hereditaments for drainage rating purposes, and, in conjunction with the map, will provide the only means by which drainage ratepayers can ascertain whether they are fairly assessed in comparison with their neighbours.
  The first Amendment will enable the Minister to prescribe a period within which the preparation of the register and the map must be completed. Any delay in making these documents available for inspection might inhibit ratepayers from exercising their new rights under Clauses 30 and 31 to request the drainage board to determine a revised valuation or to appeal against determinations made by the drainage board. It is necessary, therefore, to see that the registers and maps are available as soon as possible.

  559
  Flexibility, however, is necessary in applying time limits for the preparation of these documents and the Amendments will make this possible.
  The other Amendments will enable the Minister to prescribe matters which are, possibly, equally important for ensuring that the purpose of the register and the map will be fully achieved. For instance, he will be able to prescribe the way in which any necessary alterations should be made and the place at which the register and the map should be kept for inspection by the public. I therefore hope that the House will approve these Amendments.
  Mr. Godber: Again, I welcome these Amendments. They meet points and fears which I expressed in Committee, when I was worried because the initiative, in many cases, had to rest with the drainage ratepayer. He must have the information, therefore, if he is to be able to lodge his protest. To that extent, these Amendments go a long way to meet those worries and I am glad that they have been made. They will not be a burden on the drainage boards.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Clause 36
  SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS— DRAINAGE RATES
  Lords Amendment No. 26, in page 31, line 22, leave out "32" and insert "33".
  Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is a purely technical Amendment, to correct a printing error.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 41
  GRANTS TOWARDS COST OF WATER SUPPLY TO AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS
  Lords Amendment No. 27, in page 36, line 25, leave out "situated on or".
  Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is a drafting Amendment to remove superfluous words. The Clause
  560
  refers to buildings situated on agricultural land, but the courts have understood "agricultural land" to exclude the site of any building, so it is impossible for any buildings to be "situated on" agricultural land as defined in the Land Drainage Acts. Clause 41 will remove doubts about the vires of the payment of grant on the supply of water to the farm buildings. We are satisfied that the amending words will cover those cases in which grant has hitherto been paid.
  Question put and agreed to.

  New Clause B
  COMPENSATION IN CONNECTION WITH COMPULSORY ACQUISITION ETC. OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS
  Lords Amendment: No. 28, after Clause 41, in page 36, line 33, at end insert new Clause B—
  "B.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where in pursuance of any enactment providing for the acquisition or taking of possession of land compulsorily an acquiring authority acquire the interest in an agricultural holding or any part of it of the tenant of the holding or take possession of such a holding or any part of it, the compensation payable by the authority to the tenant in connection with the acquisition or taking of possession shall be assessed without regard to the tenant's prospects, if any, of remaining in possession of the holding after the relevant date.
  (2) In subsection (1) of this section "the relevant date" means the earliest date on which, apart from the acquisition or taking of possession, the landlord "could obtain possession of the holding in pursuance of such a notice to quit as is mentioned in paragraph (c) below if—

  (a) the tenant exercised any tenant's option to extend or renew the tenancy in any case where, apart from this section, he would benefit from doing so; and

  (b) the landlord disregarded any provision in the contract of tenancy or lease enabling him to resume possession of the holding or to determine the tenancy by notice before the date fixed for the expiration of its term or before the termination of the stipulated endurance of the lease; and

  (c) the landlord served a valid notice to quit on the tenant in respect of the holding on the date of service of notice to treat in respect of the acquisition or the date of the taking of possession, as the case may be, or as soon thereafter as he became entitled to serve such a notice to quit; and

  (d) the provisions of section 24 of the principal Act or section 25 of the principal Scottish Act (which restrict the operation

  561
  of notices to quit) did not apply to the said notice to quit;

  and for the purposes of this subsection any such notice as is mentioned in section 3(1) of the principal Act (which refers to notices of intention to terminate the tenancy of an agricultural holding granted for a term of two years or upwards) shall be deemed to be a notice to quit.

  (3) Sutisection (1) of this section shall not apply to such an acquisition or taking of possession as is there mentioned—

  (a) in the case of such an acquisition, unless the date on which notice to treat in respect of the interest to be acquired is served or treated as served on the tenant by the acquiring authority is after the date of the passing of this Act;

  (b) where in the case of such a taking of possession prior notice of the taking of possession is by virtue of any enactment required to be served on the tenant by the acquiring authority, unless the date on which the notice is so served is after the date of the passing of this Act.

  (4) Section 17 of this Act shall have effect as if any reference to Part II of this Act, other than the reference in subsection (4), included a reference to the foregoing provisions of this section.
  (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prejudicing the provisions of any other enactment under which, apart from this section, compensation in respect of any such compulsory acquisition or taking of possession as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section falls to be assessed without regard to the prospects there mentioned."
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments No. 33, in Clause 52, page 42, line 7, after "in" insert
  "section (Modification of Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 in relation to agricultural marketing boards) of this Act or in"
  and No. 39, in the Title, in line 15, after "buildings;" insert
  "to make further provision with respect to the compensation of tenants of agricultural holdings whose land is acquired or taken possession of compulsorily;"
  Mr. Hughes: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members will recall that Part II of the Bill had its origin in the Government's appreciation of the hardship that tenant farmers may suffer when they are dispossessed for non-agricultural purposes of the land which they farm. The Bill provides for such tenants to receive a payment, amounting to four
  562
  times the annual rent of the land taken, to help them in the reorganisation of their affairs.
  One of the factors which the Government had very much in mind in introducing this provision was the fact that in cases of compulsory dispossession the tenant is compensated on the basis of the unexpired term of his tenancy, and that for an agricultural tenant on a year-to-year tenancy this can be very short. Within the last year, however, there has been a Lands Tribunal decision which, if it is correct, would upset this basis of compensation as it was understood at the time when the new payment was conceded to agricultural tenants. In this case—Pettitt v. Ministry of Transport— the Tribunal's decision related compensation, in effect, not to the period between dispossession and the earliest date of expiration of the tenancy, but to the length of time for which the Tribunal considered the tenant would be likely to remain in occupation, taking into account all the relevant circumstances, including security of tenure, which the Agricultural Holdings Acts confer upon tenant farmers.
  Now, obviously, if an agricultural tenant were to receive compensation on the Pettitt basis and also the special payment under this Bill, he would be benefiting twice over. The decision in Pettitt's case is at present under appeal. It is becoming evident that there is every prospect that this Bill will become law before the result is known. The introduction of a provision to restore the status quo is, therefore, unavoidable, and this is all that the new Clause does. It restores the basis of compensation for agricultural tenants to that on which we always thought it stood. It takes away nothing from the tenant's compensation which he had before. It introduces no new elements into the principles on which compensation has been customarily assessed in the past, and it does not in any way cut across the Government's desire to relieve hardship. I should perhaps add that it will not affect the decision on any compensation paid to Mr. Pettitt.
  Consequentially, it has been necessary to amend Clause 52 to exclude application of the new Clause to Northern Ireland, which has its own legislation,

  563
  and to amend the long title to bring the new Clause within the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Godber: We are grateful to the Minister for the explanation that he has given to us. The case of Pettitt v. Ministry of Transport cropped up a good deal in another place, and from my reading of it, I rather expected that we might have heard the result of the appeal by the time the Bill came back, but we have not done so. I understand the difficulty in which the Government are placed. None of us wants to see a condition in which there is confusion or in which there could be double compensation, but I am somewhat unhappy.
  The noble Lord, Lord Beswick in another place on Third Reading said that he thought the matter was all right, but that if it was not they would be able to put it right in another Session, since discussions were going on with regard to further legislation. He also said that the N.F.U. and the C.L.A., as well as professional bodies, would be consulted to see if they could find a way to overcome the difficulties. It would seem to be extremely untidy if we cannot have clarification. We are told now that the position will be safeguarded in the way that it will be looked at in the future.
  I must register regret that the matter has to be left in this rather uncertain state. None of us wants to make provision for double compensation. This would be unfair to the taxpayer and unnecessary. I would have thought that it would have been possible for the Ministry, in their discussions with the N.F.U., to have clarified whether any of the cases which were worrying the N.F.U. would be upset by the wording that is proposed. However, this is the last stage at which the matter can be considered, and certainly I do not want to hold up the passing of this legislation. I only record the view that it is unfortunate that we have not been able to get the position clarified, quite apart from the appeal, in which I recognise that the Government has no part. In the circumstances, I think that we must allow the legislation to proceed but, in the preparation of the future legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred, I hope that we shall be sure that any Amendment required will be brought
  564
  forward then and that the matter will be tidied up in that way.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): Perhaps I might reply to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, as my Department has a general oversight over the compensation code.
  I do not think that there is any confusion about the way in which these provision will work. I think that the matters to which my noble Friend, Lord Beswick, was referring were some rather peripheral ones which came up in the debate in the other place and raised more general issues under the compensation code as it affects agricultural tenants.
  These matters can be considered in the proper place, but this Bill would not be the proper place in which to deal with them. As was made clear in the debates in the other place, we are not satisfied that the matters raised have anything more than a theoretical significance and we have invited the bodies concerned to let us have instances of the sort of problem that they suggest might arise.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privileges, I will see that an entry to that effect is made in the Journal.

  Clause 42
  AMENDMENTS OF PLANT VARIETIES AND SEEDS ACT, 1964
  Lords Amendment: No. 29, in page 37, line 4, at end insert:
  "( ) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a person who reasonably believes that the material is to be exported from Great Britain."
  Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The effect of the Amendment is to exempt from the scope of the Clause sales, or offers for sale, of plant material of a protected variety which take place in this country but where the material which is the subject of the sale is to be delivered abroad.
  The Amendment refers to Great Britain because the 1964 Act applies to

  565
  Great Britain and is extended to Northern Ireland under Section 39 of that Act. The extension of Clause 42 as a whole is provided in subsection (3) of the Clause.
  The Clause as it originally stood did not, of course, prescribe what name should be used once reproductive material had been exported. That would be a matter for the legislation of the importing country. But there was an omission which might unintentionally have impeded the export of reproductive material of protected varieties. In relating to specific transactions the amendment follows the structure of Section 21 (2) of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act, 1964, which already exempts exports of seeds from the provisions relating to the Index of Names of Plant Varieties.
  Mr. Godber: This is a matter which is fairly complicated and on which we had a very long discussion in Committee. The naming of roses became a matter of burning concern to all members of the Standing Committee at that time.
  As I understand it, this Amendment is intended to go some way towards meeting the anxieties of certain noted rose producers who had sent us a lot of material in relation to this matter. It was made clear in another place that this Amendment, however, was not welcomed with great enthusiasm by Mr. McGredy, who was one of the ringleaders among the rose producers who sought to explain to us their anxieties in the matter.
  There are a number of different bodies concerned in this. But our only desire at that stage was to ensure that British rose producers were at no disadvantage compared with their Continental competitors. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary made it clear whether this Amendment will help them in ensuring that they will be at least on all fours with their European competitors in regard to the effects of this Clause. Initially, they had felt that the Clause as drafted was so tightly drawn that it would inhibit them in their overseas sales. I am not suggesting that the export of new varieties of roses is going to put right our balance of payments overnight, but however small it may appear in relation to some of our larger financial problems, to those concerned it is a matter of importance, and I hope the
  566
  Parliamentary Secretary can assure us that this Amendment is one which will help in some respect to allay the anxieties of those particular rose growers whose problems we discussed at great length upstairs.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hoy: I think it is going to be helpful. If it were not helpful, I would not be moving the Amendment which is the purpose for accepting it in another place. I will not go into the whole question. We debated it upstairs for a considerable length of time. The hon. Gentleman described it as "The War of the Roses". I would not go quite as far as that, but it did cause considerable discussion and in another place we have gone this length to help meet the needs of our own growers.
  Question put and agreed to.

  New Clause C
  MODIFICATION OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1956 IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARDS
  Lords Amendment No. 30: After Clause 43, in page 38, line 39, at end insert new Clause "C":
  "C.—(1) For the purposes of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956, the definition of "trade association" in section 6(8) of that Act shall not include, and shall be deemed never to have included, a board within the meaning of this section.
  (2) Where a board enter into an agreement on or after the commencement date in the exercise only of such powers as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section 20 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 (which section provides, amongst other things, that certain of a board's powers with respect to products must be exercised in accordance with any directions given by the Minister for the purpose of safeguarding the public interest) or of such powers as are mentioned in section 36 of that Act (under which a board are empowered, subject to the directions of the Minister, to provide artificial insemination services), Part I of the said Act of 1956 shall not apply to the agreement if—

  (a) the board have served notice of the terms of the agreement on the Minister before entering into it; and

  (b) either the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of service of the board's notice on the Minister has expired and the Minister has not during that period served notice on the board that he objects to those terms for the purposes of this subsection or the Minister has served on the board during that period notice that he does not so object; and

  567

  (c) the board have furnished a copy of the agreement to the Minister within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which they entered into it or within such longer period as the Minister may allow in any particular case.

  (3)Where a board have entered into an agreement before the commencement date wholly or partly in the exercise of any of the powers mentioned in subsection (2) of this section and either the board served on the Minister, before they entered into the agreement, notice of its terms in pursuance of a requirement to do so contained in a scheme administered by them or the board furnish a copy of the agreement to the Minister within the eriod of three months beginning with the commencement date, Part I of the said Act of 1956 shall not apply to the agreement—

  (a) subject to paragraph (c) below, as respects the period of fifteen months beginning with the commencement date;

  (b) if during the said period of fifteen months or that period as previously extended under this paragraph the Minister serves notice on the board extending or further extending that period in relation to the agreement, then, subject to paragraph

  (c) below, as respects the extended period;

  (c) if during the said period or extended period the Minister serves notice on the board that he objects to the agreement for the purposes of this subsection, only as respects the period beginning with the commencement date and ending with the date of service of the notice;

  (d) if during the said period or extended period the Minister serves notice on the board that he does not so object, as respects any period after the commencement date;

  and the said Part I shall, as respects any period before the commencement date, be deemed not to have applied to an agreement to which it does not apply by virtue of this subsection as respects a subsequent period.

  (4)Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall have effect in relation to a Northern Ireland board as if for any reference to the powers mentioned in subsection (2) of this section there were substituted a reference to the powers mentioned in subsection (1) of section 14 of the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (which section corresponds to the said section 20).
  (5)Where by virtue of any of the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) of this section Part I of the said Act of 1956 does not apply, or does not apply or is deemed not to have applied as respects any period, to an agreement made between a board and a trade association within the meaning of section 6 of that Act, being an agreement as to the terms for other agreements between the board and persons who are members of the association or are represented thereon by such members, the said Part I shall not apply or, as the case may be, shall not apply or shall be deemed not to have applied as respects that period—

  (a) to any such other agreement containing only terms contemplated by the agreement made between the board and the association;

  568

  (b) to any agreement made between two or more of those persons of which the purpose is confined to promoting the agreements mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection or any of them.

  (6)Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from the powers of the Minister to give directions at any time under the provisions of the said Acts of 1958 and 1964 which are mentioned in subsections (2) and (4) of this section.
  (7)In this section—
  "agreement " means an agreement within the meaning of Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 to which, apart from this section, the said Part I applies;
  " board " means a board constituted by a scheme made or having effect as if made under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 and includes a Northern Ireland board;
  " the commencement'date " means the date of the passing of this Act;
  "the Minister", except in relation to a Northern Ireland board, has the same meaning as in the said Act of 1958 and, in relation to a Northern Ireland board, has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1964; and
  " Northern Ireland board " means a board constituted by a scheme made or having effect as if made under the said Act of 1964;
  and for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section an agreement shall be treated as entered into by a board in the exercise only of the powers mentioned in that subsection, or that subsection as modified by subsection (4) of this section, notwithstanding that the agreement contains provisions entered into by the board in the exercise of other powers if the Minister is of opinion that those provisions are incidental provisions only."
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient if we also took Amendments Nos. 31, 33 and 34.
  Mr. Hughes: As my noble Friend explained in another place, the purpose of this new clause is to clarify the position of agricultural marketing boards in relation to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. Section 8(1) of that Act provides that any agreement " expressly authorised " by statute shall be exempt. Marketing boards have of course been set up under schemes approved by Parliament and provided with certain powers, including powers to make agreements, and it had therefore been thought that they were by virtue of that section, very largely at least, exempt. But it appears that this may not be so, because legal advice is

  569
  that the word "expressly " must be interpreted in a rather narrow way.
  Moreover, it appears that they may be held to be " trade associations" as defined in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. This interpretation could make their life very difficult, because they have many agreements between themselves and individual producers, and if they are held to be trade associations each of these agreements (in so far as they contain restrictive terms) might be held to be registrable.
  These, then, are the two problems which this clause is designed to deal with. It was essential to introduce it at this time because of the new Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, which had its second reading on 30th April. Clause 7 of that Bill makes unlawful the operation of any agreement which should have been registered but which has not been. Persons damaged by the operation of such an agreement will be able to seek civil remedies. The marketing boards must therefore know where they stand.
  Subsection (1) provides that marketing boards shall be deemed not to be, nor ever to have been, trade associations for the purposes of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.
  The remainder of the clause deals with those agreements relating to the products regulated under the various marketing schemes which will not be exempted either by this new provision or else by the existing provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. Essentially these subsections provide the mechanism whereby boards will be able to come to the Minister with such agreements, so that he can consider them in the light of the provisions contained in the Agricultural Marketing Act for safeguarding the public interest and say whether he is prepared to exempt them or not. There is provision for dealing with new agreements made after this Bill becomes law, and also with existing agreements.
  The Clause, together with the existing provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, should suffice to put the position of marketing boards beyond doubt. This is what we want to do. It will avoid the obvious difficulties which would arise if the activities of the marketing boards, which are already subject to the jurisdiction of the Minister under the Agricultural Marketing Act, were, in addition, subject to the jurisdiction of
  570
  the Restrictive Trade Practices Court. It is, therefore, with complete confidence that I commend the new Clause to the House.
  Mr. Godber: We are relieved to know that the Minister commends the new Clause with complete confidence. I wish that I could say with complete confidence that I understand every word of it. It is extremely complicated and while the right hon. Gentleman sought to explain it succinctly, it is still a difficult matter to grasp in relation to the problems that affect us.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are honourable in this respect. I appreciate that in the past, even under existing legislation, the marketing boards have been acutely worried, to put it no higher, about some of the effects of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act on certain of their activities. There have been a number of cases about which they have felt that the perfectly legitimate purposes for which they were set up have in some respects been jeopardised by some of the legislation that has been passed.
  If it is true that this Measure will tighten up the position still further, I agree that it is essential that the position should be clarified. The right hon. Gentleman assures us that the wording of the new Clause clarifies the position in a way which should satisfy the boards, and presumably they have had ample opportunity of considering the provision. As this was introduced in another place some weeks ago and as I have had no intimation or reason to believe that they are not so satisfied with it, my hon. Friends and I see no reason to disagree with the purposes which the Minister put forward.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.—[Special Entries.]
  Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Buchan, Mr. Godber, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Stodart: Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Ross.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reason for disagreeing to one of the-Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; To be communicated to the Lords.

  CHINA (DETAINED BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity of raising the case of George Watt and others and of drawing the attention of the House to the plight of this gentleman and at least 12 other British citizens and some of their families who have been detained by the Chinese. Mr. Watt is an engineer who was employed by Vickers-Zimmer, a British company which has been engaged since 1966 in the erection of a polypropylene plant in Lanchow in China. The plant was commissioned by Techimport, a Chinese trading organisation. Mr. Watt, a Belfast man, was employed by the company as an engineer and along with one or two other engineers was at the site in Lanchow supervising the construction of this plant.
  His wife joined him in China in July last year and they spent two months together there. She left in September and shortly after leaving Peking she was searched on her way through Shanghai and some family photographs were taken from her luggage. She was fully searched, she told me. The photographs were ordinary family ones, all of which had been taken in China in the presence of the Chinese interpreter who accompanied them, and none of which were in any way of a nature that might have infringed security or military secrecy.
  However, following the searching of Mrs. Watt, Mr. Watt was placed under house arrest in his hotel in Peking. Later, I believe, he was taken back to the hotel in Lanchow where he had stayed when he was working with Vickers-Zimmer and kept under arrest in his room in that hotel. I am told by members of the company that none of his colleagues or friends in the company were permitted to see him or speak to him. The only communication they received was when he sent bills for his food to the company asking that they should be paid by the company and when he asked that his effects should
  572
  be sent back to Britain. Except for those notes, no other communication was received and none of his friends in Lanchow working for Vickers-Zimmer or other British companies there were allowed to see or to talk to him, nor was he able to write to his wife or family in this country.
  The British Mission in Peking, which was informed of the situation, made attempts to get in touch with him but it also was unsuccessful. The Chinese authorities did not allow any access to Mr. Watt between the middle of September, when he was placed under arrest, and March this year when the world was informed by the New China News Agency that he had been charged and tried for espionage convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment. No other information about the trial was given to the British Mission in spite of the representations it made to the Chinese. No British consular official was able to attend the trial. No note of the evidence against Mr. Watt was forwarded to the British Mission in Peking. Neither Mr. Watt's friends in the company nor the British Foreign Office know anything about the proceedings at the trial. All that we know—
  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. McBride.]
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. McMaster: All that we know is that there were two releases from the New China News Agency, one on 12th March of this year which reported Mr. Watt's address and the later one which reported his trial. This is all the information which anyone has had about Mr. Watt since September last. Since his trial and his reported conviction by the New China News Agency, no diplomatic access has been granted to him. So far as we know, no letters from his wife have reached him. His wife tells me that she has written to him but that the letters have been returned through the firm. None has been received by Mr. Watt. No letters from Mr. Watt have reached his wife or his family. They are in complete ignorance as to his state

  573
  of health. They arc unable to send him any food parcels or find out anything about him.
  These circumstances merit the attention of the House. The company has made strenuous efforts to contact Mr. Watt and to secure his release. The managing director of the company, Mr. David Cockburn, visited Peking at the invitation of Tech. Import in March to discuss the case of Mr. Watt and the contract. In spite of several meetings with the Chinese authorities, Mr. Cockburn was unable to make any progress. He was unable to meet Mr. Watt or find out any of the facts of the case. His own return to Britain was delayed by the Chinese in circumstances that caused him grave apprehension.
  The company has done all that can reasonably be expected of it to contact Mr. Watt. This places ordinary business relations with the Chinese under considerable strain. The erection of the plant in Lanchow was interrupted by the Cultural Revolution last year. I believe that most of the plant has now been finished. Nevertheless, the affair of George Watt remains a case which calls for the most strenous efforts on the part of the Foreign Office to ensure that he is released as soon as possible and return to his family.
  The charges which the Chinese have made against Mr. Watt are of the flimsiest possible nature. The Press release from the New China News Agency says, among other things, that he took a large number of prohibited photographs and that he
  "stole by means of spying important intelligence ".
  It refers to
  " China's … political and economic affairs and the great proletarian cultural revolution."
  It says:
  " In this way, he has committed grave crimes seriously endangering the security and undermining the Socialist construction of China "—
  whatever that may mean.
  This is an unusually serious case for Britain. According to the definition of that news release, anyone who brought back any type of information of a cultural nature might be accused of espionage.
  In these circumstances, the attention not only of the House but of the British
  574
  public should be drawn to the case of George Watt. He is not alone. In a Written Answer on 29th May the Undersecretary of State listed 10 British subjects detained by the Chinese. In addition, the list mentions the families of two, Mr. Eric Gordon and Mr. David Crook. The list includes the master of a British ship, the " Fortune Wind", a Captain Pope, and two journalists, a Mr. Grey and a Mr. Barrymaine.
  What are the Government doing about the case of Mr. Watt? The actions of the Chinese in the affair are completely beyond the bounds of ordinary international protocol. They seem to neglect the terms of the Vienna Convention, which allows ordinary diplomatic access to persons charged with offences in another country. The fact that Mr. Watt's wife and mother, who is still living in my constituency and with whom I have been in touch, are unable to hear anything of him is more than discourteous. It is positively uncivilised. The Government should consider what retaliation is appropriate to bring the Chinese to their senses and make them realise that they cannot behave in this way towards British citizens.
  What freedom of movement is now allowed to members of the Chinese Mission in London? Are members of our Mission still being restricted in Peking, or do they have equal freedom of movement in China? What steps are the Government taking to inform any other companies thinking of erecting a plant in China of the risks involved both to them and their personnel?
  How do the actions of the Chinese compare with those which are normal under ordinary diplomatic practice and custom? What would the Minister normally expect from any other country, particularly as regards the right of access to a British citizen who has been accused of an offence in that country, the right of the British consul on the spot to see that he is properly represented and to attend the trial, and the right of communication between such a person and his family?
  What representations are the Government making to the Chinese that they should show leniency? Mr. Watt is not a spy, has never been a spy and has not attempted to spy. It is totally wrong that he should be imprisoned for three years by the Chinese in this way. Are the

  575
  Government taking steps to show that they would welcome any form of clemency which would lead to a reduction in his sentence and his early release so that he may be returned to his wife and family?
  Cannot something be done along the lines of the release of Philip Dobson, who received a longer sentence for apparently a more serious offence? I was very pleased to read of the Foreign Secretary's success in securing his release and his return today to this country. Cannot something like that also be done by the Foreign Office in this case?
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr.Anthony Royle: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on introducing a debate on a subject of great importance which has had insufficient airing in the House over the past year—the ever-increasing number of British subjects being detained by the People's Republic of China. He has mentioned Mr. Watt in particular and other British subjects detained at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, briefly to mention some of those other people detained.
  I want to mention the case of Mr. Anthony Grey, Reuter's correspondent in Peking, which the hon. Gentleman knows I have raised on countless occasions over the past 12 months. Mr. Grey was originally detained on 21st July, 1967, and for nearly 12 months this young man has been isolated on his own in his house in Peking. He is not even allowed freedom of movement around the whole house. He is restricted to one or two rooms. During this period, on only one occasion, and that in the last couple of months, has access been gained to him by one of our consular representatives. He has received cables and letters but that one recent visit has been the only break which this young Englishman has had all this time sitting in his house in Peking.
  What has Mr. Grey done? Has he been spying? Has he shot at Mao Tse-Tung? Has he done anything dreadful? Not at all. No charges have been preferred. Mr. Grey was Reuter's correspondent in Peking and no reason for his detention has been given. The
  576
  time has come when this miserable and inhuman story should be brought to an end and Mr. Grey allowed to come home.
  I know the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Office have faced over his case and some of the other cases. I recognise that retaliation at an earlier stage might not have been very effective and might not be effective now. But it should be reconsidered.
  I recognise, too, that, at various times over the past few months, it has been thought unwise perhaps to publicise this case too much in order to avoid the risk of damage being done to Mr. Grey's position by too much publicity. But I confess that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East, mentions the strenuous efforts made by Vickers-Zimmer to try to get Mr. Watt out, I should like to feel that Reuter's has made similar efforts to get Mr. Grey out. After all, Reuter's is a worldwide news service and yet there seems to me to have been little effort over the last 11 months by this organisation to help its employee obtain his release from incarceration in Peking. It may be that it has received advice from the hon. Gentleman that it should not do this. I do not know the reasons for it but it seems sad that Mr. Grey, after 11 months, is still incarcerated in one or two rooms in his house in Peking.
  I recognise the hon. Gentleman's difficulties and the troubles he faces. I recognise the difficulties of retaliation against a country whose diplomatic manners are different from our own. But I beg him to give some hope tonight to this young man who is still, after 11 months, incarcerated by himself in Peking.
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I do not wish to take up the Under-Secretary of State's time and I put to him four very brief points. The problem we face is what to do about these cruel and senseless acts which the Chinese have perpetrated on British subjects. First, can the hon. Gentleman say in what way we can help the individuals concerned? If our own Mission is not able to gain access—and one understands its difficulties—what steps are we taking to ask other missions, particularly those of Australia and Canada and possibly Pakistan, to act on our behalf?

  577
  We have protested. The Foreign Secretary has done his utmost, but protests in the case of China seem to make very little difference. My second question therefore is whether it is possible for us somehow to arrange for those nations which trade and have relations with China to make a common demarche to the Chinese Government to indicate to them what damage they are doing to their reputation in the world. I think that collective action may make some sense here.
  Thirdly, retaliation. This is very difficult but easy for people to suggest. It is terribly difficult for any responsible Government to take retaliatory action. But, for all that, there are in this country a number of Chinese, particularly at the China News Agency. I ask the Minister to consider whether it is right that our correspondents, businessmen and seamen in Peking should be put into this difficult situation and Chinese nationals here suffer no difficulty whatever.
  Fourthly, could the Minister give some indication—I am sure that he will if he is able—about the up-to-date picture concerning seamen? We, as a great shipping nation interested in export, must, above all, resist the seizing of our seamen and masters from their vessels in Chinese ports.
  10.16 p.m.
  The Undcr-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): During the last year hon. Members on both sides of the House have been deeply concerned about the detention of British subjects in China. There have been Questions at frequent intervals, as the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) said, and we had a brief opportunity to look more closely at the matter on the Consular Relations Bill. In addition I have tried personally to keep informed those Members particularly affected in their constituency capacity.
  This evening the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has provided a further occasion on which to express our continuing anger and distress at the detentions. May I say how much I appreciate the thoughtful and constructive way in which he has raised the issue? I think that our short discussion has been marked both by com-
  578
  passion and by a shrewd awareness of reality.
  On 29th May, in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), I gave the most reliable information then available on British subjects detained in China. The only information we have had since then has come from the Crook family in this country, who have told us that they have received letters recently from Mrs. Crook and the children which indicate that they are well, but do not mention Mr. Crook himself.
  All these British citizens are in one way or another victims of the Cultural Revolution. I cannot on this occasion— though I wish it were otherwise—discuss the fascinating course of the Cultural Revolution or reflect upon its consequences. Hon. Members will, however, recall that it began in the latter part of 1966 and reached its height in the summer of last year. It led to divisions in the Chinese leadership with consequences for public order in many parts of the country. It seems, too—and this is particularly relevant to our present discussion—to have brought about a hardening of Chinese attitudes towards foreigners—all foreigners, not only towards the British—and a general mood of militancy. For us, its overspill into Hong Kong created special problems.
  Throughout May and June, 1967, there were disturbances in Hong Kong which were handled with firmness and discretion by the Governor and his staff, who justifiably earned widespread praise.
  Then on 20th August the Chinese delivered an ultimatum in Peking concerning events in Hong Kong, particularly measures taken against the Communist Press. There followed demonstrations on two successive days against our Mission, and on the 22nd August a mob sacked the office—setting it on fire—and also the Residence of the Chargé d'Affaires. Members of the staff were roughly treated, although there were fortunately no serious injuries. We immediately imposed certain restrictions on the movements of staff of the Chinese Mission in London, in particular to prevent them leaving the country without an exit permit. Our staff in Peking were even more narrowly restricted, being unable to leave the compound in which they live.

  579
  Although the restrictions on movements both in London and Peking were later modified, the Chinese continued, with very few exceptions, to make difficulties over the departure of our staff from Peking. May I take this opportunity—I am sure it is the wish of the House I should do so—to pay a special tribute to our people in Peking. We are aware of the harshness of their experience and know that they have throughout behaved admirably under the most trying circumstances.
  Since 5th April of this year, however, when I informed the Chinese Charge d'Affaires in London of the final lifting of all the restrictions placed on his staff, things have been a little better. The Chinese have given exit visas from Peking for six junior members of the British staff, and have given a number of entry visas for other staff to go to Peking. One member of the senior staff has also been informed that he may leave. Nevertheless, we continue to regard the situation, as surely we must, as far from satisfactory. I have told the Chinese Chargé d'Affaires that we expect full reciprocity in the lifting of restrictions and the rapid issue of outstanding visas for our staff to leave China.
  I have said this about the position of our Mission both because I think it is of interest to the House and as a background to the rest of the story. I now turn specifically to those who have been detained—or we believe to have been detained—in custody.
  First, there is Mr. Anthony Grey, the Reuter's correspondent in Peking. Even before our Mission was attacked he was called, on 21st July, to the Foreign Ministry, and then put under house arrest. He has remained there since and as the hon. Member for Richmond said, had no contact with the outside world until the 23rd April of this year, when Sir Donald Hopson and another member of the Mission were allowed to visit him. It is not for me to speak for Reuter's, but I think it is only fair to say that they have kept in the closest touch with us, and I know that they are deeply concerned about the plight of this unfortunate young man, wholly innocent as of course he is.
  Then there is a group of British subjects who have been detained in the
  580
  period since February, but about whom we have received no information concerning charges, if any. These are Mr. Norman Barrymaine, a journalist, Mr. D. V. Jones, Mr. P. D. Crouch and Captain Pope.
  There is a third distinct group about whom we also know little. They include Mr. Eric Gordon and his family, Mrs. Epstein, Mr. Michael Shapiro and Mr. David Crook and his family, whom I have already mentioned. All these have been employed at one time or another by the Chinese authorities. The majority of them lived together in the Friendship Hostel and had little contact with our Mission. In fact there were reports last year that some of them had demonstrated outside it shortly before it was destroyed.
  I have left to the end and put in a separate category Mr. George Watt, about whom the hon. Member for Belfast, East has been principally concerned tonight. The facts as far as we know them have been described. Mr. Watt, an engineer employed by Vickers-Zimmer, was detained in Lanchow on 26th September of last year, and we are told that on 15th March he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for alleged spying. There has been no contact with him since his arrest, and the Chinese authorities have refused to allow Consular access, saying that this was not "appropriate" in his case.
  We have made frequent representations on behalf of all these British subjects. As I explained to the House in the debate on the Consular Relations Bill on 28th March, we have in the past generally found it better to communicate with the Chinese authorities through our Mission in Peking, despite the difficulties with which it has had to contend. Representations have been made on behalf of one or all of the British subjects detained on a great many separate occasions. For example, in the period since 1st March alone, our Mission has made at least 20 formal approaches to the Chinese authorities, and has followed these up with numerous reminders by telephone.
  I have also thought it right to see the Chinese Chargé d'Affaires in London. I first saw him on 21st July last year, the date of Mr. Grey's detention, about the detention of Mr. Grey. This meeting ended on a stormy note due to the total unwillingness of the Charge to accept the

  581
  representations and his insistence on conducting nauseating propaganda related principally to Hong Kong. I have since seen him on 5th April and 24th May and gone right through the list of all British subjects detained, especially making clear the intolerable situation of Mr. Watt. The interviews took place in a more temperate atmosphere, but I greatly regret that the Charge was unable to supply me with the information for which I asked.
  What is the position then as it now stands? First, in the case of the Mission we are making some slow progress though not at a rate that can be regarded as satisfactory. Second, in the case of Anthony Grey, we have had one consular visit. We hope to obtain others—but progress remains slow. Third, on the three ships' officers and Mr. Norman Barrymaine, we are still awaiting information. The position is very unsatisfactory indeed, and I cannot forecast the outcome. Fourth, on those British subjects formerly employed by the Chinese authorities, we are seeking to discover their whereabouts though there is no evidence that charges are being brought against them. Fifth, in the case of Mr. Watt, we have received no further information and there appears no present prospect of personal contact with him. We shall continue to press very hard indeed for, at the very least, access and, much better, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, clemency and release, and return to this country. But again it would be misleading to assume early success.
  I have been asked how we can help, and the question of retaliation has been raised. We have, of course, considered frequently and with the very greatest care whether there were measures we might take which would bring effective pressure to bear on the Chinese authorities. We have discussed fully a number of suggestions which have been made in the House. The question of trade relations, for example, has clearly been in our minds. I hope, however, that hon. Gentlemen will not press me on our precise conclusions. We are prepared, however, to take any measure which we believe will really help those detained in China, while remaining wary of striking attitudes which, frankly would yield no results. We must remember that China today is a unique case where none of the normal rules appear to apply. Comparisons with
  582
  other countries—and what it is possible to do for British subjects held elsewhere— simply do not make sense. Meanwhile I am sure—and I think this answers another point the hon. Gentleman made—that those who trade with China, either carrying out industrial contracts or visiting her ports, will have noted the events we are now discussing and taken them fully into account.
  I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman when he says the Chinese are guilty of actions completely beyond the bounds of international protocol. That is absolutely true.
  It is a continuing disgrace that British subjects should be held in this way. We deplore such uncivilised behaviour, especially when we in Britain—and I know this applies to the hon. Gentleman, who has made his views quite plain— are anxious to restore normal relations with China and are prepared at all times to discuss genuine issues of common concern. We shall continue to make our views known to the Chinese authorities, directly or indirectly, if this proves possible and likely to produce results, and to speak firmly and clearly on behalf of those whose own voices are silenced. We must hope that in due course the Chinese will come to see the folly of their present shameful attitudes and will take steps to release those that they now so wrongly hold.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As there is a moment or two left, will the hon. Gentleman try to answer a point about some collective demarche to China and what steps might be taken by the Canadian and Australian Missions?
  Mr. Rodgers: I thought I had in passing touched on this point. I thought I said that a number of countries are affected by the present attitude of the Chinese authorities. We have reason to believe that people of other nationalities are held, but I think that probably we are placed in a somewhat more difficult position, particularly, of course, because of Hong Kong and the particular importance which the Chinese attach to it. Certainly, if collective action were possible and would produce results we would be prepared to take an initiative, though, of course, it would succeed only if others saw fit to work in the same way and it

  583
  is not only what they might be willing to do but are able to do. Everybody knows that conditions in Peking are extremely difficult. We are anxious about taking further steps which might—
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Shared Lines (Rental)
  Shared Lines (Rental)
  Telephone Directories
  Telephone Directories
  Midlothian (New Subscribers)
  Midlothian (New Subscribers)
  Midlothian Telephone Directory (Errors)
  Midlothian Telephone Directory (Errors)
  Scotland (Plant Contracts)
  Scotland (Plant Contracts)
  Kiosks (Telephone Directories)
  Kiosks (Telephone Directories)
  Telephone Information Services
  Telephone Information Services
  Blind Persons (Telephone Rentals)
  Blind Persons (Telephone Rentals)
  Brookwood Area (Waiting List)
  Brookwood Area (Waiting List)
POST OFFICE
  Telegram Service
  Telegram Service
  Aircraft Accident, Heathrow (Damaged Mail)
  Aircraft Accident, Heathrow (Damaged Mail)
  Postal Service (Leeds Area)
  Postal Service (Leeds Area)
  Sub-Postmasters (Remuneration)
  Sub-Postmasters (Remuneration)
  Sub-Offices (Anti-Bandit Screens)
  Sub-Offices (Anti-Bandit Screens)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Pay Television
  Pay Television
  Local Radio Stations
  Local Radio Stations
  Old Persons' Homes (Concessionary Licences)
  Old Persons' Homes (Concessionary Licences)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teacher Recruitment (Scientists and Engineers)
  Teacher Recruitment (Scientists and Engineers)
  Output Budgeting
  Output Budgeting
  Young Volunteer Force
  Young Volunteer Force
  Mental Illness (Research)
  Mental Illness (Research)
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Winstanley Road Infants School, Wellingborough
  Winstanley Road Infants School, Wellingborough
  Gittens Report
  Gittens Report
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Lorry, Perth Road, N.4 (Police Action)
  Lorry, Perth Road, N.4 (Police Action)
  London Motor Cab Proprietors' Association (Letters)
  London Motor Cab Proprietors' Association (Letters)
TECHNOLOGY
  Metric System
  Metric System
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Divorced Women
  Divorced Women
  JERUSALEM (SECURITY COUNCIL DEBATE)
  JERUSALEM (SECURITY COUNCIL DEBATE)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
ROADS
  M6 Road (Crash Barriers)
  M6 Road (Crash Barriers)
  Motorway Accidents
  Motorway Accidents
  HONOURS
  HONOURS
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands (Wool Industry)
  Falkland Islands (Wool Industry)
  Nigeria (Supply of Arms)
  Nigeria (Supply of Arms)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Armed Forces Bill
  Armed Forces Bill
  Service Establishments, Scotland
  Service Establishments, Scotland
SCOTLAND
  Students' Grants
  Students' Grants
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Hospital Service Dietitians
  Hospital Service Dietitians
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Selective Employment Tax and Regional Employment Premiums
  Selective Employment Tax and Regional Employment Premiums
  Civil Servants (Visits to Eastern Europe)
  Civil Servants (Visits to Eastern Europe)
  Subsidies and Grants
  Subsidies and Grants
BOARD OF TRADE
  Alumina Production (Cement Process)
  Alumina Production (Cement Process)

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

SPEECH THERAPISTS' PAY AND TRAINING
3.6 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: 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 how long the present scale of salaries for qualified speech therapists, who have completed a three-year course of training, has remained at its present level, and whether any action is contemplated by the Government in this matter.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, salaries are in the first instance a matter for the Whitley Council who last month agreed to an increase of 4 per cent. from October 1, 1967, for various professions, including speech therapists. The new salary scales supersede those which had been in operation since July 1, 1965, and I understand that negotiations are proceeding on the possibility of a further increase which would be effective from January 1, 1969.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Would she not agree that, Whitley Council or no Whitley Council, a salary increase of only 4 per cent. is totally inadequate to a scale which begins at £695 and, after 14 years, goes up to only £1,320? Is it not utterly wrong that people who are doing this highly skilled work should be made to suffer financial hardships which are not shared by other far less highly skilled technicians in the Hospital Service; and, even if the revision which is due takes place, can my noble friend give an assurance that it will be really adequate to meet the difficulties which these people are now facing?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will appreciate that I should like to be able to give him this assurance. What I can say is that I wholeheartedly agree with him as to the value and skill of speech therapists. I have some personal knowledge o f their work. My noble friend will appreciate that the Minister is aware of this matter. I can say no more than that some discussions have taken place. I should perhaps remind the noble Lord that this is primarily a matter for the Whitley Council.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while not in any sense holding my noble friend responsible, may I ask whether she will bring to the notice of her right honourable friend the fact that, despite these increases, any immigrant unskilled manual labourer is rewarded to a much greater extent than are these women?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I would agree to some extent with my noble friend. Unhappily, that is equally true of some other professions, and it perhaps reflects the strange scale of values which exist in our society. I will certainly bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the points that have been raised.
LORD SEGAL: 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 how many places of entry ale now available annually for training in a three-year course for qualification as a speech therapist, and what increase in the present number is contemplated in view of the very heavy demand for these specialised services.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, there are about 210 places available annually in all speech therapy schools in the United Kingdom. Owing to a shortage of qualified candidates a proportion of these places is not filled. The provision of training places will be kept under review.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Is not the shortage of candidates directly related to the salary scales with which we have just

211
been dealing? Is she aware that there are only 1,680 registered speech therapists, who have to cope with the problem of nearly 250,000 children afflicted with speech defects? Could not the Government, during this Mental Health Week, make a special gesture to make more facilities available for the training of these badly-needed technicians?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will have achieved a great deal by raising this matter to-day and by getting on record what he has said. Although I cannot answer for my right honourable friend, I can assure the noble Lord that I will take this matter to him. As I have said, I have had personal experience of this wonderful profession. I think it would be fair to point out, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, that not only the salary but the nature of the work, which is demanding, may be one of the reasons that there are not more people entering the profession. One must also recognise that somebody who is qualified in speech therapy can go into other more congenial professions. I will, however, certainly bring what has been said to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are a large number of elderly people suffering from strokes who require the help of speech therapists? Can she tell the House what proportion of therapists' time is at present taken up with dealing with children as opposed to dealing with elderly people?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I have not the breakdown of the figures for which the noble Lord has asked. I shall he happy to let him have them.

CHEMICAL WARFARE RESEARCH AND THE UNITED STATES
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the results of research at Porton biological and chemical laboratories are made available to the Government
212
of the U.S.A., which has not signed the Geneva Protocol, for the preparation of offensive weapons.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, exchange of information with the United States takes place under the terms of the Technical Co-operation Programme, instituted in 1958, and of the Basic Standardisation Agreement of 1964. Details of the information exchanged are confidential.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, accepting that the purpose of Porton is defence, may I ask whether this does not require the production of offensive weapons so that the effectiveness of the defence may be tested'? In this process, have not British chemists produced the active ingredients of the most toxic nerve gases and V-agents? Is not this information supplied to the United States Government which, unlike us, has declined to accept the Geneva Protocol and is using our research work for offensive purposes to which we are opposed?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the V agents are concerned, as I have said, details of information exchanged with the United States are confidential and I cannot go into that any further. So far as the work that is being done at Porton is concerned, certainly what goes on there is designed to produce defences against these toxic agents. The way in which that is done is, again, a confidential matter which I cannot at this moment discuss in your Lordships' House. As to the United States' position on chemical and biological weapons, we know that the United States is not a party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol whereas we are: but the position of the United States is very similar to our own. The noble Lord will recall that many signatories of the 1925 Protocol, including the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, reserved the right to use these weapons in retaliation for their use against them. That is substantially the position of the United States of America. But, as I have said, I cannot give the noble Lord any details of the information which we exchange with the Americans.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am sorry to press this matter with the noble Lord, but there is deep feeling about it

213
in the country. Does not the United States now have large stockpiles of offensive agents as a direct result of British research? Is it now not using these nerve gases in Vietnam where there is considerable evidence that they have been fatal? Were we responsible—and I have asked this in a letter—for providing the gases used in the French student demonstrations which have led to blindness among its victims?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid I have no detailed information on the type of agent that was used in the French riots. The only agent of this kind of which we have immediate knowledge is the C.S. gas. That is a riot control agent, as the noble Lord will know, and not a chemical warfare agent, and therefore information about it is freely exchanged between countries. We have no exclusive rights in respect of this C.S. gas or any other riot control agent. So far as the United States' position is concerned, of course I cannot answer for the United States Government, either in terms of what stockpiles they have or how they use them: nor—I fear I have to say it again—can I give details of the information which is exchanged between us.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the question of prohibiting the production of biological and chemical weapons or agents is on the agenda of the Geneva Disarmament Conference?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we have had this matter on the agenda at the Geneva Disarmament Conference, and the position of the Government is that we should very much like to see the whole area of biological and chemical weapons brought into the arms control field. The noble Lord will know that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is now reaching a decisive stage. We shall have to consider how we go on from there, and certainly this will be one of the matters that we shall have in the front of our minds.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I give Notice that I shall desire to raise this matter as an Unstarred Question at a later date?

DUTIES OF THE QUEEN'S REMEMBRANCER
LORD MITCHISON: My Lorth, 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 the duties of the Queen's Remembrancer and whether they include, or can be extended to include, reviving from time to time the Government's recollection of the Royal and Departmental Commissions and Committees about which they were asked on May 8, 1968.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend, as a distinguished member of the legal profession, is more familiar than I am with the duties of the Queen's Remembrancer. I understand, however, that in addition to his duties as senior master of the Supreme Court, he has ceremonial duties formerly associated with the Court of Exchequer, including duties in relation to the warrants of appointment of the Sheriffs of the City of London. I do not think that it would be appropriate or necessary to extend his duties in the way my noble friend suggests, but I appreciate the characteristic and gentle humour of his reminder.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very informative Answer, may I ask whether he could tell me two things? If the Queen's Remembrancer cannot do it, could not the Government keep a list of the Royal and Departmental Commissions and Committees which they appoint? It is, of course, the prerogative of a Labour Government that the right hand should not always know what t the left hand is doing. Is not this a case of pushing it rather far, and would my noble friend try an elephant—because elephants, I understand, never forget anything? Or, failing an elephant, would he accept from me my small contribution of a sixpenny exercise book and a sharpened pencil to keep the list? May I ask my noble friend one further question? Could he give an indication of the tribal dances which are performed by the Queen's Remembrancer? They might be interesting.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not certain about the value of elephants in this matter, but I have arranged, if the noble Lord will be so good as to accept that invitation, for him to see members of the Treasury so that some of the difficulties inherent in his question of May 8 can be explained to him. I hope he will be good enough to go along and discuss these difficulties with the Treasury. As for the second part of his question about the ceremonial duties, I understand that they involve the Trial of the Pyx and the receipt of quit rents from the City of London in respect of the tenure of the "Moors" in the County of Salop and "the Forge" in the parish of St. Clement Danes. Furthermore, I understand that these rents are payable in nails and horseshoes on the morrow of St. Michael, or between that day and the morrow of St. Martin. The noble Lord will be quick to appreciate that there are certain difficulties involved in extending the duties as he suggests.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, if it is the duty of the Queen's Remembrancer to jog the memory of the Government, would it be in order for him to remind the Government that the Labour Party have for the last fifty years promised that equal pay would be introduced?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thought the burden of my answer was that it was not the duty of the Queen's Remembrancer to do what the democracy of this country should do; namely, to jog the memory of the Government.

MR. CORN-BENDIT
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely, "On what grounds Mr. Cohn-Bendit has been granted a 14-day extension of his permitted stay in this country".
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Stonham will be answering this Question by way of a Statement. After that, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Donovan Report on Trade Unions and Employers' Associa
216
tions. I would also take this opportunity to say that dinner will be served this evening between 7 and 8.30 p.m.

HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.22 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 LORD CHAMPION in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Succession in cases of illegitimacy
1. For section 4 (succession in cases of illegitimacy) of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as "the Act of 1964") there shall, in relation to the estate of any person dying after the commencement of this Act, be substituted the following section:—
"Succession in cases of illegitimacy.
4.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 2 of this Act, where a person dies intestate and is survived by illegitimate children, those illegitimate children and the legitimate children (if any) of the intestate shall together have right to the whole of the intestate estate.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section an illegitimate person shall be presumed not to be survived by his father unless the contrary is shown.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in the proposed amendment of Section 4 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, in subsection (1) to leave out "person" and insert "woman". The noble Lord said: We are here concerned with a quite fundamental change in the law. Section 4 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964

217
says, in effect, that where a woman dies intestate and is not survived by lawful issue any illegitimate children of hers can take the whole of her estate, and where an illegitimate child dies intestate and without lawful issue his or her mother can take the whole of his or her estate. What this clause does, as I understand it, is to extend the right of illegitimate children to share equally with lawful issue the whole of the estate either of the mother or of the father subject to the prior right of a surviving spouse. This is really a very far-reaching change in the law, as has been recognised in the memoranda that were submitted to the Committee which studied this matter, and one is bound to ask: What is the justification for it? I refer, for example, to the memorandum of evidence submitted by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland, which begins by describing
"the occasional hardship of individual circumstances which may be quoted in support of a change in the law as being no justification for so radical an innovation as giving to an illegitimate person the same rights of succession on intestacy as a legitimate person".
The proposals contained in this and following clauses are based on the recommendation of the Russell Committee, appointed jointly by the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1964. The Committee received written representations from organisations and from individuals, but took no oral evidence. There was a Minority Report submitted by Sir Hugh Munro-LucasTooth, Member of Parliament, which did not agree with this recommendation; or, in so far as it did agree, it agreed subject to safeguards and restrictions. The recommendation stemmed from an idea expressed in paragraph 19 of the Russell Report in the following terms:
"Whatever may be said of the parents, the bastard is innocent of any wrongdoing. To allot to him an inferior, or indeed unrecognised, status in succession is to punish him for a wrong of which he was not guilty."
I should like your Lordships to consider whether this is sound or whether, again in the words of the Law Society of Scotland,
"it represents a sentimental approach to the question".
In so far as it is sound, should it be the dominant consideration when we come to consider the law? Will the change promote harmony, or will it create
218
discord? Is it as certain in operation as the present law? Above all, ought we to look at this from the point of view of the individual only, or rather from the point of view of the individual in the community of the good society? The social unit in the community surely is the family. Those who belong to a family bear certain obligations, both moral and legal, and have certain legal rights, because they are members of the family. In recent years legislation has sought to ensure that as many children as possible who belong to families, whether they are born into a family or not, and that all who belong to a family, whether by birth, by adoption or by legitimation, should have equal rights. This, I think, is the right approach, and I think we shall all hope that in t me to come every child will be the member of some family; and, of course, on becoming the member of another family through adoption they automatically, by law, lose any rights they may have of succession to the estate of their original parents.
There is one comment I should like to make on the original idea, as I have described from which these recommendations are derived. There is surely no question of crime or punishment here. The State does not make it a crime to have intercourse outside wedlock. What the State does is to sustain the institution of marriage by distinguishing between lawful issue and the rest, and by according lawful issue a legal status. If illegitimate children are to have the same civil status, the same rights in law, as legitimate children, I fail to see why we should distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children in name. I fail to see why, in the long run, there should be any institution of marriage at all. There are some children, of course—and there may always be—who are unfortunate enough never to gain admission to a family. I hope that that will not continue to be so, as I have said. I am sure the aim of policy should be to ensure that every child is or becomes a member of a family.
Of course, some children born out of wedlock will be brought up by their mothers, who may or may not marry later. If they do not many, the law already allows an illegitimate child or children to succeed to their mother's

219
estate on intestacy. If they do marry later, then it is reasonable to allow them to share equally with the offspring of the marriage because they are members of the same family. The whole of the Russell Committee accepted that this change should be made, and I would also accept it for the reasons I have given. It is also entirely reasonable that children of an illegitimate child should be entitled to share in their grandmother's estate if the illegitimate child dies before his mother.
It is here, however, that the Russell Committee lapse into some confusion. If the purpose of their recommendations is to ensure that an illegitimate child is not to be allotted an inferior status in succession, how can they justify allotting an inferior status to the illegitimate child of an illegitimate child in succession to their grandmother's estate, or even to the illegitimate child of a legitimate child in rightly succeeding to the estate? I am sorry if this appears to be confusing; but it is one of the great difficulties that we have to deal with. This is a Scottish Bill; but I would point out that the Russell Committee was composed equally of English and Scottish representatives with an English Chairman, and we may well expect that the legislation now being put through in Scotland will subsequently be applied to England as well. So I would invite noble Lords who may think that this is a slightly esoteric matter—which was the word that has been used—to realise that it may well affect England as well as Scotland.
The Committee tried to justify this by saying that for an illegitimate child to share in the grandparents' estate might be directly opposed to the grandparents' wishes; so they came back inevitably to the part that the presumed wishes of the testator have to play in the distribution of an intestate estate. Earlier in their Report they had rather pooh-poohed this as a major consideration. Of course, it must be right that the law should have regard to what may be reasonably presumed to be the wishes of the deceased. At the present time, if he does not bother to make a will the law presumes that he would have left his property to his wife and family.
Here I pass on to consider the position of illegitimate children in relation to their
220
father's estate. The Russell Committee recognised a clear distinction between that and their position in relation to their mother's estate. They said:
"There is of course the distinction dictated by nature between the association between a bastard and his mother and that between a bastard and his father; and this distinction has both an evidential and a familial aspect."
This language is not mine; it is the Report's. They go on:
"Nature permits that a man may produce more bastards more secretly. Facts dictate that it must be generally far more difficult to establish the paternity of a bastard than the maternity:…"
They did not draw the same conclusion that I draw. They did not draw what in my view is the correct conclusion: that the distinction ought to be reflected in the law. This is what this set of Amendments seeks to do. It seeks to establish that it is only the illegitimate children of the mother that should have the right to succeed an intestacy, and not the illegitimate children of the father. The reason for this I can state shortly. In the first place, the child is rarely a member of the father's family. If he is a member of the father's family, the father can adopt him and so legitimate him. Secondly, an illegitimate child brought up in the mother's family is already known and recognised as part of the family; not so the father's, in the ordinary case. He may not be known at all. It may be that the father does not even know that he has an illegitimate child. I imagine that there may be not a few illegitimate children in Europe at the present time of whom the father has no knowledge whatsoever, all of whom could turn up to claim their share in intestacy of their father's estate.
Another consideration, and an important one, is that the moment when the family is mourning the loss of a father is not the best time for the family to be appraised, for the first time, that there was an illegitimate child of the father. I believe that this will cause a great deal of strife and trouble at the time when the family is mourning the death of the father. Thirdly, there is the difficulty of establishing paternity. As Sir Hugh Munro-Lucas-Tooth pointed out, it may be that this will not arise until, on average—but perhaps this is a little exaggerated-50 years after the birth of the illegitimate child. I think that that goes

221
a little far. Let us say that something between 20 and 50 years would be the normal time. It will be difficult to establish paternity—and the proposal is that this is to be left entirely to the courts. As Sir Hugh Munro-Lucas-Tooth has pointed out, the courts would have to build up some case law in this matter. Meanwhile there would be considerable uncertainty.
I imagine that it will give rise to a lot of injustice; because if a claimant came along in the circumstances I have indicated, the tendency will be for the legitimate claimants to the estate to be very reluctant to oppose the claim in open court. I should think that this is bound to be so. So we may find that there is a great deal of injustice and a good many bogus claims will get by. At the very least, the right should be limited to cases where there has been some act of recognition of paternity, as according to the Report, is the case in several other countries, where illegitimates have had conferred on them this right. But the centre and core of my argument is that the right thing is to bring illegitimate children into families and have them brought up there, and not to tamper with the institution of the family. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("person") and insert ("woman").—(Lord Drwnalbyn.)
House resumed.

MR. CORN-BENDIT
3.38 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I hope it will meet your Lordships' convenience if I reply now to the Private Notice Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
Mr. Cohn-Bendit arrived at London Airport on June 11 at the invitation of the B.B.C. He said that his purpose was to take part in a programme to be recorded on the following day, and he accepted that a stay of 24 hours would be sufficient for this purpose. Last night his legal representative applied for permission for him to stay on for 14 days to visit student friends and a relative. Naturally, my right honourable friend looked at this with some care, but in all the circumstances he did not think it necessary to refuse the application.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, while recognising that the blame for inviting this alien to this country rests upon the authorities of the B.B.C. and not upon the Government may I ask the Government whether they think that their decision to grant him a further stay in this country will be backed by British opinion here, or whether they think some British interest will be served by allowing him to stay here?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is not possible for me to conduct, as it were, an instant referendum to establish what all the people of this country think; but for a great many years we have had in this country a liberal tradition that the powers vested in the Home Secretary to exclude foreign nationals should not be exercised arbitrarily or lightly. I think that is still the opinion of the great majority of the people of this country. I believe that in admitting Mr. CohnBendit, who is not a convicted criminal, we were maintaining that tradition and our reputation as a civilised country. Like any other person in this country, Mr. Cohn-Bendit will be free to express his views. Like them, he will be subject to the law of the land, and answerable for any breach of it. I think that we are serving a useful purpose.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is it not a fact that this particular foreign student—if indeed he is a student—is subject to the usual regulations governing the entry of other foreign students, and that there is therefore no particular reason to treat him exceptionally, so long as he behaves himself?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is entirely the view of my right honourable friend. He is also of the opinion that we should not exaggerate this young man's importance and make him, as it were, a martyr. We were informed by his legal representative that he does not intend to cause trouble while he is here. That we shall see.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, aright? Did he say that the Government were performing a useful service in permitting Mr. Cohn-Bendit to enter the country?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was answering a question from the noble

223
Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I believe that when we allow views to be freely expressed, when we indulge in dialogue and allow people to talk instead of suppressing their talk, we are performing a useful purpose.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government have made any serious attempt to ascertain Mr. Cohn-Bendit's intentions in this country during the next fortnight, particularly in the universities, where at present there is a wave of unrest?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, these things were gone into with Mr. Cohn-Bendit when he arrived and presented himself for admission; and in my Answer I gave an indication of precisely what it was that he intended to do in this country in the first twenty-four hours, and subsequently.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the B.B.C. informed her Majesty's Government that they were going to put on this programme which, by giving free gratuitous publicity and advertisement to these students, was bound to embarrass several foreign friendly Governments?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the B.B.C. are, of course, quite free within their Charter to decide what is a matter of public interest and what should interest the public, just as your Lordships on Wednesday of next week are going to debate the question of increasing student unrest. This is a matter of interest which the B.B.C. thought it proper should be the subject of a programme. So far as embarrassing foreign countries is concerned, we must see what is said in this programme.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? Did the B.B.C. inform her Majesty's Government that they were inviting this revolutionary to enter this country for reward, or did they think it sufficient to inform Mr. Tariq Ali? The second question I should like to put is this. Was Mr. Cohn-Bendit's imminent arrival known to the Minister at the time he answered a Question on this subject earlier this week?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not know what, if any, communication the B.B.C. had with Mr. Tariq Ali, but they did inform my right honourable friend of their intention, their general intention, with regard to this programme. Whether or not when the young man arrived he was to be admitted, as I made perfectly clear in answer to that Question—I will give exactly the same answer now—would depend on all the circumstances relevant at the time, and those circumstances included what Mr. Cohn-Bendit said on arrival.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I entirely appreciate that. The question I put to the noble Lord was whether the fact of his imminent arrival was known to the Minister at the time he answered the Question in this House.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sorry. We knew that this young man might arrive here to present himself for admission on June 5, and on June 9, but he did not do so. There was a possibility, of course, that he would do so on June 12. We did not actually know until he arrived.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, having regard to the fact that there is considerable student unrest in this country at the present time, will the Government give an assurance that if this alien visitor engages in agitation in the universities, his permit to stay here will immediately be terminated?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as I sure the noble Lord is aware, under the Aliens Order the Secretary of State has power to make a deportation order, whether or not an alien is in breach of his landing conditions, when he considers that this is conducive to the public good. Most certainly, if this young man offends, or is in breach of the understanding by which he was permitted to enter, we shall act.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the last question and answer, can the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, give an assurance that, at the end of the present extension, her Majesty's Government will most certainly not give any further extension?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, I cannot give any kind of assurance like

225
that. It is exactly the position that if an application is made for a further extension it will be considered, as always, in the light of the then relevant circumstances. I cannot, therefore, say in advance that if a further application were made it would most certainly be refused.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that in reply to a Question of mine on May 22 he refused a request for an independent inquiry into the case of the 39 officers at Heathrow who had complained that the Home Office was caving in to pressure over immigrants? That request was supported by an ex-Lord Chancellor and an ex-Home Secretary, but it was refused. Does not the noble Lord now think that this action indicates that there is a necessity for an inquiry, since when pressure was applied immediately the Home Office gave way and granted an extension from 24 hours to 14 days?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords I think that the whole of this case so far is strong evidence that the Home Secretary will not give way to pressure in this matter. I would ask your Lordships: where is the pressure coming from, except from those who want us to send this young man back immediately, or not to admit him? I would ask your Lordships to realise we are acting regarding this young man in exactly the same way as we should act with regard to any other foreigner coming to these shores.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that it is rather refreshing that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary should take a chance on any mischief that Mr. Cohn-Bendit might do in this country, seeing that, despite their grievances, we treat our students here far better than students have been treated in France?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while refraining from any comment about France I agree with my noble friend Lady Gaitskell: it is refreshing. And, my Lords, I hope that this will demonstrate that in this country we handle certain situations better than similar situations are handled in certain other countries. I am also sure that Mr. Cohn-Bendit, like many other people, whatever he thinks he may teach us, will learn a great deal more from us than he can teach us.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the Minister say why, whim Mr. Cohn-Bendit arrived, it was thought necessary to say that he must leave this country in 24 hours, and what it was that changed the Minister's mind and made him think that 24 hours might he 14 days?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the answer is perfectly simple. Mr. Cohn-Bendit was admitted for 24 hours because that was all he asked for at the time as being necessary for a television recording. If at the time of entry he had said, "I want to come in to visit friends and relatives", or even, "want to visit my mother's grave, and I want to stay for 14 days", if the decision had been to admit him—as it was—he would then and there have been admitted for 14 days.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that universities exist for intellectual ferment, and that, provided any visitor to this country obeys the laws of the country, he is welcome in this country, and that it is still a free country?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is entirely what I have been trying to convey in all my answers; and I am so regretful that noble Lords opposite, or many of them, do not seem to take the same pride in our law and custom; as I do.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for many year; past the Communist Party, as a matter of policy, has been boring into the student movement for the purpose of gaining Communist influence in that movement? Has the noble Lord noticed the coincidence that in this morning's Times there is a photograph of a number of the leading students who are conducting this agitation, all of whom are giving the well-known Communist salute? Does he consider it a good thing that the E.B.C. should provide a platform for the expression publicly of views which are contrary to the interests of this country? If he does not, can he explain why it is reported that this young man, Cohn-Bendit—bended but not broken, evidently!—is not prepared to give any undertakings concerning his activities in this country? I see that he is reported to

227
that effect. In the absence of an assurance, can the Minister have the slightest doubt that this man's activities will be hostile to the best interests of this country?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I did see the photograph in The Times and the clenched hand salute. I know that this young man on television, asked, as his friends were, about his views, said, so far as I could understand him, that the revolutionists in France look forward to going back to Karl Marx exactly as in 1860. We have had that revolution for a long time. I did not hear anything new. What I do know is that the Communists in this country are allowed to express their views and no doubt will continue to he allowed to do so, and so long as any Communist in this country, or Cohn-Bendit, keeps to our laws and does not abuse them, he will he protected by the law.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, do the Government think that there is any serious danger of the universities in this country being totally or seriously corrupted by the arrival of one young foreigner?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that, of course. was part of my right honourable friend's decision. So far it is working quite well.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, if this young man is welcome in this country, as the noble Lord has suggested, can the noble Lord say why he was detained 2½ hours at Heathrow? Also, if this young man is responsible for any social unrest in this country, can the noble Lord give an assurance that he will be sent back to France?
LORD STONH.AM: My Lords, the delay at the airport was occasioned because it was decided that if and when this man arrived the final decision of whether to admit him or not would be taken at a very high level in accordance with the relevant circumstances at that moment. The assurance that the noble Lord asked for I have already given, but I readily repeat it. If this young man breaks our laws, incites revolt or attempts to damage this country, he will most certainly be sent back.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Next business!

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.54 p.m.
House again in Committee.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I wonder whether I may make a suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in these terms. The Code Napoléon does what the noble Lord wants. It gives to the illegitimate child the right to a share in the family inheritance. Nevertheless, it provides careful safeguards which I believe would go far to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, could very profitably study those safeguards in the Code Napoléon or in a good manual on that subject.
LORD HUGHES: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his suggestion, which I shall be happy to follow up. With the same attitude, I have no hesitation in advising your Lordships not to accept the Amendments in the form in which they have been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. The purpose of the first Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has explained, is to limit the succession rights of an illegitimate child to his mother's intestate estate only and to remove the words in the clause which would enable him to succeed also to his father's estate. The latter two Amendments would have the effect of confining the reciprocal rights of a parent to succeed to his illegitimate child's intestate estate to the case of a mother. I should say, in passing, that I am surprised at the narrow approach of the noble Lord to the improvement of the status of illegitimate children in succession matters which these Amendments reflect—particularly in view of the general sympathy which your Lordships' House has always expressed with the position of such children and the support which your Lordships accorded to the Russell Committee's Report during the debate in February, 1967, on the welfare of illegitimate children.
Behind these Amendments is, I think, the view that there is a real difference between a father's relationship with an illegitimate child and a mother's. That seems to me to be very deep water into which we are asked to venture. The Russell Committee, however, examined

229
this aspect of the matter and concluded that the simple view should prevail: that an illegitimate child has a moral right in the estate of both parents on intestacy both, after all, are responsible for the existence of the child. This is very much the view which the Government accept. I am sorry to reiterate phrases which I have used before, but I think it is necessary to do so in view of what the noble Lord said. It is in the Government's view morally wrong to allot an illegitimate child an inferior or unrecognised status in succession to both parents' estates, since to do so is to punish him for a situation for the creation of which he was blameless.
I may say that I am surprised at the sweeping nature of the proposed Amendment. Even those—and I include Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, who differed from the majority of the Russell Committee, and those who put down Amendments in another place—who were doubtful about the simple principle of the Russell recommendations appeared to accept that, where the father had in some way accepted the child into his family, it was reasonable that that child should have succession rights. I must say that I found this view difficult to understand since it would grant a right to the child who had already had the benefit of recognition and refuse it to the child who had not. The child who has been punished by being deprived even of recognition is going to be deprived even further, whereas the child who at least had the benefit of recognition is going to have succession thrown in as an added benefit.
But the noble Lord does not accept even this limited extension of the rights of an illegitimate child. He has referred to the difficulty of establishing paternity in some cases. One must admit the correctness of what has been said. These are practical difficulties, and it is easy to over-exaggerate them, but they should not divert us from the main purpose of the Bill, which is to accord to illegitimate children a status in succession which has for too long been denied them—a status which must be enjoyed equally with legitimate children in the estates of both parents.
It is only for the purpose of the convenience of this debate that I will
230
continue to refer to "illegitimate children". I do not accept that there are any illegitimate children. All I am prepared to admit is that there are illegitimate parents. If illegitimate children are to have a right of succession to their parents, it seems only reasonable that, in accordance with the Russell Committee, recommendations, a reciprocal right should be accorded to the parents. I know there are additional difficulties here, because the father may not be known, but subsection (3) of the clause provides in practice a way around such a situation. Given the existing law regarding the rights of parents to succeed their legitimate children, it seems to us a natural corollary of equating illegitimate children with such children in succession matters that both parents should acquire rights in the estates of their illegitimate children.
I may say, in passing, that although the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyr, said that there was confusion in principle in the Russell Report in the excluded succession rights of illegitimate children to the estate of a grandfather, we do not think there is in fact a confusion of principle. The basic principle which is being accepted in this Bill is that the child should not be penalised for a fault which was not his but was the fault of his parents. But the fact that it was the fault of his parents does not make it the fault of his grandparents. It is for that reason that it is not necessary to extend the rights to grandparents' property.
I have said that these Amendments strike at the root of Part I of the Bill. For practical purposes, a right to the mother's estate will be of comparatively little value in comparison with a right to the father's. We shall not have gone far to improve the succession position of illegitimate children. For that reason, I say to your Lordships that we are faced with a simple question here: Do we accept the moral claim of illegitimate children to succession rights against their parents, or do we adhere to the view, which I am quite certain is not the view of the people of this country to-day, that they should continue to be penalised in succession rights by circumstances of their birth over which they had no control?

231
I have only one other point to make. The noble Lord said that the worst possible time at which a family could learn, perhaps for the first time, that they had an illegitimate half-brother or half-sister was when they were mourning the death of a father. But the noble Lord seems to proceed on the basis that it was only the illegitimate children of a father who would be unknown, and that the illegitimate children of a mother would always be known. In point of fact, in many cases it is just as likely to be the other way; namely, that the woman who has an illegitimate child before her marriage has successfully concealed knowledge of its existence both from her husband and from the children of that marriage. Yet the noble Lord is prepared to accept as reasonable that, in these circumstances, the family should learn for the first time of an illegitimate half-brother or half-sister simply because it was the child of their mother rather than the child of their father.
One must accept that if these are the circumstances in which it becomes known for the first time, the addition to grief will be equally great in either case. But it has never been a principle in this country that justice should be denied to anyone because it may cause hardship, grief or suffering to other people. The primary consideration is: What is the right thing to do? We have no doubt that in this matter—and up to the present this House has had no doubt in the matter—the right thing to do progressively has been to remove from illegitimate children the stigmas which have attached to them in the past and such material and other disadvantages as have been attached to that stigma. If noble Lords accept these Amendments as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, they will be turning their faces firmly to the past and rejecting the path which they have now trodden in relation to the improvement of the status of illegitimate children for quite a number of years.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has rather skated over the difficult question of establishing the paternity of a child. Will he be kind enough to say (I may be dull, but I cannot see where it is expressed in the Bill) how it is accepted who is the father of an illegitimate child? There are, un-
232
fortunately, young women who are somewhat promiscuous, and when an illegitimate birth is registered, if this Bill is to become law in its present form, the temptation will be for the young lady to attribute the paternity to those of her lovers who are of the most substantial financial resources.
LORD HUGHES: I do not think the noble Earl is fair to me in saying that I rather skated round the point. I admitted the difficulties. I pointed out that we made an attempt to deal with this matter in subsection (3) of the clause. Obviously, if there were not difficulties about establishing the paternity, the probability is that there would not be so many illegitimate children about; more of them would be legitimate in the beginning.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Is my noble friend aware of the great progress that has been made in the field of haematology over the last twenty years, that has made it possible to establish paternity with a far greater degree of certainty than previously?
LORD HUGHES: I believe that is the case.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is agreeable, I would intervene to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed accordingly.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS
4.7 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State is making in another place on the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations. The Statement is as follows:
"The Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations has been published today. I am sure that the House will want me to thank Lord Donovan and his colleagues for this valuable and constructive Report.

233
I am initiating as a matter of urgency consultations with both sides of industry on the Royal Commission's recommendations, which are detailed and far-reaching and will require careful study by all concerned. In the light of these consultations I shall present a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for making this Statement here, and to join in expressing our appreciation of the work of Lord Donovan and his colleagues on the Royal Commission, although we are not yet of course, in a position to appreciate their Report itself. We shall need to study it. I do not intend to comment in any way, except simply to ask the noble Lord how soon he thinks that he will be in a position to present the White Paper setting out the Government's proposals. How long does he expect these consultations with those concerned to go on? Perhaps I might also ask him this question. Have the Government already had an opportunity to give full consideration to these recommendations, and are they in a position to go ahead with these consultations right away?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to agree with the noble Lord in expressing appreciation of the Royal Commission, hearing in mind also that Members of your Lordships' House—the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham (I do not know whether he has actually taken his seat), the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and the noble Lord, Lord Collison—also contributed. I am afraid that I cannot say when the White Paper will be published. The full Report has been in the hands of the Government for only a few days. The Government will wish to study the Report, although of course they will need to have consultations with the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and nationalised industries, and it will be in the light of these consultations that the Government will publish this White Paper. But I am afraid that until these negotiations are under way—and the Government are anxious to get on with them as quickly as possible—I cannot foretell when it will be done. My guess is that it cannot be very soon. The Report will need very careful consideration.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I should like to join in expressing appreciation of the work of the Commission. I have read, I think, every one of the verbatim reports that have been issued, and it seems to me that the Royal Commission have made the most objective and certainly one of the most through examinations of this wide subject. Can the Minister tell us whether in the Report is unanimous? Are the recommendations unanimous, or are there Minority recommendations?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I myself have looked only very quickly at the Report. There are certain reservations on certain issues. I think it would be fair to say—though here I have to be careful—that the broad approach is unanimous. There are some reservations, which are not unimportant, but I should have thought that they were not significant in comparison to the Commission's general approach. For instance, one statement with which the Government agree is that properly conducted collective bargaining is the best way of running industrial relations; another propounds the need to introduce greater order into company bargaining. On issues of this kind there is unanimity.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lards, while I quite appreciate that there will be need to give the most careful study to this Report, I am sure that I speak for all my noble friends when I say that we should like to impress upon the Government the need for taking as early action as possible on the Report, so that we may have the right legislative framework to bring our industrial relations up to modern-day standards.
LORD REA: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to endorse what the noble Lord has said and very much welcome this Report. This matter of course, has been on the stocks, on and off, for many decades and we join heartily in hoping that some quick result will be achieved. We very much appreciate the work that has been done.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Government and the Opposition are of course, at one in wishing to proceed urgently, but this is an important and difficult field and it is highly important that we proceed with general agreement.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.14 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I had hoped that there would be a rather wider debate on this particular series of Amendments of mine. Of course it would have been possible for me to draft them in line with the Minority Report of Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, but it seemed to me that it was better to express the view that I myself held. I doubt whether it helps for the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to describe as a very narrow view the view that has been commonly held for so long. Nor is it helpful to say that what we have been doing, the approach we have adopted for centuries past, has been morally wrong. People have to make up their own minds. We accept that the noble Lord takes this particular view, but I really do not think it is right for him to castigate in this way those who hold other views.
As usual, the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, has made a most useful contribution to a Scottish debate, and we welcome very much his intervention in these debates. If he would refer to Appendix IV of the Russell Committee Report, he will find an extremely interesting summary of succession rights of bastards under some Commonwealth and foreign laws, which completely bears out what he has said. And it may be of interest to the Committee to know that in a great many of the countries mentioned succession rights given in the mother's estate, or in the father's estate, are generally contingent upon the bastard's rights depending on recognition or declaration as to paternity. So here, again, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was a bit wild in castigating the suggestion that there should be a restriction of this kind. If he will look at the Summary he will find that in Canada, the United States of America, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal, in every single case the succession rights in the father's estate are contingent upon recognition as to paternity. This is a matter to which we could revert at a later stage.
The only other point I should like to revert to, and challenge the noble Lord upon, is his claim to know what is the
236
view of the people of this country as a whole to-day. Surely those who are in the best position to know what the view of people in this country is are those who are responsible for giving them legal advice. I would ask the noble Lord what has been the view of the three Scottish bodies, the Scottish Law Agents' Society, the Society of the Writers to Her Majesty's Signet and the Law Society of Scotland. What has been their view? I have quoted the view of the Law Society of Scotland, which was completely unfavourable to this change, and I do not know what the view of the other two bodies was. But it seems rather strange that, when these are the bodies who are most closely in touch with opinion on this kind of matter, the noble Lord should not mention even what the view was that they expressed to the Russell Committee.
As to the stigma attached to illegitimate children, the fact remains that if a child is not adopted—and, as I said, I hope that most illegitimate children will be adopted—that stigma will go on, presumably, until the point where the succession rights occur. Then at that particular time regarding the stigma, if it is a stigma, there will be what the noble Lord described, I think, on Second Reading as "some compensation at last" I do not think that this is the right way to look at it. I believe that the right way to look at it is as I have said. What we want to do is to reinforce the family, and it is for that reason that I put down my Amendments in the form in which they appear. I hope that the noble Lord will at least reply to the question I have asked about the advice given by those bodies in the best position to know. I am bound to say that I am disappointed with the lack of support I have had, but of course in the absence of more support I would not wish to press the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, as I hope he will, it is only fair that I should give the further information he has sought. When I referred to his approach as a narrow one I did not in any way wish to be regarded as being unduly critical. People have a right to take a narrow or a wide view of a subject, but the reason why I used that particular term was because of a discussion we had yesterday. I pointed out that on subjects of this kind.

237
which are largely moral issues, generally if the public have a strong point of view against it, it is expressed in some form or another, and I do not for one moment accept that the views of the public on moral questions of this kind are formed by telephoning their lawyers. There are comparatively few people in this country who at any time in their lives have contact with their lawyers, but even those who do are not likely to ring them up and say: "What should be my opinion on the subject of the rights of illegitimate children?" If we were always to wait before making reforms, until we were certain that we had the lawyers behind us, there would be a great deal of legislation in the queue.
I should say that on receipt of the Report the Secretary of State consulted the following bodies: the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland, the Society of Writers to Her Majesty's Signet, the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts, the Scottish Law Agents Society, the Sheriffs-Substitute Association, the Social Interest Sub-Committee of Church and Nation Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child. Of these the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts, the Scottish Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child and the Scottish Law Agents Society were in favour of the Report; the Social Interest Sub-Committee of the Church of Scotland Committee on Church and Nation and the Faculty of Advocates offered no observations.
It is perhaps pertinent in this connection to say that at least the Church obviously had no fears that the institution of marriage was likely to fall under severe attack as a result of this measure. The Sheriffs-Substitute Association commented only on a practical point arising from the difficulty of establishing paternity; and the Society of Writers to the Signet and the Law Society of Scotland were in general against the Report, although the former were most hostile to the provision of equal rights for illegitimate persons in their father's estate and viewed the extension of rights in respect of their mother's estate with "comparative equanimity". Therefore I think I would be justified in saying that in regard to the organisations, including the legal organisations—without expressing any
238
opinion because I have no knowledge of the numbers represented by those bodies —the overwhelming majority of the people consulted were either in favour of, or not against, the Report.
THE EARL OF PERTH: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said he was sorry that there had not been a greater (expression of views on this particular matter. I think that perhaps some of us have not expressed our views because this is a rather difficult legal question. If I were to try to express a view, it would be this. It would be a bit hard if, because you were the illegitimate offspring of a mother you were all right in the, way of inheritance, but if of a father you were not, more particularly if it is likely that the father has more money than the mother. I would understand it if this Amendment went the whole way, but as it goes only part of the way I think it is unacceptable.
The point that worries me is that raised by my noble friend Lord Mansfield I, but I think the answer must be that even to-day one has the problem of paternity. The number of cases may increase, but over a period of time one would expect a practice to develop, with the assistance of the medical evidence which can be adduced to-day, by which this could be solved, although clearly there is a difficulty. So I was encouraged when I heard my noble friend say that he would probably not press this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not want to prolong this debate, but I should like to make the observation that if the father wants to leave money to an illegitimate child it is always open to him to make a will to do so. We are dealing now only with the question of succession on intestacy. The other point is simply on the distinction between the mother's and father's estate. I do not know whether I made my point sufficiently clear on this, but perhaps I may read what the Law Society of Scotland said:
"After the birth of the illegitimate child, if it is not adopted it is almost certain to be brought up by the mother alone, and the father neither sees it nor takes any interest in its welfare, except for the payment of alimony under a decree of the court or after admission of paternity, if asked only. In perhaps the majority of cases no claims of any kind are made by the mother upon the father."

239
The main point here is simply that the illegitimate child of the mother is brought up in the mother's family, as it were, and remains part of it, whereas the father of the illegitimate child very rarely brings it up within the family and, if he does, he may well adopt it. In view of the debate we have had, I do not wish to press these Amendments and I beg leave to withdraw my first Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Right of illegitimate children to legitim]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.28 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a quite different kind of clause. Perhaps I should explain to noble Lords who are not familiar with Scottish law that there is a right enjoyed by the children to a share by law in the moveable estate of the deceased parent. Here we are really up against a quite different problem, because the position seems to be this. A person who intends to make a will often goes to his solicitor to seek advice as to the law, and the solicitor will say: "In order for your wishes to be carried out you must comply with certain legal requirements." Of course the legal requirement is that the children are entitled to one third of the moveable property of the deceased parent if the other parent is still alive, and one half if the other parent is already dead. So the solicitor will advise him as to what kind of will he should make if he does not want it to be upset by subsequent claims.
But again in the case of an illegitimate child we come back to the fact that the testator may not even know of the existence of the illegitimate child, so that in that kind of case there should he no doubt whatever that in giving the illegitimate child the right to legitim, as it is called, the wishes of the testator will be overridden. It will be perfectly possible, of course, for the testator to leave to the illegitimate child, if he so wishes, that part of his estate which is at his disposal, which is in the case where the wife still survives one-third and where the wife does not survive one-half. If he does not do that, it seems to me quite clear that what we are here seeking to do is to override the wishes of the testator. I must confess I do not see any justification
240
for this, even though we have already given a right of succession in intestacy to the illegitimate child. The mere name legitim makes it quite clear what the purpose of this is, and I simply cannot conceive that if at the time when legitim became the law of the land it had been intended that it should apply also to the illegitimate there would have been any legitim at all. I do not think it would have made sense, and I do not think this makes sense now. Therefore I beg leave to move to leave out the clause.
LORD HUGHES: When the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was speaking on Second Reading the way he spoke of his intention of moving an Amendment of this kind was such that I gave special consideration to the matter. I therefore want to emphasise that in what I am about to say I am not asking your Lordships automatically to reject the course proposed by the noble Lord simply because we felt obliged to resist the previous Amendments. I accept that this clause touches on a different aspect of the subject, but I wish to emphasise that it is associated very closely with the previous one if we are accepting the reasons why the Government are doing this.
If the Government are in fact right, as I believe they are, in accepting that the illegitimate and the legitimate child should have equal rights, it would be quite inconsistent for them to say, "But this will not apply when we come to the subject of legitim". Of course, when this was brought into operation it referred only to the legitimate child, because when this became the law of Scotland the position of the illegitimate child was very much worse than it is at the present time. We must accept, I think, that if we are going to improve the position of illegitimate children, if we accept the principle that they should receive equal treatment, then it follows that they should receive equal treatment, so far as is possible, all along the line.
During Second Reading I rather had the impression—though I may be wrong —that the noble Lord suggested that in fact there was a case for abolishing altogether the right to legitim and that testators should be free to distribute their estates in whatever way they wished. As I say, I may have been wrong; I may have read more into what the noble Lord said than he intended. But if he

241
was saying that, I must make it quite clear that I am in complete disagreement with that. I do not think that parents should be allowed to distribute their estates on death in such a way as to make no provision for the support of their children, whether the child's right takes the form of legitim in Scotland or the somewhat dissimilar provision enacted for England and Wales in 1938 in the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act of that year.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I may intervene, of course these two matters are quite different. The noble Lord said "somewhat dissimilar", but they are wholly dissimilar, because this is a question of discretion of the court, which is quite different from the fixed position of legitim.
LORD HUGHES: I said "somewhat dissimilar", but I am quite prepared to accept "wholly" if it meets the situation. In 1938, in regard to England and Wales it was felt necessary to interfere in some degree with the principle that a person could do exactly what he wanted. The Scottish position has been very much more firm on this position for a very long time: that there was an obligation to make provision for the widow and the children. If we accept the principle—as the Government and the vast majority of those organisations to which I referred do—that children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, should be equated, we must go on to say they have the right to participate in legitim. A right on intestate succession is only a conditional right. It can be extinguished by the making of a will. It may well be that it is the illegitimate child who has the best moral claim—the child whom the father has rejected—who is most likely to be deprived of this conditional right by the terms of such a will. If we are going to achieve our purpose of not penalising the illegitimate child for the circumstances of his birth, surely he must have the legitimate child's unconditional right—that is, under the Scots law of succession, the right to legitim.
I know that arguments have been put forward that the existence of an unconditional right of this kind will be specially disturbing to the family situation. I must say that I have wondered from time to time whether it is the exercise of the right or the procreation and non-recognition of
242
an illegitimate child which will have that effect. I think, however, that the pictures which have been painted have been exaggerated and that the risk of the fears expressed being realised is small. But even the extent to which they do exist is, I am certain, a quite inadequate reason for not making what I regard as a necessary improvement to the condition of the illegitimate child. For those reasons, if we are to accept the principle and be true to the principle, it would be quite wrong to delete Clause 2 from this Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Once again I should have liked to hear what other Members of your Lordships' House think about this matter. This is, of course, a peculiarly Scottish matter and will not affect any English legislation that may subsequently come along. I should have thought it would be appropriate to have very much the same legislation for both Scotland and England arid to leave this peculiar Scottish legitim subject as it is.
There is perhaps one further comment that I ought to make. Like the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, I have taken a considerable interest over a period of years on the problems of adoption, and I believe this is of the greatest importance. I should not like to think that anything we are doing in this legislation will cause people to refrain from having children adopted into families. In some circumstances that might be the cumulative effect and I should very much regret it if it sere so. But in view of the fact that your Lordships do not appear to feel at all strongly about this matter, and as it has already been approved in another place, though not without some dissent, I will not press it.
Clause 2 agreed to
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move that the House do now resume for the purpose of hearing a Statement by my noble friend Lord Beswick.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

FUTURE BUSINESS: RHODESIA
4.40 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thought it might be for the convenience of the House if I said that owing to the number of speakers down for the debate on the Rhodesian Order next week it

243
now appears that the Business will extend over to the Tuesday. I hope, however, it will be possible to take the Business now on the Order Paper for Tuesday at a time between 5 and 6 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could give the House some indication how late it is intended to sit on the Tuesday on the Town and Country Planning Bill, after the Rhodesian Order?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, to some extent I think that would depend upon the progress which we made, but I should have thought to some time between 10 and 11 o'clock.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.41 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Amendment of law with respect to right of illegitimate child to aliment after parent's death]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (b):
"to the extent that that person was enriched by receiving that property,"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 go together. In order to understand the purpose behind these Amendments to Clause 4 it is necessary to appreciate the significance of the clause itself. At present, illegitimate children have, as your Lordships may know, a special right to aliment out of the estate of their deceased parents; their right to aliment is enforceable as an ordinary debt and therefore ranks ahead of widow's prior rights, legitim and other legal rights and succession rights. Since, under the provisions of Clause 2, it is proposed that illegitimate children should enjoy a right to legitim, it seems wrong that this preferential position in regard to aliment should be allowed to continue. I may say that this was a point to which the Russell Committee most helpfully drew attention.
The purpose of Clause 4 therefore is to remove this preferential right of illegitimate children to aliment out of their
244
deceased parent's estate and to allot to them the like right to aliment as would have been available if they had been born legitimate. There is a rather technical point of law involved here but I am advised that, contrary to what is commonly supposed, there are circumstances in which a legitimate child can, under Scots law, enjoy a right to aliment (quite apart from a right to legitim) out of their deceased parent's estate, whether before or after its distribution. Clause 4(1) extends a similar right to illegitimate children and provides that that will be the sole right that they will in future enjoy in the estate of a deceased parent. In other words, the special position of their aliment as a debt on an estate ceases.
Turning now to the two Amendments, I fear they are rather technical but they are of a drafting nature designed to achieve the intention behind the clause more accurately than the present form of words. We have noted two drafting defects in the clause since the Bill was last discussed by your Lordships. First, I am advised that the words at the beginning of subsection (1) of the clause, and in particular those in Clause 4(1)(b), could be construed as imposing an obligation on those benefiting from an estate who have a Common Law obligation to aliment legitimate children (for example, a grandparent) to aliment illegitimate children in the same way. This is not intended; the right with which this clause is concerned is the right of children to obtain aliment from those who have benefited from the estates of their parents only to the extent that these people have been enriched as a result. The first Amendment makes this clear.
Secondly I am advised that the wording of the latter part of subsection (1) could be construed as removing the general continuing obligation of a surviving parent, who has benefited from the estate of the deceased parent, to aliment an illegitimate child. Again this is unintentional. The subsection is designed to prescribe the limits of the illegitimate child's claim to aliment out of the estate of a deceased parent or from those benefiting from the estate. It was not intended in any way to affect the surviving parent's general obligations, and the second Amendment makes this clear.
I must apologise in that this rather complicated matter may not have been made much clearer by what I have just said. It is difficult to put it into a few words, but at the risk of being wrong on the strict law I would say that basically what lies behind this is that if we are extending the rights of the illegitimate child to those of the legitimate child we must at the same time remove any advantages which he has and put him once again in the same position as the legitimate child. I may have oversimplified the situation, but that is what I think is meant by what I have said.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Hughes.)
Limp REID: I have not studied this question, but I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said and so far as I can see, from a lawyer's point of view, what he has said is quite accurate and these are desirable drafting Amendments. I therefore support them.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would be good enough to say what will happen if the new clause after Clause 7, to be proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is not accepted by your Lordships' Committee, and a person who dies leaves an illegitimate child who does not immediately claim his rights. In the meantime, the property may have gone to the child or children of the deceased —for this purpose, let us say it is but one child, and that child also has died. Would the illegitimate child then have a right of recovery beyond the first generation?
LORD HUGHES: I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I defer replying to that question until we come to consider Lord Drumalbyn's Amendment, No. 7.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, after ("person") insert ("(other than the child's other parent)")— (Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Construction of referemes to relationship, in certain circumstances]:
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: This clause deals with the interpretation of the word "issue" in the construction of deeds, et cetera. It seems to me that having accepted the principle in Clause 1 we might as well accept this principle, but I should like to know its scope And in particular what is covered by the words "otherwise than by deed", which are quite wide words, in subsection (4). Subsection (4) says:
"This section shall apply in relation to a provision made after the commencement of this Act otherwise than by deed as it applies in relation to a provision made in a deed."
That seems to me a very wide provision indeed, and I should like to know how far it goes. Undoubtedly, it is right that this alternation should apply only to deeds made after the Bill becomes law.
LORD REID: I venture to make a suggestion on this clause. It is quite a different story from what we have been discussing up to date. It applies not only to parents, but to everybody who makes any kind of will or deed or anything else in favour of the children of another pet-son. When you are dealing with the parents, I entirely agree that if either of them leave money or put money or anything else in trust for their children, it is right that the illegitimate children should be included. But when you come to a stranger I am not sure if the position is exactly the same. In many cases the stranger—he may be a grandfather. he may be a cousin, he may be a complete stranger in blood—will not know of the existence of the illegitimate children, and what we are trying to do when we are legislating about deeds or wills—at least, what I hope we are trying to do—is to make provisions which will, on the whole (because there are always bound to be anomalies), reflect the intention of the maker of the deed.
I would venture to think that when a stranger is either putting money in trust or leaving money for the children of somebody else, normally the intent is for the legitimate children—it certainly would be if he did not know about the

247
illegitimate children and I think we should get much nearer to carrying out the intention of the maker of the deed if the clause were limited to parents. I perhaps have been rather remiss in not thinking about this subject until it was too late to put down an Amendment. Therefore, I merely raise the point in case it may receive any support.
LORD HUGHES: First of all, may I answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, put about Clause 5(4). Subsection (4) is intended to cover bequests made otherwise than by deed—for example, a bequest which has been made orally. I should like to think about what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, has said. Obviously, when we go beyond the children, legitimate or otherwise, of the testator, the position is not quite so easy. The Scottish Law Commission, when they considered this matter in their Report Reform of the Law relating to legitimation per subsequens matrimonium, published in April last year, found they disagreed with the Russell Committee who had rejected this particular aspect.
The Government therefore had two conflicting views, that of the Russell Committee, which they generally had been happy to follow, and that of the Scottish Law Commission, and after very careful consideration of all aspects of the question the Government found that the advice of the Scottish Law Commission on this matter was the more persuasive. We agreed with the Commission that the moral claim of an illegitimate child is such that a testator or donor should be squarely faced with the need to exclude him expressly if he so wished. The mere insertion of the expression "legitimate" or "lawful" will be sufficient to effect the exclusion of illegitimate persons from a will, if that is the testator's wish. I should stress that the clause leaves the testator to make up his own mind about this matter. Subject to their claim to legitim under Clause 2 of the Bill, it will be perfectly competent for a testator to prevent illegitimate children from succeeding to his estate.
The Russell Committee were concerned that the use of the term "legitimate" or "lawful" in this context could in some circumstances be construed as
248
a gratuitous insult; for example, where a father wished to benefit the children of his daughter—but only her legitimate children. Obviously it might be held that the inclusion of the words "legitimate children" might be taken to mean that the father believed, or suspected, that she in fact had illegitimate children. The Government do not accept this view. Expressions such as "lawful children", "lawful issue" and the like are already quite common in deeds for the very good reason that these expressions obviate any attempts to rebut the existing presumption that the testator intended to benefit only legitimate children. Such expressions used as they are at the present time are not thought to imply any gratuitous insult under the present law, and once they become a legal necessity for limiting the class of beneficiary to lawful children, it is hardly likely that suggestions of insult will suddenly begin to be made.
It may be argued that the rules of construction are designed to reflect the common man's understanding of the expressions, and that when he refers to his "children" he means only his legitimate children. I would not be entirely sure of that point. I would suggest that public policy has, in the past, been to place illegitimate children under disability—optimistic that this might discourage their procreation and that this policy has influenced this and other rules of construction. I see no reason why public policy should not now be reflected in the construction of bequests to children et cetera in another direction: the Government accept the moral claim of the illegitimate person to be included unless expressly excluded. If it is the present position that a man in making provision for his children thinks only of his legitimate children, then this is a situation which, of itself, is worthy of change. It is a possible and desirable result of Part I of this Bill, and this clause as one element of it, that, if this is the position now, it is a position which will alter in future.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw the Amendment. In saying so, I should like once again to say that I should like to consider what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, has said and, after further reflection, I would perhaps write

249
both to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on any further conclusions I come to on the matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before withdrawing this Amendment, may I first of all support very much what my noble friend Lord Reid has said. I am sure that this would be well worth while looking into, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to make an Amendment along these lines. There is another aspect of this. I imagine that there will be quite a number of deeds and other documents falling to be interpreted in Scotland but which are actually made outside Scoland where the tern "issue" may be used. When the noble Lord is looking into this, will he have regard to the practice in other countries where deeds may be made that the word "issue" may be used without the qualification "lawful", in the belief that the person is limiting the gift, or whatever it may be, to lawful issue. I think this is a point that is also worth looking into, because while it is fairly easy for it to become known in Scotland that "issue" will he interpreted as all issue, legitimate or illegitimate, unless this is also the case in other countries the deeds which fall to be interpreted in Scotland, though made abroad, may not fulfil the intention of the maker of the deed.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
5.0 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on right of illegitimate child to claim legitim
".Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Act, an illegitimate child of any person shall not be entitled to claim a right to legitim after the expiration of six months from the date of that person's death."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is simply to bar any claim to legitim after the expiration of six months. I imagine that legitim must be claimed in many small estates where the amounts which the claimants receive are quite small and where, because of the small means of the claimants, those amounts may well be spent unless a claim is made fairly soon. It seems to me that on that ground alone there is a lot to be said for placing a time limit to a claim for legitim. The case for it could
250
also be made simply on grounds of not upsetting arrangements which had already been made by the beneficiaries in the belief that the matter had been finalised and the money was theirs. Otherwise a redistribution would have to take place later because of the subsequent intervention of the claimant to legitim. I hope that the noble Lord will find this a reasonable proposal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
THE EARL or MANSFIELD: I am in full agreement with the purpose of this new clause, but I think it would be fairer if the period proposed were one year rather than six months. Where the deceased who has left one or more illegitimate children is not a very prominent person, it may be that those children are in a different part of the country, or indeed abroad, and may not learn of his death for some little time, nor be in a position to put in their claim. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be willing to accept the spirit, if not the letter, of this Amendment.
I now return to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, properly asked me to postpone until this point in the debate, that is, what happens if this new clause, or something like it, is not accepted. Is a claim to be made legitimately, perhaps ten years afterwards, when somebody returns from Australia, or when somebody living in Bournemouth discovers that his real father had passed away many years before in the North of Scotland? submit that for such a claim to be valid would be an intolerable strain on the beneficiaries who for years had had no idea that any such claim could be made. For that reason, I ask what would be the effect if, in the meantime, the legitimate child or children of the deceased had died and the money or other property which they had received from the deceased had been spread among their children, possibly eight, ten or a dozen of them. It would then be an impossible and ridiculous situation, that the illegitimate child or children, appearing from nowhere, would have to claim from a great many heirs to the original heirs the amounts to which they would

251
certainly have been entitled had they been in a position to make their claim within the statutory period, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be willing to accept as being six months, or at any rate a year.
5.14 p.m.
LORD REID: I venture to hope that the Government will accept this new clause as it stands. I fully appreciate the point made by the noble Earl, but there is a technical difficulty. Executors are normally entitled to distribute the estate if six months has elapsed and no creditors have appeared, or have all been satisfied. A child claiming legitim is, for practical purposes, a creditor. If, as not infrequently happens, the executor does not discover, either from members of the family or from the deceased's papers, that there is an illegitimate child and the child keeps silent for more than six months, everybody is put in a most difficult position.
I am not going to express an opinion as to what would happen if the executor in bona fide distributes the estate after six months and a genuine claimant appears and wants his share. But whatever the law about it, there is going to be very great practical difficulty. It is not asking very much in the ordinary way that any illegitimate child who has any genuine claim should make his existence known within a period of six months. If he does that, all is well. From the practical point of view of the solicitor and the executor administering the estate of the deceased, there is a great deal to be said for this Amendment and I would support it.
LORD HUGHES: If I may first of all deal with the point which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, the answer is simple, and I think he will find it acceptable. It is that the claim runs only against beneficiaries so far as they are enriched and is not transmitted against a second generation.
To come to the Amendment, I cannot claim—nor do I claim—that in this case the objection which I have to offer is one of principle, as was the case on previous Amendments. This is not an Amendment which strikes at principle: it seeks merely to regulate the procedure. As I am informed, legitim is a right which under
252
Clause 2 will be shared by the illegitimate child with the legitimate child. It is not something which a person has to claim, although obviously his existence has to be known before he can get it; it is something which he is to be given. If the executors, using due diligence, find someone entitled to legitim they must pay it to him without any initiative on his part.
I am told that it is rare for an estate to be distributed within six months of a person's death. I have had infrequent experience of this, but on the two occasions when I was the executor of a will it was more than six months—in one case nearly a year—before a distribution was possible, yet there was nothing very complicated about it. So that in my own limited experience I cannot argue with the information I am given by my adviser, that it is rare for an estate to be distributed within six months. Indeed, executors who distribute more quickly than this put themselves at risk of personal liability from creditors under an Act of Sederunt of 1663—which is going back a bit. Whether or not there should be a limitation on the right to legitim, it seems quite unnecessary to restrict it to so short a period as six months, which comes back to the point made by the noble Earl. Lord Mansfield.
I can see the point that delay in the discovery of an additional beneficiary, or a person holding himself out to be a beneficiary, until after the estate has been distributed is undesirable. It disturbs existing property rights or the quiet enjoyment of property rights. I cannot see why the noble Lord has limited his provision to legitim and has not extended it to rights of intestate succession, where similar considerations arise. It would seem anomalous that under the terms of this Amendment an illegitimate child could have his right to a share of an intestate estate under the new rules of intestacy accepted belatedly but not a claim in the same estate to legitim. I am not sure either (I say this just in passing) why the noble Lord has limited the Amendment to illegitimate children, although it could arise with legitimate children—the unknown great-grandchild in Australia.
The present law recognises that there may be good reasons for legitimate issue not being able to have their succession rights recognised timeously and provides

253
in such cases for the disturbance of property rights. In implementation of the principle of equality of status this must surely also apply in the case of illegitimate children. It could well be, for example, that a father had recognised his illegitimate child and supported it in childhood, but that—as in the case of many legitimate children—they had in later life drifted apart and the executor, in going through the papers, failed to light upon his existence. There is also the case of a child who for one good reason or another—perhaps absence on service abroad—did not hear of his father's death.
True, in such circumstances property rights which have been acquired may be disturbed, although I think it is too easy to exaggerate the likelihood of a successful belated claim being made by someone who claims to be an illegitimate child, but of whose existence no one—relatives or executor—knows. I doubt very much whether it will happen to an extent that will cause serious inconvenience. But where such a right exists and can be proved then, as in the case of legitimate issue, I think it is only right that no unreasonable obstacle should be put in the way of its being exercised. For all these reasons I find myself unable to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, ever reads that admirable Scottish paper, the Sunday Post, because if he does he will see in it, week by week, various legal problems which readers send in. Throughout the years I have noticed on a number of occasions that a child who has been born illegitimate has that fact revealed to it, or finds it out by chance sometimes, only when he has grown up. Therefore the chance of such a claim being made is nothing like so remote as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, seemed to think. I ask him, therefore, to reconsider this point very carefully.
There is one question arising out of a possible belated claim which the noble Lord might also be able to answer, or at least discuss with his legal advisers. What happens if the legitimate issue of the illegitimate child discover that the illegitimate child would have had a claim had he known that it was possible? Is that claim going to be continued also to the first generation?
LORD HUGHES: I think I was to a certain extent mistaken when I said that there was not a principle involved here, because as I went on I realised that a principle was involved. What we are facing on this question is whether or not there should be a period after which the right to receive or to continue to enjoy property should not be interfered with. As I read on I realised that, under the law as at present, where a legitimate child has a right which has net been implemented because of inability Dr lack of knowledge on the part of the executors, the fact that the child comes along belatedly does not prevent him from establishing his right, even to the extent of disturbing the rights of property which have been transmitted to other people.
We therefore come up against the principle that if we are to apply a time limit we shall be following the principle of equality only if we apply it equally against legitimate and illegitimate. children who claim or whose existence becomes known belatedly. To do so, of course, so far as legitimate children or their descendants are concerned, would be to interfere with a procedure which has been in existence for a considerable time. I cannot therefore commit myself to the acceptance on this matter of a solution which involves dealing with the claims of illegitimate children in a different way from the claims of legitimate children.
If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wishes to consult me about an alternative form which he would wish to propose at the next stage, which accomplishes what he wants of helping the executors and helping to stop people subsequently having their rights interfered with, and can do so in a way which is acceptable to the profession and which maintains this principle of equality, then it would be quite wrong for me to refuse to look at it or even to refuse to look at it sympathetically. But I must warn the noble Lord that, having regard to the principle in these circumstances about interfering with property rights, it would be a rather difficult hurdle to get over.
As regards the further question put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who asked whether the legitimate children of a dead illegitimate child could exercise their right if they discovered that their father should have been a

255
beneficiary, I think that on this occasion the answer which I give him will not be as satisfactory as the one I gave to the last question, because the answer is, Yes.
LORD REA: May I ask the noble Lord a question, for information? It may be a very elementary question, but I am not "up" in this subject. This clause seems to mean that the right to legitim must be claimed before the expiry of six months. I am thinking of the posthumous illegitimate child, who may not be born until eight months after the testator's death. What would be the position of such an illegitimate child?
LORD HUGHES: I think that in those circumstances, if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, were accepted, the child would be, in the words of Sam Goldwyn, "included out".
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am bound to say that the point which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has put escaped my notice when I put down this Amendment, so I am grateful to him for raising it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will not be too doctrinaire in his approach to this, and will not be too insistent that the rights should be exactly the same because, for the reasons I have given, one needs to be a little more flexible. For the first time so far, he has shown some flexibility in his reply to this debate, and I welcome that very much.
I think it has to be borne in mind with legitim—and this is the difference from intestacy—that the inclusion in legitim of the illegitimate child could upset a will which on the face of it seemed absolutely cut-and-dried. But I should have thought that that happened very rarely, proportionately, in wills in general. That would be my answer to the noble Lord on the question of equating legitimate and illegitimate children, and also on equating intestacy and legitim. On the question of the time, I would not wish to stand on six months. I thought it was quite a good idea that all claims from illegitimate children to legitim should be lodged within six months, like any other claim.
I shall be very glad to respond to the noble Lord's invitation to discuss this with him. It is easy to conceive how in this case the misdrafting of a claim to
256
legitim could be altered to an exercise of the right to legitim, although I think that that could be quite simply changed. But I do not think we need pursue this at the present time; and although I think this Amendment has perhaps received rather more support than the previous ones I have moved, I would not wish to press it on this occasion.
LORD HUGHES: Before we finally conclude this matter, I should like to say that I was rather surprised to find the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, applying to me the adjective "doctrinaire". It is a new one to me in your Lordships' House, and I do not think I have ever heard it applied to me outside your Lordships' House, either. But we must remember that in these matters we are dealing not with problems of politics but with problems of the law, and if there is anybody one could meet who is more doctrinaire than the most doctrinaire Left-Wing Socialist, it is a lawyer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Application of Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 to tenancies of crofts]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.22 p.m.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: I propose that Clause 8 be removed from this Bill, first on the general premise that radical change in the great volume of crofter law in Scotland should not be made in a Bill of bits and pieces like this, and, secondly, because the existing law governing succession in intestacy is abandoned and crofters are now to be brought under the general Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, although specifically left out of it only four years ago, I presume for very good reasons. As soon as I, at any rate, see this ubiquitous term "Miscellaneous" appearing in the title of a Bill, I become suspicious. This term seems to convenience the Government and their lawyers, but not always the people these miscellaneous laws purport to benefit. Crofter law in Scotland is the result of a century of fierce endeavour, against strong opposition, to protect the small man, the crofter in agriculture, from extermination.
From the period of the Napier Commission, 1886 to 1911, when the security

257
land laws were finally promulgated, there has been continuing special legislation for crofters, The establishment of the Crofters Commission was a recent further advance by Government to help the crofter, though its powers fall lamentably short of those powers recommended for it by the Taylor Report. There is to-day a great volume of crofter law, and if it is desired to alter the major tenets of succession, why include these changes in a Bill which I see now belatedly concerns itself with the law for computers as well as for crofters—surely the most miscellaneous mixture even lawyers could conceive!
Another more serious case against the inclusion of this clause is the lack of consultation with the crofters' unions or the Land Court. On May 14, 1968, the Federation of Crofters' Unions said of meetings with the Crofters Commission:
"These consultations were not exhaustive; nor (lid the crofter representatives have sufficient time to study the consequences to crofting should the Bill be published in its present form".
In a letter dated as recently as May 27, 1968, from the Scottish Land Court, and signed by Harold R. Leslie, Lord Birsay, to the Secretary of the Lochabor Crofters Union it states:
Dear Mr. Cameron, I have received your letter dated 24th May. 1968. I fully appreciate your apprehension about the new legislation and possible consequences to crofting tenure. The answers to your questions are: (1) no consultation has taken place with regard to Clause 8 or any other aspect of the legislation".
As to the answer to the second question, the letter says:
"So far as I am aware, no provision has been made in this Bill for a valuation by the Land Court. The only existing statutory provisions relating to the valuation of a crofter's improvement by the Land Court are those set forth in the Crofters Acts of 1955 and 1961, and are exercisable only on the crofter's renunciation or removal from the croft".
I pay one tribute to the forthright replies of Lord Birsay. He is trusted, and is regarded by the crofters everywhere as a friend, and I think his words should have weight with the noble Lord the Minister.
In 1955, Lord Gibson, the then Chairman of the Scottish Land Court, said from the Bench that the question of succession was a legal one, and that in being deprived of the services of the Scottish Land Court the crofters were
258
finding that their ancient birthright was in danger of being sold over their heads. Crofting needs not only law reform but also the restoration of the Land Court's right to administer the law. The crofters remaining in the Highlands and Scotland have emerged from a century of penury and persecution. They are now entering an era of constructive attention by Government, and comparative prosperity. I would ask the noble Lord the Minister to at least take back this clause for further consultation over these fundamental issues of succession. Changes to include the widow as first in succession and the illegitimate in the line of succession are beneficial; but, listening to the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn, even that situation is not an easy one.
Of the law as it stands just now, the Highland Development Board had this to say in its first Report on the Highlands and Islands in 1967:
"Bearing in mind all that has been said about the system"—
that is, the crofting system—
"if one had to look now for a way of life which would keep that number of people on such relatively intractable territory, it would be difficult to contrive a better system"
That is the system before its alteration as proposed in this Bill.
Finally, having regard to the accumulated volume of crofter law, it is reasonable to suppose that a full and deliberate study of crofting law—indeed, tenure and succession—is urgently required, so that all existing legislation can be codified, and amended legislation produced which would be of real benefit to the crofter. But if the Government are too busy for this, the present changes envisaged in Clause 8 are surely basic enough to require real consultation and a special Crofter Act if that is found to be necessary. One could find such a Crofter Act after some search in the large department of crofter law. But Clause 8 is pushed into a computerised miscellaneous law reform Bill far removed from the interests of the crofter or his land or his law, and I think it should be left out of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I must admit that I find it very distasteful to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, but I must confess that as I listened to what he had to say I found it difficult to maintain my ordinary attitude to his remarks;

259
because while much of what he said might very well have been relevant to a eulogy of the late Mr. Gladstone it had very little relevance to the situation we are facing to-day. There is nothing objectionable in the word "Miscellaneous". For a number of years we have sought to deal with minor reforms of the law in a Bill of this kind.
The reason why the crofters are mentioned in the Bill is because the position of the crofter is affected by other aspects of it. At the present time the principle of primogeniture and the preference of the male in succession which was abolished in 1964 in the general law of succession was retained in respect of intestate succession to the tenancies of crofts. We had to consider how this part of the law was to be affected by the recommendations of the Russell Committee. If we leave as it now is the law of crofting succession while at the same time giving effect to the recommendations of the Russell Committee—which we are doing—it would mean that illegitimate children would be given the same rights as legitimate children. There would then he the possibility of the tenancy of a croft passing to an illegitimate son of the crofter (if that son were the eldest son) rather than to the widow or to any subsequent legitimate issue which the crofter might have.
If there is one thing which I am certain that the crofting community would not want it would be that a situation of that kind could develop. But if we leave out Clause 8 there remains this possibility. I would remind the Committee that it is at least more likely than not that the illegitimate son would have been horn before marriage rather than during the marriage; so there is a fair chance that the widow would be deprived of the tenancy of the croft in favour of the eldest illegitimate son. Alternatively, from the law of succession relating to crofting tenancies, we could have disapplied altogether the provisions implementing the Russell recommendation. This, in effect, would mean that there would be no improvement in this field for illegitimate children and would isolate the law of crofting succession even further from the general law of succession.
260
If I had to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the previous Amendments on the basis that what the Government were seeking to do was to extend to illegitimate children the same position as was given to legitimate children, I could not possibly accept the situation that merely because the father was a crofter the inequality of illegitimate children should be perpetuated in this field. I should be guilty of the grossest discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, if I were to accept that position.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: I should make it clear that the crofters do not set their faces against the direct succession of the widow and the illegitimate son being taken in line of succession. I stated that when I spoke. That is not the point which I was trying to make concerning this clause.
LORD HUGHES: It matters little what the noble Lord intends to do. We have to deal with what the noble Lord is doing. If the Committee delete Clause 8 from the Bill, as the noble Lord proposes, there will be created a situation where the widow and the legitimate sons can be deprived of the croft because the law of primogeniture will result in the croft going to the eldest son, even though he be illegitimate. We could have created that situation by leaving out Clause 8. Alternatively, we could have said: "No. there is to be only one field in which the illegitimate child is to be subject to disability and that is where he is fathered by a crofter." We thought that wrong.
On this subject of consultation, the Crofters Commission were consulted about this matter; and the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, has gone out of his way to pay a compliment to them. It seemed to the Government that they were the obvious people to consult on matters affecting the crofters. The advice of the Crofters Commission was that rather than adopt either of the two unsatisfactory solutions to which I have referred, the Bill should abolish the principle of male primogeniture in intestate succession to crofts and bring this part of the law into line with the general law of succession.

261
Clause 8 accordingly applies the provisions of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 to the succession to the tenancy of a croft. The main effect of that Act is that in the case of an intestate estate which is less than £2,500 (or, where there is no issue, £5,000) the widow will receive the whole estate including, as the result of this Bill, the tenancy of the croft. Where the estate is greater than these figures the widow is entitled to a £2,500 or to a £5,000 share of the estate. Where there is no widow or where the estate exceeds these limits, the executor will have to choose a successor to the crofting tenancy from among those entitled to a share in the estate and to transfer the tenancy to him or to her towards that share.
The Government are in complete accord with the views of the Commission. We have no doubt whatever that this provision is superior to the present situation where the heir-at-law may well take over the tenancy of the croft to the exclusion of the widow. Reverting to this question of consultation, the Crofters Commission panel of assessors were brought into account. The Crofters panel was recently reconstituted in all the areas where there are grazings committees (that is, in almost all the main crofting areas) and the committees elected their representatives for the area to the panel of assessors. As some noble Lords may know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, must certainly know, the grazings committees themselves are elected by the crofters of the township and are, perhaps, the smallest unit of democratic government to be found anywhere in the world.
Since there are grazings committees in the vast majority of the crofting areas, and certainly in almost all the main crofting areas, your Lordships will appreciate why I feel able to assure you that the explanation of the provisions of the Bill which have been made to the grazings committees can be regarded as a true reflection of the crofting position. I understand that at the most recent meeting of the Federation of Crofters' Unions in Inverness they expressed no objections to the basic provisions of the Bill, although they had reservations on certain aspects of it.
A long time has been spent on this question of consultation and, as happens
262
in any case of consultation, we have had criticism in the other place about what the Government have done—despite the fact that we consulted the body whose statutory duty it is to advise the Secretary of State on crofting matters. I am not aware that any consultations which were undertaken by the Government of the day in 1964 have not been again undertaken by the present Government. There are enough difficulties in the Highlands for any Government without the Government going out of their way to make difficulties. The one thing we know is that there should be consultation and that it should be on the widest possible basis. This is what the Secretary of State did. We are satisfied that we are doing the right thing.
If I may, I will sum up what the clause as it stands does. In essence, the State is trying to make a will for the crofter who dies intestate. The question is whether the will that the State will make as a consequence of present legislation is better than the will which the State makes under the law as it stands at present. I am advised that in the large majority of cases the bulk of the crofter's estate consists of the croft, and the most important asset there is the croft house. The kind of will it is proposed that the State should now make gives the primary estate to the widow. Then, apart from the widow, the remainder of the estate is divided equally among the members of the family or relations nearest to the crofter. The Crofters Commission, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I are in no doubt 'whatever that this proposed new will that the State will make will be an improvement on the present situation, in which the widow may very well be omitted altogether, and where, so far as the croft is concerned, one person among the members of the family is picked out to have the lot.
I think this is the first time I have had occasion to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, for a long time. It may not be the last—although I sincerely hope it is—but your Lordships will agree that if I had to choose a subject on which to disagree with him I could not have disagreed more fundamentally.
LORD BANNERMAN of KILDONAN: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his exhaustive answer,

263
but he has not referred to the consultation aspect as fully as perhaps he should have done. The Land Court is the judicial body in Scotland concerned with the valuation, if you call it so, of the croft—though it is not a valuation at all, as it would seem to be in this Bill, but merely a claim to improvement. This claim has to be assessed by the Land Court as the judicial body, not by the Crofters Commission. It would appear to be a serious omission from this Bill and this clause that there is no reference to the Land Court, although it is clearly concerned with the bequest of the crofter. Surely, so far as the croft is concerned, there can be no capital value, but merely a claim to improvement.
I would impress on the Committee that, as the noble Lord himself has said, this is not an easy matter of law. It is a most complicated matter even to discuss legitimacy in a Bill, and to throw this matter into a very controversial sphere and branch of law, the crofter law of Scotland, is to invite tremendous difficulties. The Land Court cannot assess a claim to improvement on a croft until the croft is renounced, or the crofter removed. So far as I can see, there is no reference at all to this. Lord Birsay, the Chairman of the Land Court, the judicial Court concerned with succession in crofts, says that there has not been any consultation about this. Surely the Government and the Minister should take cognisance of his viewpoint and at least agree to take back this clause and look at it again, so placating a great deal of worry which is prevalent throughout the Highlands concerning this clause.
LORD HUGHES: I must completely repudiate the suggestion that there is a great deal of worry throughout the Highlands about this clause. All the evidence the Government have is that the crofters accept this position. According to the information which I have been given, at their most recent meeting those on whose earlier proceedings the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, is relying did not maintain their attitude when they fully appreciated what was the position.
I cannot possibly agree to the deletion of this clause without knowing what is to go in its place. I must repeat, for the benefit of the noble Lord. Lord Banner
264
man, what the consequences would be. If I take out this clause, the position would be that a widow could be deprived of the tenancy of a croft. The noble Lord has said that is not what he wants to do, but the onus is not on me to take out of the Bill a clause which deals satisfactorily with the position and then to find something else to put in its place. If the noble Lord wishes to do something quite different from his present motion, it is for him to work out what he proposes to do. I have pointed out that what he seeks to do is totally unacceptable. He must work out his own salvation, and I suggest that this would be achieved by his going back to the Federation of Crofters' Unions, and I am certain that if he does so he will find that he is flogging a dead horse.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I get the point clear? If I may put it in a colloquial way, this question of adapting the succession in croft to the Succession (Scotland) Act has been "knocking about" for quite a long time, and it seems rather strange if, in the course of all that "knocking about", the Chairman of the Land Court has not been consulted. I should have thought it would satisfy my noble friend if the Chairman of the Land Court were consulted to see whether there are any points arising out of this on which he could help, and on which it would be possible to introduce an Amendment if necessary—we do not put it any higher than that—at the next stage of the Bill. It seems to me that is all my noble friend is asking for. He has raised it in this form as the only way in which he could raise it because of the great complication of the matter. I suppose it would have been possible for him to consult Lord Birsay, but I think it would be less appropriate for him to do so than that the Government should do so—if indeed they have not already done so. Perhaps the noble Lord could clear up this point.
LORD HUGHES: I should be very surprised to discover that when this matter was last considered in 1964 the then Government found it necessary or desirable to consult the Land Court in this matter. The obvious body to consult is the body which looks after the interests of crofters; that is the Crofters Commission, and through them the direct

265
representation of the crofters. The Land Court is concerned with the valuation of crofts. It is a judicial body which assesses compensation when a crofting tenancy is renounced. There is no need to have a special provision for valuing crofts on death. There is machinery for doing so, as there is for estate duty purposes or in connection with compulsory acquisition. None of these has presented any difficulty. We have not had to create special machinery in relation to this situation. There is no greater difficulty at the present time in settling a crofter's estate than there will be in the future. The suggestion is that we should have consulted the Land Court. Consulting the Crofters Commission as I have suggested, is the next best thing to consulting individually every crofter in the Highlands. I do not see how we could possibly carry consultation further than that.
I have no objection to finding out, between now and the next stage, whether in the past the Land Court have ever been consulted on a matter of this kind and whether the Chairman of the Land Court thinks that an illegitimate son should have preference over a widow. But we are being asked to take something out of the Bill and I am pointing out that I find the consequences of taking this clause out to be totally unacceptable. Therefore I advise your Lordships to let the clause remain.
LORD BANNERMAN of KILDONAN: Is it not possible then for us to have an Amendment to this clause produced at the next stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggested, and that in the meantime those who complain, whether rightly or wrongly, that they have not been consulted, should be consulted? The representatives of the crofters are the unions, not assessors appointed by the Crofters Commission.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord should at least do me the justice of listening to what I say. The present assessors are not appointed by the Crofters Commission: they are elected. And what can we do better than to consult the elected representatives?
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: I am asking that the crofters' unions, representing crofters throughout the Highlands, should be con
266
sulted and not just the selection of crofters that the Crofters Commission might have. Apart from that, surely the Land Commission, as a judicial body determining the amount of money to be distributed among the succesors—the widow, the illegitimate son or otherwise—should be consulted on this matter. They are very much concerned about bequests.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord started by asking me whether it was possible to have an Amendment. Almost anything is possible in your Lordships' House. What I cannot guarantee is that the noble Lord will be successful in finding an Amendment which will be preferable to what we have in the Bill. For my part, I am content with what is in the Bill. I think that it is good. I have grave doubts about whether it is possible for the noble Lord, even with consultation with the Federation of Crofters' Unions, to find a better one. But if, after further consultation, he can find a better one, I shall be delighted to look at it. I merely cast doubt on the likelihood that this will be possible.
On Question, Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Rule requiring corroboration not to apply in certain civil proceedings
9.—(l) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section, any rule of law whereby in any civil proceedings evidence tending to establish any fact, unless it is corroborated by other evidence, is not to be taken as sufficient proof of that fact shall cease to have effect, and accordingly, subject as aforesaid, in any civil proceedings the court shall he entitled, if they are satisfied that any fact has been established by evidence which has been given in those proceedings, to find that fact proved by that evidence, notwithstanding that the evidence is not corroborated.
5.54 p.m.
LORD REID LORD REID moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "subsections (3) and (4)" and insert "subsection (3)". The noble and learned Lord said: There are five Amendments on the List in the names of my noble and learned friend Lord Guest and myself. The second is the substantial one; the other four are consequential. Accordingly, it may be convenient that I should discuss the second one and that the others should stand or fall with it. I raised this matter on Second Reading in order to give adequate notice of the point which I intended to make, and I

267
shall only restate briefly the point I had in mind.
Corroboration is a somewhat technical subject. It means that a case cannot be proved with the evidence of one witness alone. There must be a second witness to the essential facts, or something in the nature of circumstantial evidence, built up by the general picture which the evidence paints, so that the story of the single witness appears to the court to be more consonant than not with the rest of the evidence as disclosed by the rest of the case. That is not an onerous requirement. The problem in cases of corroboration is this. If we loosen the law we may let in one or two cases where a man is telling the complete truth but cannot get any support anywhere, either circumstantial or otherwise, but, on the other hand, we may create the risk that somebody will succeed when he should not succeed. He might be a deliberate liar but it is much more likely that he is a witness who has persuaded himself that something, which is in fact untrue, is true. Everybody with any experience of the law knows that that happens.
The question is: what is the best solution? This is a matter which comes within the general law of evidence, and the Law Commission very properly took as one of their early subjects the general examination of the law of evidence. They gave priority to it and they were right. It is here, above all things, that it is essential that there should be proper consultation between the Commission and those who practise the law. Here, more than in any other chapter of the law. theory must give way to practice. And the only way to assess practice is to have the widest consultation with those who have day-to-day practice in the courts. Sometimes it is said that the advice of practising lawyers is biased to some extent, but that cannot possibly be said here, because the profession cannot get anything out of retaining the present situation as against the change.
That being the position, the Law Commission received certain information or representations and thought that there was a special case for urgency in altering the present law with regard to one—and only one—chapter of the law; namely, actions for damages for personal injury.
268
Very properly they consulted all the legal bodies on that narrow question. They received, it is true, unfavourable replies, but they did consult and did all that was proper. Unfortunately, in the course of some representations objecting to the change a false point was taken. It was said that if we dealt with this matter as a single small chapter by itself we should create anomalies. It is perfectly true that in theory one can imagine cases where this would create, not anomalies, but certain difficulties which would require some care on the part of the judge who was hearing the case in order to separate it up, but such a case is not going to happen once in five years. This is purely a theoretical objection. To my mind, if one or two cases did happen, what would it matter?
The alternative has been most unfortunate. The Law Commission were apparently impressed by this theoretical objection and decided that it would be better to avoid it by greatly widening the scope of their first proposal. So far, so good. But then they absolutely failed to consult anybody about that much wider proposal. I have gone into this matter; I have had letters, and one thing and another, and I have not a scrap of information to show that anybody at all outside the walls of the Law Commission was consulted about widening the small proposal to alter the law with regard to actions for personal injury to cover the whole of the civil law, with one exception which I shall come to in a moment.
This has created the utmost dissatisfaction in the legal profession. In the Second Reading debate I read out to the House excerpts from two letters, one from the President of the Law Society and one from the Dean of Faculty. In the course of the letter from the Dean of Faculty he said that the Lord Advocate and the Law Commission had agreed that there had not been adequate consultation. The Lord Advocate has sent me a letter in which he objects to that and says that he has never so agreed. I accept that at once. But he has said things which have made it perfectly plain that there was no consultation. Let me read out the first paragraph of the Minute which was settled with regard to the meeting at which all these bodies met together in

269
order to arrange a better system for the future. Why it should have been necessary to have a meeting to arrange for a better system for the future if all had been well up to date, I just do not understand.
Be that as it may, here is what was said by the Lord Advocate:
"The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the question of consultation on reforms in the law proposed or to be proposed by the Law Commission."
He referred to the case of
"corroboration in which the Commission had only informed itself with the Faculty of Advocates and with the Law Society of Scotland in connection with a proposal which was different from that ultimately submitted to Ministers."
That is all argument. It was a very different proposal; and, in fact, there has been no consultation. It does not matter whether the Lord Advocate agrees or not. If he says that he does not agree, I accept that implicitly. But the fact remains that there was no consultation. Why not?
What is the position to be? If this Bill goes through, is it to be a final settlement of the law of Scotland, so that there is to be no going back on it because it is something which has been determined; or is it a purely interim measure awaiting a further measure later on? If it is a final measure, then I must insist on my Amendment and seek to divide the Committee. But if it is not a final measure, what is it? What is the point in making a much bigger bite than the one about which there was consultation? I do not understand why we should not go back, as my Amendment proposes that we should, to the point on which there was proper consultation. That is the only point that the Law Commission had in mind before it was suggested to them that they should make a wider change. If any point has any urgency, that is the only point which has urgency. Why make it any wider? really do not understand.
What the Commission have done is very odd indeed. They have extended this provision to all civil evidence except consistorial actions, actions of affiliation and alimony, and proceedings in a juvenile court. How can anybody draw a line there? For generations the courts of Scotland have been trying to ease the position with regard to actions of affiliation and alimony. If there was to be
270
a change at all, I should have thought that that must come right at the top of the list for a change. But that has been left out. Anybody who knows anything about the practice of divorce knows quite well that thin cases get through in the divorce court just as much as they do anywhere else. Looking to the way the law is administered, why on earth have actions about property, contracts, trusts and all the rest of it, in so far as oral evidence will prove them, had the law altered in respect of them, and not these other matters which are just as clamant? I do not understand it.
Therefore it seems to me that if this is a final decision, it is a very bad one. If it is not a final decision, the line has been drawn entirely in the wrong place. It would be much better if we dealt with the matter logically and restricted our change at the moment to that change about which there has been consultation, leaving for further consideration the other, much wider, change about which there has been absolutely no consultation. That is the purpose of my Amendment. I do not intend to say any more about the merits of the matter, because I think my noble and learned friend Lord Guest will probably wish to say something. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("subsections (3) and (4)") and insert ("subsection;3)").—(Lord Reid.)
6.7 p.m.
LORD GUEST: It is not disputed that Clause 9 makes a substantial alteration in the law of Scotland. The law of corroboration is firmly embedded in our legal system and has existed for hundreds of years. I do not intend to elaborate on the explanation of the doctrine which has been given by my noble and learned friend Lord Reid. I should add, however, that it is probably the most important principle in the law of evidence, because it arises in every single, what you call in England, witness action. In every proof, and in every jury trial in which witnesses are heard, the question of corroboration arises. I had always thought until now that it was a salutary safeguard against unreliable or dishonest evidence. As your Lordships have been

271
told, Clause 9 arises from a recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission, who, according to their Report,
"are engaged on a review of the whole law of evidence with a view to its reform and modification".
One would have thought that in those circumstances the Government would have awaited that general review and not made what must at best amount to a piecemeal modification of the law.
The justification which is given by the Scottish Law Commission of urgency is that injustice occurs in actions of reparation due to the failure to obtain corroboration; and it is said that a number of these actions have failed due to lack of corroboration. I have spent 35 years in the law in Scotland, partly at the Bar and partly on the Bench, and I have never heard any criticism until now of the law of corroboration. I have never heard of any agitation; I have never known a case in which I have had to advise a pursuer that he had no case because there was no corroboration. It is easy to imagine how simple it can be in cases to obtain sufficient corroboration; that is to say, not another witness, but some fact or circumstance which makes the evidence of that witness more consistent with his case than any other. If there is such a number of cases, I suggest it is comparatively recent and that the cases are comparatively few.
I would remind your Lordships that when it is said that an injustice is done to a pursuer because he has not got corroboration, that is really begging the question, because until the case is tried and until the jury or judge determine no-one can tell who was telling the truth. It may well be that injustice to a defender has been prevented by the necessity for securing corroboration. The case therefore made out on the Commission's Report is for urgency in actions of personal damage, personal injuries. If that is so—and I take up the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Reid —there is no suggestion in the Report or in any other publication that the injustice occurs in any other cases at all except personal accidents and personal damage. why, I ask, extend it to all civil proceedings?
The reasons, apparently, given by the Law Commission for extending it are two in number, and I should like to read,
272
in the first place, paragraph 16 of their Report, which starts off in this fashion:
"We have already indicated our view that the law of corroboration requires immediate reform. Any serious and unexpected difficulties or anolomies to which that reform may give rise can be dealt with as opportunities occur and as the branches of law in which they arise become the subject of examination".
I read that to mean that the Law Commission are saying: "Let us have a trial run of corroboration in all cases, and then we will see by the time we come to our general review of the law of evidence whether there are any difficulties or anolomies". It strikes me that that is a most extraordinary method of procedure: throw the matter into the melting pot and then see, after you have tried it out, whether it works or not. I should have thought it would be better, and I suggest it should be better, to wait and deal with the matter in the large way after they have reviewed the matter generally.
The next matter which is referred to, and was referred to by my noble friend Lord Hughes on the Second Reading of this Bill, is the difficulties and anomalies which it is said the modest proposal made in this Amendment would cause. I just do not see these difficulties occurring at all. In the first place, it is suggested that where an action of damages for personal injuries and for damage to a motor car occurs, then there may be a different standard of proof. I never, in all my experience in Scotland, raised an action for a pursuer concluding for damages for his personal injuries and his motor car, for the simple reason that in every case where insurance companies are involved there is a "knock for knock" agreement and you do not include the damages for the motor car: so that is not a case of difficulty or anomaly.
Then it is suggested that there may be a difficulty or anomaly in a case of professional negligence; that is to say, where a solicitor fails to raise an action due to negligence and the client suffers loss. In that case there is no difficulty about it. The action of damages for personal injuries would require only one witness, and the claim for professional negligence would require two witnesses. There is no difficulty at all. In fact, our procedure, which is by means of pleas in law, would advise the judge before

273
the case came to trial. If this question arose it would be a case which would be tried by a judge and not by a jury; and I really cannot see that there would be any difficulties at all in having these two different standards of proof.
The last matter, which of course has already been referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Reid, is that the legal profession in Scotland are opposed to this general change in the law; and one would have thought that their advice might have been accepted by the Government. Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that it would be wiser (would it not?) to take the modest step which is suggested by this Amendment and wait for the Commission's Report on the general law of evidence before making such a radical change.
6.15 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: These Amendments propose that the abolition of the requirement of corroboration should be limited to personal injuries cases. I do not want to weary your Lordships with a repetition of the reasons which I have already given at Second Reading why the Government are of the view that the requirement of corroboration as a sine qua non in civil proceedings is wrong and should be abolished or of the social considerations that have led them to include this clause in this Bill. I would only remind your Lordships that it is the requirement of corroboration as a sine qua non which is being abolished; that is not to say that corroborating evidence will never be called for in future. It is a rule of law that has not been found necessary in any other Western country, with the exception of Portugal. As an unnecessary rule of law so far as it has effect it is likely to come between the court and the best decision to be reached in all the circumstances of the case before it.
One of the principal reasons for the putting down of these Amendments was the question of consultation. It is true, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, has said, that the Law Commission consulted the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society about a proposal to abolish the requirement of corroboration in personal injuries cases. The arrangements for these informal consultations were agreed previously with the two bodies concerned. They did not again
274
consult them before they submitted their Report recommending its abolition over the generality of civil proceedings. But the question must be considered whether or not there has been ample opportunity for those concerned with the working of the law in Scotland to study the proposals and their effects. If there has, then I cannot think that your Lordships should be asked to refrain from making a useful change in the law because it is suggested that, at an earlier stage, some different course of consultation should have been pursued.
There has been this ample opportunity. The Law Commission's Report was published in April, 1967, and the Government immediately announced that they were considering it with a view to legislation and would welcome views on it. That is over a year ago. The Government have had useful memoranda on the subject from the Faculty of Advocates, the Writers to the Signet, the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow and the Glasgow Bar Association. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, was good enough at Second Reading to accept that consultation does not necessarily mean acceptance of the views of those consulted. I agree that a substantial body of legal opinion in Scotland is opposed to the abolition of the requirement of corroboration—alike in the field of personal injuries and in the wider field. But, despite the ample opportunity for study of the extended proposals since the publication of the Report, none of the legal bodies who have commented have brought out any practical working difficulties—granted that the requirement of corroboration is to be abolished—in its abolition over the wider field.
I accept, of course, that apprehensions have been expressed—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, touched on this himself—about the possible effect of abolition, relating it to the periods of prescription under Scots law and the possibility that litigants will be put at risk in actions in respect, say, of old contracts and old property rights. I think that too much can be made of this risk. If there has been unreasonable delay in raising an action the standard of proof required to establish any part of it increases, and the courts would in any case be slow, on the evidence of a single

275
witness, to disturb a long-standing situation. There is also the point that this clause will in no way encourage the use of a single witness where other evidence is available. Again, the court would be slow to accept the party's case if other evidence was available or likely to be available and there was no adequate explanation of why it was not led. I do not think that these apprehensions are any substantial argument against the clause.
However, the Commission's consultations elicited one practical difficulty about their original limited proposals which they felt it impossible to ignore. This, of course, has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, although he disagreed with the conclusions which the Commission drew from it. The members of the Bar who commented when the Faculty of Advocates was consulted made strong objection to a proposal to abolish the requirement of corroboration which was confined to damages for personal injury. It was they who drew attention to the fact that in actions based on delict the same delict frequently gave rise to damage to property which was greater than personal injuries If a pursuer wishes to claim damages both for personal injury and for damage to property, with both claims arising out of a single event, are two different sets of evidential requirements to apply in a single action? Is it tolerable that the pursuer might succeed in one claim and fail in the other for lack of corroboration? Is think it is fair to say that it was this objection which led the Commission away from their original proposal in a limited field to their consideration in principle of the requirement of corroboration in civil proceedings and their later proposal for its abolition.
This is a practical objection, not a hypothetical one. No one can deny that cases of joint claims for personal injury and damage to property do occur. My own Department has to deal with them, for example, in actions where it is alleged that the condition of the road is responsible for a car crash. I do not make any claim about the frequency of such cases. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, did not say that they would not arise; he said that they would be infrequent and that there might not be more than
276
one in five years. But since this has resulted from the objection made by the profession which the Law Commission has found to be one of substance it would be quite wrong for the Government to ignore it. For this reason, I must advise the Committee against accepting the Amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid.
I have been asked by the noble and learned Lord whether this is an interim measure. It is certainly not a final measure. I have explained to the Committee why the Government regard the requirement of corroboration as a sine qua non as wrong in principle; that is the Government's firm view on the subject. But as the noble and learned Lord has stated, the Law Commission are at present engaged in a full review of all aspects of evidence, both in civil and criminal proceedings, with a view to producing a comprehensive code on the subject. In that review all possible aspects of evidence, including corroboration, will be open for consideration. The Government will certainly look with an open mind on any proposals that come out of that review.
Since I am speaking of possible further legislation, I might refer to consistorial actions, on which the noble and learned Lord merely touched. The Government have sympathy with the view that the requirement of corroboration should also be abolished in all, or at least in most, of these proceedings. They are not included because this is not a final measure. The Law Commission were not at the stage of reaching any conclusion on the question of the requirement of corroboration in criminal proceedings, which may well be found to raise quite different considerations. When they came to consider consistorial proceedings they found—a difficulty which does not arise with the civil proceedings dealt with by this clause —that the standards of evidence in consistorial proceedings were to some extent influenced by those in criminal proceedings.
LORD REID: That is very old-fashioned.
LORD HUGHES: It may well be, but I can assure your Lordships that it is new to me. I think your Lordships will appreciate that, particularly with my right honourable friend, the Lord Advocate,

277
sitting on the Steps of the Throne, I must stick closely to the brief which is agreed both by my own Department and by the Lord Advocate, and I am certainly not departing from the wording when it is on strictly legal aspects.
I appreciate that there is room for argument about the extent and importance of this influence; but it cannot be denied that it exists. In these circumstances, the Law Commission took the view that they would not be justified in bringing consistorial proceedings within the scope of their recommendation until they had had time to consider corroboration in criminal proceedings and its effects on consistorial proceedings. The Committee will no doubt accept that since, for this reason, no detailed consideration has been given to the requirement of corroboration in consistorial proceedings, the Government would have been unwise to include such proceedings in this clause.
I think it was also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, who spoke of actions of affiliation and aliment in juvenile court proceedings, and I am advised that these actions are excluded for the same reason as the consistorial proceedings were excluded. I was asked for an assurance that the legal profession would be consulted and have an opportunity for discussion and the expression of views during the preparation of the proposed full code of evidence. I should perhaps interject here, on the subject of consultation generally, that, in the light of the experience gained from the controversy over these proposals, a meeting was convened by the Lord Advocate at which the Law Commission and representatives of the legal profession and the Scottish Office had a full and useful discussion on the machinery of consultation in respect of future proposals by the Commission.
So far as consultation on this subject of evidence is concerned, I can give both the noble and learned Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Guest, the assurances for which I have been asked. The Law Commission have asked me to say it is their intention that there should be consultation under the new arrangements as part of their full review of evidence, and that there will be ample opportunity, in accordance with these arrangements, for consideration of the rules relating to
278
corroboration as part of the whole law of evidence.
I have said why the Government believe that the clause as it stands is justified. I have explained the practical difficulties to which the Government must have regard in their attitude to the Amendments put down by the noble and learned Lord, and I have given assurances about the position of future proposals on this subject and about future consultation on the review of the law of evidence. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble and learned Lord will find it possible not to press his Amendments.
6.29 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is difficult for a layman to intervene in what are essentially legal matters, but I think my noble and learned friends and I would certainly feel that the procedure which has been adopted, and indeed the arguments in support of that procedure, are both most peculiar. There seem to be three courses open. The first is that, as the Amendment says, we limit the change to that section of the civil law where there is said to be urgency. This seems to be a sensible suggestion. Then it is said that this will give rise to some practical difficulties, which is generally admitted, though the amount of those practical difficulties seems to be in some dispute. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his Department seem to think that these practical difficulties can arise fairly frequently, while the noble and learned Law Lords who have spoken think that they are unlikely to arise at all.
LORD HUGHES: I think I would be being unfair if I allowed it to proceed on the basis that I said it would arise frequently. I said I was not prepared to argue about its frequency, but I said the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, had said it might be about once every five years. I did not venture to give a frequency myself at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: At any rate, this is the proposition. The second proposal is that over all civil cases now, with the exception of the consistorial and affiliation cases, we should make this change in the law, about which it is admitted that there was not full consultation, and the noble Lord gives assurances about consultation in the future. The

279
third proposal is that we should wait until the Law Commission has carried out its inquiries into the effects on criminal as well as civil cases and then at that stage we should cover the whole area of corroboration. I should have thought that common sense would indicate that the Government were unwise to make up their mind on the general principle until they had had experience in the matter which is giving rise to the greatest urgency. I should have thought, speaking as a layman, that the sensible thing, if it is at all practicable, is to make a change in one sector and see how it works in the particular conditions of Scotland, given the legal traditions in Scotland. That is what we ought to do, and not for the Government to make up their mind that this is a useful change that they have determined upon, without consultation, and carry it out over the whole field of civil law except in the case of consistorial and affiliation actions. I should have thought this was all the more so as the Law Commission has not yet completed its study of the effects on criminal actions.
I should have further thought that if we do this now in so far as civil actions are concerned over the wider field the Government want, it is virtually certain the Government will later come along and say that this will apply also to all criminal actions. I should have thought that this was bound to be so. I do not think that we ought to prejudice the case in this way. It would be very much better to limit it to the particular area about which consultation took place and which is said to be the area of urgency. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to accept the advice of those who are so very experienced in these matters, rather than rely only on the advice of the Law Commission. It seems, on what we have been told, that, by and large, the legal profession does not share the Law Commission's view on this subject and, that being so, it would be discretion on the part of the Law Commission to say, "If you do not accept this, let us do it in the area in which there is special difficulty now". That would be the sensible course.
LORD HUGHES: The only point of comment I wish to make on what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said
280
is in regard to the danger he envisaged that the acceptance of this clause as it stands would lead on inevitably to the acceptance of this principle in criminal proceedings. In the notes from which I read I was very careful to emphasise that there were very different considerations in relation to criminal proceedings and that the Government did not feel that anything which was done on civil proceedings necessarily gave any guide to what the Government would do in relation to criminal proceedings. I must emphasise that.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Not necessarily; but surely it is a logical sequence that if one is put into effect the other will be later on.
LORD HUGHES: Not at all. If one is considering different circumstances it could be illogical to arrive at the same conclusion. If you are considering two sets of circumstances which are the same it is logical to arrive at the same conclusion, but if you are considering different circumstances it would be illogical.
LORD REID: I find this position most astonishing. The Government know that the great bulk of the profession support the necessity for corroboration, and yet they make up their mind as a matter of principle that corroboration is bad, without having given the profession a chance of stating their reasons. For these reasons I can do nothing else but support this Amendment in the Division Lobby.
THE EARL OF PERTH: As a layman, even more hesitant on these things, I feel that the Government ought to consider accepting this Amendment. I have tried to understand it. I remember that the noble Lord a short while ago, when answering the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, said it was a principle that one should consult on the widest possible basis. I know he was talking about the Highlands. If that is true of the Highlands, why is it not true of Scotland as a whole? Here we have something of major importance for Scotland, and yet the Government admit that, without having consulted, they have decided to do something which is going to affect the whole of Scotland, which is going against the advice of two noble and learned Scottish Lords to whom we must listen with the greatest possible respect.
We are told that there is shortly to be a general review and that then it can be

281
looked at again; if there are some anomalies they can be corrected. That is the wrong way round. Do not bring in an important change now and then afterwards, if it does not work, say, "We will make an amendment here and there". Do the most limited damage, if it is damage, on the case of urgency now, and let the other wait for the full report. I feel sure that any others of your Lordships who are laymen must have the same sort of feeling as I have on this particular matter.
LORD HUGHES: On this point I think the noble Earl, Lord Perth, does the Government injustice, quite unwittingly. He has confined his remarks on consultation to what took place before the Law Commission submitted their Report. Whether or not the Law Commision undertook adequate consultation, there can be no dispute at all that the Government gave perfectly full opportunity for the expression of views to the whole of the legal profession. Their Report was submitted in April, 1967, and here we are legislating on this matter in the spring and summer of 1968. The views of the legal profession were made known to the Government. If we had acted immediately we received the Report and produced these proposals before receiving the views of the profession, we should in fact have been guilty of doing the thing of which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has accused us. But the Government did not do that. We received all those views and, having received them, decided to act on the views of the Law Commission rather than on the views of the legal profession. That may or may not be a proper way to do it in the view of any individual, but it is obvious that the Government cannot properly be accused of having failed to consult on the matter.
As I pointed out, if you ask people for advice and find you have to accept the advice, you are not in fact receiving advice; you are receiving orders. We sought advice. We sought the opinions of the profession. We received that and weighed it against the opinion, the advice
which had been given by the Law Commission, and we elected to act on the Law Commission's advice. That is a perfectly fair statement of the position, and the position is not as the noble Earl has, I think quite unwittingly, represented it.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I certainly should not wish to misrepresent the Government's position, but the fact is, as I understand it, that the feeling has been that this method of consultation was so unsatisfactory that there has been consultation subsequently so that in the future things should be better done.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: In view of all the circumstances, would it not be wise to await the Report of the Royal Commission?
LORD HUGHES: All I can say further on the matter is that my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate has sat on the Steps throughout the whole of these proceedings, and I have no doubt—
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I think that, unwittingly, the noble Lord is breaking a custom of the House in referring to someone who is sitting on the Steps, however distinguished he may be.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for not drawing my attention to that fact earlier, so that at least I got the information over. I apologise for infringing the custom of the House. I do not know how I can usefully draw attention to the fact, but I can refer to the Lord Advocate. I have no doubt that, in the circumstances to which I have improperly referred, the Lord Advocate is fully apprised of the consideration which your Lordships have given to this proposal, and I should be most surprised if he did not have further consultations with me in future. Once again, I apologise to your Lordships.
6.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS

Atholl, D.

Burton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Auckland, L.

Cohen, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Audley, Bs.

Conesford, L.

Daventry, V.

Boston, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Jessel, L.

Redmayne, L.

Dundee, E.

Killearn, L.

Reid, L. [Teller.]

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mansfield, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Falkland, V.

Mar, E.

Sandys, L.

Glasgow, E.

Merrivale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Somers, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs

Hanworth, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hawke, L.

Perth, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hodson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Vivian, L.

Ilford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Garnsworthy, L.

Moyle, L.

Beswick, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Birk, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Rowley, L.

Bowles, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs. [Teller.]

Burden, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Crook, L.

Latham, L.

Sorensen, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Fiske, L.

Longford, E.

Strang, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mitchison, L.

Willis, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD REID: I beg to move Amendment No. 9. The rest of my Amendments are consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("civil proceedings") and insert ("action of damages for personal injury").—(Lord Reid.)
LORD REID: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("civil proceedings") and insert ("such action").
Page 6,line 15, leave out ("those proceedings") and insert ("that action").
Page 6,line 20, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Reid.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Findings of adultery and paternity as evidence in civil proceedings.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask a question about affiliation proceedings here. The Russell Committee recommended in paragraph 39:
"We cannot regard affiliation orders as sufficiently reliable to be taken as conclusive proof, for the purposes of succession, of paternity."—
284
I am not certain how far this clause would make for conclusive proof for the purposes of paternity.
LORD HUGHES: Perhaps the noble Lord would forgive me if I defer an answer on that point to a later stage. He did not give me any notice of his intention to raise it, and this is a somewhat complicated matter. Rather than chance my arm I should like to have a completely legally backed answer to this question.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I quite understand.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
6.52 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:
Admissibility of statements produced by computers
".—(1) In any civil proceedings a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall, subject to the provisions of section (Procedure) of this Act, be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question.
(2) The said conditions are—

(a) that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by any person;

(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the

285
ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;

(c) that throughout the material part of that period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and

(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.

(3) Where over a period the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in subsection (2)(a) of this section was regularly performed by computers, whether—

(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or

(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or

(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or

(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers,

all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as constituting a single computer; and references in this Part of this Act to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any civil proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say—

(a) identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;

(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by a computer;

(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) of this section relate,

and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (which, ever is appropriate) shall, subject to the provisions of section (Procedure) of this Act, he sufficient evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and—

(i) for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it;

(ii) any such certificate as aforesaid shall be lodged within such time as may be pre-
286
scribed, not being later than the expiry of the time prescribed for the furnishing of information under section (Procedure) (3) of this Act;

(iii) any person lodging such a certificate as aforesaid shall. within the time prescribed under paragraph (ii) of this subsection, send a copy thereof to every other party to the proceedings.

(5) For the purposes of this Part at this Act—

(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;

(b) where, in the course of any activities carried on by any person, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;

(c) a document shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.

(6) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, in this Part of this Act "computer" means any device for storing and processing information, and any reference to information being derived from other information is a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process."
The noble Lord said: It would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I discussed together all the new clauses and the Amendments to Clauses 13 and 18, since they are all related to the same subjects. I admit that these new clauses appear formidable, and I say with some trepidation, having made that remark, that they deal with a comparatively simple point; that is, to make prevision regarding the admissibility in civil proceedings of records kept by the modern business methods such as computers and microfilms.
This is not the introduction of any new principle. There are already provisions in the law facilitating the introduction of business records in evidence. The modern provisions will be found in Section 7 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1966. This is only an extension of the principle to cater for modern developments. This House has already approved the extension in English law in the Civil Evidence Act which it passed earlier this Session. Indeed, your Lordships will possibly have

287
recognised the provisions of the new clauses as being the English provisions adapted to meet the existing Scottish law. In these circumstances I do not think that I need say much about the detail of the provisions.
The first new clause (Amendment No. 13) makes provision for the admission of computer records. The next two are procedural provisions, consequent upon the first clause. The fourth clause (Amendment No. 16) amends Section 7 of the 1966 Act to make it clear that records kept, say, in the form of microfilm copies are admissible under that Section. The Amendments to Clause 13 define "document" and "copy of document" to enable the provisions of the four clauses to be worked.
Perhaps I might say just a word about the reason the Government are moving these Amendments. One of the incidental purposes of the comparable provisions in the English Civil Evidence Act was to facilitate the use by business of modern and economical methods of record keeping. After this Bill had been published the Government received an approach from a business association to the effect that businesses, particularly large businesses operating throughout Great Britain, would not be able to take advantage of the provisions of the English Act if they were in doubt about the position in Scotland. They pointed out that it would not be practicable to introduce modern forms of record keeping for England and Wales only or to introduce them for the whole of their business, unless they were sure about the position in civil proceedings in Scotland. They therefore felt that the introduction of similar provisions, if approved in Scotland, was a matter of some urgency.
Informal inquiries following this approach showed that there would be advantage and no practical difficulties about making similiar provisions for Scotland. Of course, it is the position that the whole of civil evidence is under review by the Law Commission. The Government have consulted them and have established that this minor change is acceptable to them without prejudice to their general review. I should also say that the Lord President of the Court of Session has been consulted by the Lord Advocate, particularly in view of the pro
288
cedural nature of the change, and that he has no objection in principle to the admission of such evidence. We are satisfied, as a result of the consultations, that the new clauses constitute a workable arrangement for the admission of evidence from modern business records. I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a long and complicated series of Amendments, but for my part—and I am sure my noble friends will agree with me—I think it is obviously right that we should do this. The only doubt, of course, is whether the actual proposals give full and reasonable effect to what the Government intend here. I am afraid that it is a matter for the lawyers to judge whether, in the light of their knowledge of computers and modern machinery, the kind of evidence that they will get will be such as they require. Subject to that, I certainly would not oppose these Amendments.
LORD REID: It appears to me that this is an admirable Amendment, and I do not take the least objection to this being done before the general review, because it obviously stems from the chapter by itself. There is only one thing I should like to say. There must surely be something wrong with our methods of drafting if it takes five pages of close print to introduce what is apparently a simple Amendment of this kind. I am not complaining, because I have no doubt that it is drafted—and I have read it not as carefully as I should have done because it would take too long—in the traditional style, but it seems to me to add point to the growing demand that the traditional style of drafting ought to be radically altered.
LORD HUGHES: I have two things to say. First of all, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, for what he said in the first part of his remarks, which must allay any fears which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, might have. It certainly allayed my own fears, because the thought which immediately occurred to me was that if, in fact, we had gone the wrong way about it, it must have been the longest detour to arrive at the wrong

289
destination that anybody has taken for a very long time indeed. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks about the drafting of the Amendment. What I should like to ask him to do—and I do not intend this in any way to be impertinent; it is because he has had such a long experience in this matter—is, if he ever has the time, to sit down and look at our Amendment and draft a simpler form of covering this point, it would give me the greatest of pleasure to pass it on to those where it might serve a useful purpose. I doubt, however, whether his Lordship will ever have time to do it. If he has, he will render a service to Her Majesty's Government and to your Lordships' House.
LORD REID: Perhaps if this were delayed until the Long Vacation, I could manage it, but not otherwise.
LORD HUGHES: Even if it were delayed to the Long Vacation, if we were undertaking consolidation it would be magnificent to substitute four lines for five pages. Perhaps I could give a bonus to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, by answering the question which he put a little earlier on the subject of affiliation and aliment. The answer which I have been given is that the clause does not make a decree of affiliation and aliment conclusive evidence in an action for paternity. It makes them admissible, but the party to whom the decree is made will still be able to bring evidence to disprove paternity.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Provisions supplementary to section (Admissibility of statements produced by computers)
".—(1) Where in any civil proceedings a statement contained in a document is proposed to be givin in evidence by virtue of section (Admissibility of statements produced by computers) of this Act it may be proved by the production of that document or (whether or not that document is still in existence) by the production of a copy of that document, or of the material part thereof, purporting to be certified or otherwise authenticated by a person responsibile for the making of the copy or in such other manner as the court may approve;
290
and any such copy shall be taken to be a true copy unless the contrary is shown.
(2) In estimating the weight, if any, to be attached to a statement admissible in evidence by virtue of section (Admissibility of statements produced by computers) of this Act regard shall be had to all the circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement and, in particular—

(a) to the question whether or not the information which the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from was supplied to the relevant computer, or recorded for the purpose of being supplied thereto, contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the fact; dealt with in that information, and

(b) to the question whether or not any person concerned with—

(i) the supply of information to that computer, or

(ii) the operation of that computer, or

(iii) the operation of any equipment by means of which the document curtaining the statement was produced by that computer,

had any incentive to conceal or misrepresent the facts."—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Procedure
".—(1) Subject to subsections (6) to (8) of this section, a statement shall not he admissible in evidence in civil proceedings by virtue of section (Admissibility of statements produced by computers) of this Act unless the procedure laid down by or under this section has been complied with.
(2) A party to any civil proceedings who wishes to rely on any such statement as is mentioned in the said section (Admissibility of statements produced by computers) stall, at such time as may be prescribed, send to every other party to the proceedings a copy of the statement together with a notice in writing

(a) intimating that the party intends to rely on the statement;

(b) stating that the statement is contained in a document produced by a computer;

(c) directing the attention of the other party to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section enabling a counter-notice to be given.

(3) Any party who receives such a notice as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section may, within such time as may prescribed, by counter-notice in writing addressed to the party who served the notice, require him, within such further time as

291
may be prescribed, to furnish him in writing with all or any of the following information—

(a) any such information as might be the subject of a certificate under the said section (Admissibility of statements produced by computers) (4), except in so far as such information is the subject of a certificate lodged under that subsection;

(b) particulars of a person occupying at the material time a responsible position in relation to any of the matters mentioned or referred to in sections (Admissibility of statements produced by computers) (4) and (Provisions supplementary to s. (Admissibility of statements produced by computers)) (2)(b) of this Act, and, if he is not included among such persons, of any person who signed any certificate lodged as aforesaid.

(4) Within a prescribed period after receipt of the information requested under subsection (3) of this section, the party to whom the information was furnished may require that the party wishing to rely on the statement should call as a witness any person of whom particulars were furnished under paragraph (b) of the said subsection (3), unless that person is dead, or beyond the seas, or unfit by reason of his bodily or mental condition to attend as a witness, or cannot with reasonable diligence be identified or found, or cannot reasonably be expected (having regard to the passage of time and to all the circumstances) to have any recollection of matters relevant to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement in the document.
(5) In deciding for the purposes of this section whether or not a person is fit to attend as a witness, a court may act on a certificate purporting to be a certificate of a fully registered medical practitioner.
(6) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred on the Court of Session by sections 15 and 34 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 to regulate by act of sederunt its own procedure and that of the sheriff court respectively, the said powers shall include power—

(a) to prescribe the form of any notice or other document authorised or required to be used under section (Admissibility of statements produced by computers) of this Act or this section;

(b) to prescribe the manner in which, the time within which, and the conditions on which any thing authorised or required to be done under section (Admissibility of statements produced by computers) of this Act or this section shall or may be done;

(c) to prescribe exceptions to any of the requirements prescribed by or under this section; and

(d) to modify, amend or repeal any of the provisions of this section; and in section (Admissibility of statements produced by computers) of this Act and this section "prescribed" shall be construed accordingly.

(7) Any act of sederunt made for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (6) of this section, in so far as it relates to civil proceedings in the Court of Session, shall
292
(except in so far as its operation is excluded by agreement) apply, subject to such modifications as may be appropriate, in relation to any other civil proceedings (other than proceedings in the sheriff court) in like manner as it applies in relation to civil proceedings in the Court of Session and if any question arises as to what are, for the purposes of any such civil proceedings, the appropriate modifications of any such act of sederunt, that question shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the court before whom the proceedings take place.
(8) The court in any civil proceedings shall have a discretion, where it appears to them that the interests of justice so require, and subject to such conditions (if any) as to expenses or otherwise as the court may think fit, to allow a statement falling within section (Admissibility of statements produced by computers) (1) of this Act to be given in evidence notwithstanding that any requirement laid down by or under this section has not been complied with.")—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of section 7 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1966
(". Section 7 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1966 shall be amended as follows

(a) in subsection (1) the words "on the production of the document" shall be deleted:

(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3A) Where a statement contained in a document is proposed to be given in evidence by virtue of this section it may he proved by the production of that document or (whether or not the document is still in existence) by the production of a copy of that document, or of the material part thereof, purporting to be certified or otherwise authenticated by a person responsible for the making of the copy or in such other manner as the court may approve; anti any such copy shall be taken to be a true copy unless the contrary is shown.".").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 13 [Interpretation of Part III and savings]:
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, at end insert ("and "court" shall be construed accordingly.").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) In this Part of this Act—
"computer" has the meaning assigned by section (Admissibility of statements produced by computers) of this Act;
"document" includes, in addition to a document in writing—

(a) any map, plan, graph or drawing;

(b) any photograph;

(c) any disc, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual images) are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom; and

(d) any film, negative, tape or other device in which one or more visual images are embodied so as to be capable (as aforesaid) of being reproduced therefrom; "film" includes a microfilm;

"statement" includes any representation of fact, whether made in words or otherwise.
(2B) In this Part of this Act any reference to a copy of a document includes—

(a) in the case of a document falling within paragraph (c) but not (d) of the definition of "document" in subsection (2A) of this section, a transcript of the sounds or other data embodied therein;

(b) in the case of a document falling within paragraph (d) but not (c) of that definition, a reproduction or still reproduction of the image or images embodied therein, whether enlarged or not;

(c) in the case of a document falling within both these paragraphs, such a transcript together with such a still reproduction; and

(d) in the case of a document not falling within the said paragraph (d) of which a visual image is embodied in a document falling within that paragraph, a reproduction of that image, whether enlarged or not;

and any reference to a copy of the material part of a document shall be construed accordingly.").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Short title, interpretation, repeals, extent and commencement]:
LORD HUGHES: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I move Amendments numbers 19, 20, 21 and 22 en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 7, leave out ("12") and insert ("(Procedure)")
Page 13, line 9, leave out ("12") and insert ("(Procedure)")
Page 13, line 11, at end insert ("and different days may be appointed under this section for different purposes.")
Page 13, line 14, leave out ("12") and insert ("(Procedure)")—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: When we talk about procedure, I am entitled to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to give us an assurance that we shall no: have another five pages of Amendments introduced among the miscellaneous pro visions on the Report stage of the Bill. I understand that the Government have to take such opportunity as they can to gut miscellaneous law provisions through the House, but one does not want to feel that opportunities are abused. The introduction of these very long provisions in this House, which have to go back to another place and which have not yet been considered there, comes fai:1:r close to an abuse. Perhaps their length has been responsible in part for the fact that they have been delayed so long—I do not know. But, whatever the reason, I hope that our patience will not be tried too far and that we shall not have what is virtually further legislation introduced on the Report stage.
LORD HUGHES: I think that t le furthest I can go is to say that I should be very surprised if we tried to repeat this on the Report stage.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

GAMING BILL
Brought from Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.

HEARING AID COUNCIL BELL
7.8 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do new resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sorensen.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Hearing Aid Council]:
LORD SORENSEN: In moving Amendment No. 1, may I say that this is a non-contentious Bill, and I am happy to inform the Committee that all those noble Lords who contributed so valuably to the discussion on this matter last week have been fully satisfied with the proposals embodied in the various Amendments which have been put down to the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("the retail selling of") and insert ("dispensing").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment is no more than a drafting variation. The definition of "suppliers" in the Bill relates only to persons employing dispensers, and as drafted the Bill requires a self-employed dispenser to register as a dispenser. Such a person would ordinarily be described as a supplier. It therefore seems right that the Bill should draw a distinction between dispensers and employers of dispensers rather than between dispensers and suppliers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("suppliers") and insert ("persons employing such dispensers"). —(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment and No. 8 seek simply to improve the grammar. "Variation of" seems a little better than "variation to", though I am not quite clear why. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("to") and insert ("of").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment, No. 4, and the next three Amendments are designed to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. May I say that he has explained why he cannot be here now, and I quite appreciate the reason. I also appreciate the very great help he gave in regard to this and other Amendments. He suggested that where the Board of Trade approved a variation of a standard or code they should have
296
power to require other variations made to the relevant standard or code as a condition of their giving approval, as well as the power already conferred by the Bill to require the variations to be modified. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2. line 5, leave out ("code or variation") and insert ("or code").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("and in approving any variation may make their approval conditional upon the modifying of that variation or the further varying of the relevant standard or code in such manner as they may require:").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, after ("modification") insert ("or further variation").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: I beg to move No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, after ("modifications") insert ("or further variations").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("to") and insert ("of").—(Lord Sorensen.)
Clause 2 [Registers of persons selling hearing aids]:
LORD SORENSEN: The reason for this Amendment has already been given in regard to Amendment No. 2, and it carries out the purpose described previously. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("suppliers of hearing aids") and insert ("persons employing such dispensers").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: Amendments Nos. 16 and 25 go with this Amendment, No. 10. It paves the way for the employment of the definition of "prescribed" set out in the new Clause 14. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggested the inclusion of this definition. As the Bill itself specifies the amount of the fee and only provides for the Council to vary it, it is not correct to describe the fee as "prescribed". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("appropriate").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment does not make any very great change in the Bill. As the Bill now covers the hiring of hearing aids, it is thought that the reference to "selling" in Clause 2(5)(a) should be widened so as to permit the registration as dispensers of persons who have been dispensing aids on hire terms. This the Amendment does. It also makes it clear that persons registering by virtue of paragraph (a) can aggregate a series of periods in which they have acted as dispensers, in order to satisfy the six months' requirement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, leave out lines 34 to 42 and insert—
("( ) Any individual other than a disqualified person shall he qualified to be registered under this section as a dispenser of hearing aids if—
(a) during the period of two years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act he has acted as a dispenser of such aids for a period of, or periods totalling, at least six months; or").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, at beginning insert ("he").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment really goes with Amendment No. 31, and again is mainly an attempt to improve the drafting. The main change is that bodies corporate which are controlled by, or wholly or partly managed by, persons who have been struck off either of the
298
registers are prima facie ineligible for registration as employers of dispensers. It is to be noted that bodies corporate are not, in any event, eligible for registration as dispensers and that on appeal pursuant to Clause 2(7) the Disciplinary Committee may direct that paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not apply in a particular case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("( ) Subject to subsection (7) of this section, any person other than—

(a) a disqualified person or a person carrying on business in partnership with a disqualified person; or

(b) a body corporate which has Among its directors one or more disqualified persons or in which a disqualified person has a controlling interest or in the management of which a disqualified person participates,

shall be qualified to be registered under this section as an employer of dispensers of tearing aids if he employs or proposes to employ any person to dispense such aids.")—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This is a simple Amendment. It would appear a little odd if a person had a right of appeal to the Disciplinary Committee because the registrar refused to register him, but no right of appeal if the registrar simply sat on the application without expressly refusing to register. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, after ("refused") insert ("or the registrar fails to enter the name of the applicant on the appropriate regisier")— (Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment goes with Amendment No. 10, and should also be considered with Amen intent No. 25. The object is to make it clear that a fee of £10 or £1, as the case may be, is payable upon registration, and that a similar fee is payable annually in. respect of the retention of a name in the register, and that the Council has power to vary these fees. Technically, the fee for retention of a name will require to be paid only by the appropriate rules, while the obligation to pay a registration fee is imposed by the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("Company ") and insert ("body corporate").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, after ("section") insert ("' appropriate fee' means in the case of an application for registration as a dispenser a fee of £10 or such other amount as may be prescribed and in the case of an application for registration as an employer of such dispensers a fee of £1 or such other amount as may be prescribed; and").—(Lord Sorensen.)
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Offences by unregistered persons]:
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment meets the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. He pointed out that Clause 3(1)(b) of the Bill related only to the employment of unregistered dispensers by unregistered employers, and suggested that the provision needed revision. As revised, paragraph (a) of the subsection makes it unlawful for a person not registered as an employer to employ anyone to act as a dispenser of hearing aids, whether or not that person is registered as a dispenser: and paragraph (c) makes it unlawful for a registered employer to employ an unregistered dispenser. To save repeating lines 35 to 37 on page 3 in relation to each paragraph of the subsection, an abbreviated concept, "to act as a dispenser of hearing aids", has been used. These words are to be interpreted in the sense used in Clause 14. The words "and acting under the supervision of a registered dispenser" at the end of paragraph (c) are included at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 4 and insert—
("to act as a dispenser of hearing aids;

(b) any person whose name is not for the time being entered in the register maintained pursuant to section 2(1)(b) of this Act to employ any person to act as a dispenser of hearing aids; or

(c) any person whose name is entered in the register which is so maintained to employ a person other than—

(i) a person registered under this Act as a dispenser of hearing aids; or

(ii) a person whose name has been notified to the Registrar of the Council and who is undergoing full-time training with a view to being registered as a
300
dispenser of hearing aids and acting under the supervision of a registered dispenser,

to act as a dispenser of such aids:").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: The two Amendments proposed to line 7 of page 4, Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, are purely drafting Amendments suggested by the Home Office. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("contravention of") and insert ("person who contravenes")
Page 4, line 7, after ("be") insert ("guilty of").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: Subsection (3) is now superfluous because of the definition of an employer of dispensers in the new Clause 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 10, leave out subsection (3). —(Lord Sorensen.)
Clause 4 [Rules]:
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment deals with the issue of certificates to registered persons. The matter was dealt with by Clause 2(4) of the Bill, but not in a very satisfactory manner. It is suggested that it should be left to the Council to deal with the details of issuing certificates. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 16, leave out ("and in particular") and insert ("and with respect to the issue by the registrar of certificates of registration and such rules may in particular"). —(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: The next three Amendments are all minor drafting changes. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 17. leave out ("regulating") and insert ("regulate")
Page 4, line 18. leave out ("providing") and insert ("provide")
Page 4, line 20, leave out ("providing") and insert ("provide").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment has already been discussed on Amendments Nos. 10 and 16. It is to be read in conjunction with the Amendment on page 3, line 20. The Amendments distinguish between the fee payable on first registration and annual fees for the retention of names on registers. There is no change of substance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 22, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) require persons whose names are for the time being entered in the said registers to pay in respect of the retention of their names in the relevant register an annual fee of i10 in the case of persons registered as dispensers and El in the case of persons registered as employers of such persons;
(cc) vary the amount of either of the fees payable under section 2 of this Act upon first registration or the amount of either of the fees referred to in paragraph (c) of this section; ").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This and the following two Amendments are pure drafting. The clause lacks a couple of verbs, I believe. They also pave the way for a new proviso, placed, as it should be, at the end of the clause. I therefore beg to move Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 28, at beginning insert ("provide for")
Page 4, line 38, leave out the proviso.
Page 5, line 3, at beginning insert ("provide for").—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This proviso replaces the misplaced proviso at the end of paragraph (d) of Clause 4. There is one change of substance. The consent of the Board of Trade is required for any rule under this section, and not just rules varying fees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 5, line 5, at end insert—
("Provided that the Council shall not—

(i) make any rule under this section unless the terms of that rule have been approved in writing by the Board of Trade; or

(ii) make any rule pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section without first consulting any organisations which appear to the Council to he representative of the interests of dispensers of hearing aids or of persons employing such dispensers.").—(Lord Sorensen.)

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [The Disciplinary Committee]:
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, delete ("These rules") and insert ("Rules under this section")—(Lord Sorensen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed, to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed Ito.
Clause 7 [Erasure front the registers for crime, misconduct, etc.]:
7.25 p.m.
LORD SCRENSEN: This Amendment has already been discussed under Amendment No. 13. It goes with the Amendment at page 3, line 4, in that the Bill now strikes at bodies corporate controlled by disqualified persons as well as bodies managed by such persons or of which such persons are directors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, after ("of") insert (`or has a controlling interest in ")—(Lord Sorensen.)
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Appeals]:
LORD SCIRENSEN: This Amendment is put down to comply with Scottish law. Apparently the Scots call costs "expenses", although I imagine a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. Anyhow, in order to defer to our Scottish brethren, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7. line 8, after ("cost") insert ("or expenses")—(Lord Sorensen.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed
Clause 10 [Procedure of Disciplinary Committee]:
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment i purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 20. leave out ("dispensation") and insert ("dispensing")—(Lord Scrensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment is self-explanatory. Steps must be taken to ensure that persons affected by findings of the Disciplinary Committee are notified of them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) for ensuring that persons likely to be affected by any finding of the Committee are duly notified of that finding:")—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment, again, is the embodiment of a very valuable suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, leave out from ("organisations") to end of line 40 and insert (" as appear to the Council to be representative of the interests of dispensers of hearing aids or of persons employing such dispensers.")—(Lord Sorensen.)
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Expenses, receipts and accounts of the Council]:
LORD SORENSEN: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("dispensation") and insert ("dispensing")—(Lord Sorensen.)
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Interpretation]:
LORD SORENSEN LORD SORENSEN moved, to leave out Clause 14 and insert the following new Clause:
Interpretation
"14. In this Act—
"dispenser of hearing aids" means an individual who conducts or seeks to conduct oral negotiations with a view to effecting the supply of a hearing aid, whether by him or another, to or for the use of a person with impaired hearing; and references to the dispensing of hearing aids or to acting as a dispenser of such aids shall be construed accordingly;
"employer of dispensers" includes any person who enters into any arrangement with an individual whereby that individual undertakes for reward or anticipation of
304
reward to act as a dispenser with a view to promoting the supply of hearing aids by that person; and references to the employing of dispensers and their employment shall be construed accordingly;
"hearing aid" means an instrument intended for use by a person suffering from impaired hearing to assist that person to hear better but does not include any instrument or device designed for use by connecting conductors of electricity to equipment or apparatus provided for the purpose of affording means of telephonic communication;
"prescribed" means prescribed by rules made by the Council pursuant to section 4 of this Act;
"supply" means supply by way of retail sale or by way of hire: but does not include a sale to a person acquiring for the purposes of trade."
The noble Lord said: This new clause introduces a new set of definitions. The important points to note are that "dispensers" are people who try to sell by word of mouth. The definition includes persons trading on their own account and employees, agents or representatives of any sort. An "employer" is so defined as to exclude anyone who employs a person gratuitously. The definition of "hearing aid" is intended to exclude an instrument which the Post Office provide to enable persons with impaired hearing to hear better on the telephone. The definition of "prescribed" was suggested, again by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. We think the definition of "supplied" includes hire purchase. The second and third lines make the position clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 14 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sorensen.)
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15, agreed to.
Schedule [Constitution and Powers of the Council]:
LORD SORENSEN: I beg to move Amendment No. 38 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
("1.—(1) The Council shall consist of a Chairman and eleven other members who shall be appointed by the Board of Trade.
(2) The Board shall not appoint as Chairman a person who is in their opinion capable of representing any of the interests mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph.
(3) The Board shall when appointing persons as members of the Council ensure that the members of the Council include—

(a) six persons who are capable of representing the interests of persons registered under section 2 of this Act and who are either so registered themselves or are directors of, or participate in the management of a body corporate which is so registered; and

(b) five persons who are not eligible for appointment under head (a) of this subparagraph and who either have specialised medical knowledge of deafness or audiological technical knowledge or who are capable of representing the interests of persons with impaired hearing:

Provided that in relation to the appointing of persons before the expiry of six months from the commencement of this Act head (a), of sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph shall have effect as if references to persons registered under section 2 included references to persons who are, in the opinion of the Board, eligible to be registered under that section; and ")(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: These lines are just bread and butter provisions. The proviso spells out what is meant on page 11, lines 9 and 10, by the Chairman having a single casting vote. The next paragraph amplifies the existing Paragraph 4 of the Schedule. The words are borrowed from the Opticians Act, where they are used in relation to the General Optical Council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, leave out paragraph 4 and insert—
(". The procedures of the Council in the discharge of its functions shall be such as the Council may from time to time determine:
Provided that the Chairman shall not have the right to vote at a meeting of the Council except in the event of an equality of votes on any question when the Chairman shall have a single casting vote.
The powers of the Council and any of its committees may be exercised notwithstanding any vacancy, and no proceedings of the Council or of any of its committees shall be invalidated by any defect in the appointment of a member.")—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD SORENSEN: With permision, I beg to move Amendments 40 and 41 together. They are adaptations following hard on the Opticians Act and the provisions regarding the General Optical Council.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 31, leave out from ("registrar") to end of line 32.
Page 11, line 33, at end insert ("to d 3 anything which in the opinion of the Council is calculated to facilitate the proper discharge of its functions and shall in particular have power—
( ) to appoint in addition to the registrar such other officers and servants as the Council may determine;".—(Lord Sorensen.)
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

SEWERAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.34 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of Amendments be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 10 [Emptying of septic tanks]:
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie have both had to leave at this late hour, but they have asked me to move this Amendment on their behalf. With the permission of the House I will speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together. I spoke at some length on Second Reading and in Committee about this particular clause, and in reply the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that we want the local authorities to undertake the duty of giving a service for emptying septic tanks. We feel that with this Amendment we are imposing upon the local authorities a duty to do so. They must then pass a resolution saying why they do not intend to do so; rather than that it should be left to the local authorities to pass a resolution which would say that they will, in fact, empty then. It is really a matter of an affirmative or a negative resolution from the local authority. 7 think the Amendment needs no further explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line II, after ("elect") insert ("not").—(Lord Burton.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, at first glance it would seem that this was a very reasonable Amendment, and I must admit that I looked at it very much from the

307
point of view of being disposed to accept it, because it did not seem to me to make a great deal of difference at the end of the day whether the local authorities should contract in or contract out. But it does make a basic difference. At the present time, as the Bill is drafted the local authorities are given a discretion to empty septic tanks serving premises in their areas, with an option to put themselves under a duty to do so. The Amendments would make it a duty of the local authority to empty septic tanks with the option of renouncing that duty.
For that reason I cannot accept the Amendments; and, incidentally, they are defective in so far as they do not make any provision for a change of mind. If a local authority made a decision electing not to provide a service, it would be making that decision in perpetuity—which I think would be the last thing that the noble Lord would wish them to do.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord please explain why they would be doing so in perpetuity? Surely they can make such a resolution specifying a number of years.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the Amendment does not in fact permit the authorities to make an amendment. It does not say that they may make a decision for a period of time. It says that they may elect not to provide the service. If the Amendment had been that they may elect not to do so for the next two years, the noble Lord would have been right. It may be that if this provision had been going in I would have said that we accepted the Amendment in principle but would have to ask that it be withdrawn and brought back in a proper form. But I have to advise your Lordships not to accept the Amendment. Therefore it does not matter at this stage whether the Amendment is defective or not, unless the noble Lord is going to try to insist on carrying his Amendment into operation.
I looked at this point very sympathetically because, as I have freely admitted to the House already, we have a position where in the populous areas people are going to pay for a drainage service which they are going to get and in the less populous areas some people are going to pay for a drainage service that they are not going to get. This state of affairs
308
the noble Lord, Lord Burton, seeks to remedy by trying to create a position where those people who rely on septic tanks will get something for the money they pay. I have dealt already with the general principle from the point of view that rates are not payment for services rendered but are a form of local taxation. One of the unfortunate things about taxes is that neither the Government nor the local authorities ever guarantee that the return for the money paid is necessarily going to be value received.
Your Lordships know that this Bill will come into operation not immediately but when the Secretary of State declares the appointed day or appointed days; because it makes provision for different sections of the Act for different purposes of the Act, to be subject to different appointed days. The reason why it was decided that not all the provisions of the Act should be laid as duties on the local authorities is that we are doing two things. We are trying to bring about a long overdue reform and consolidation —because it is both—of the law on sewerage. We did not think we should be justified in deferring action on that any longer; but the fact remains that we are doing this and creating additional responsibilities which will fall on local authorities at a time when, because of the economic climate, the Government are asking local authorities to be careful about the way in which they spend money. The Secretary of State, accordingly, I think quite logically, said, "There must be a limit to the additional duties which I will place on local authorities at a given time". It may therefore be that the appointed day will not be fixed in relation to this service until the Secretary of State is satisfied that local authorities who will have this burden placed on them can properly carry out the service in relation to the general national position that exists.
My Lords, let us look at the position as the Bill is drafted. The local authority can do nothing until the appointed day is fixed. Once that is done the local authority can elect to provide the service. We must expect that the Secretary of State, when he fixes the appointed day, will have come to the conclusion that the time is ripe, at least in the greater part of the country, to bring the service into operation. But it may be

309
that although the time is ripe over the greater part of the country it may not be in every part. Under the Bill as it stands, if a local authority passes a resolution electing to undertake this service it becomes operative only if the Secretary of State approves. If he is satisfied that it is the proper thing to do at that time, he will approve the resolution, and there the matter will end. If he does not think so, he will not approve the resolution and the service cannot be undertaken at that time in that area.
If the Amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to say to an authority which elects not to provide the service, "I think that you are wrong to refuse to provide this service, and I am not prepared to agree to your resolution". This would have the effect of laying down that where the Secretary of State thought that the service should he provided he could require it to be done. But if it were the other way round, if the authority, by omitting to pass such a resolution, were to go ahead with the provision of a service which the Secretary of State thought ought not to take place at that time, he would be powerless in the matter. There would be nothing requiring his approval or otherwise.
It may be said that this would be quite reasonable and would be leaving the maximum amount of discretion in the hands of the local authority, and if I thought that that was the way in which it would work I do not think I would necessarily depart from it in these circumstances. But, my Lords, that is not the way in which it would work. What would happen would be that the Secretary of State, no matter who he was, would be obliged to delay the fixing of the appointed day until he was satisfied that there were few areas in the country where the service could not be provided. As a result, the Secretary of State might find his hands tied, in the sense that, although he was willing, by naming the appointed day, to have the service provided over the great part of the country, he would have to delay fixing the appointed day, perhaps for another six months, a year or two years, because he did not know what would happen in counties A, B and C. The net result of this might well be contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, wants, which
310
is to have the service provided as quickly as possible in the maximum number of areas. As I am at one with the noble Lord in wishing, from a health point of view, to see this service provided as rapidly as is reasonably possible all over the country, I urge him not to press this Amendment which inevitably, in these circumstances, must have the contrary effect to that which he intends.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to say a little about the idea which I put forward during the Committee stage discussions; that there might be a differential rateable value where a sewerage system was supplied by a local authority and where it was provided by a private individual or by some non-local authority organisation?
7.44 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I feel strongly about this matter, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, who I think is on the side of those who wish this to become a local authority service, was not able to persuade his right honourable friend tart this would be a good way to do it. In my county we have for some time had a county service to empty septic tanks. It costs little and is a valuable service. We pay a small amount, according to the number of tanks that are emptied. I hope that if the noble Lord does not feel it possible to make it compulsory for local authorities to provide this service (which I think is just as important as having a good drainage system or a water supply in urban areas), he will urge them to provide it. Otherwise we shall have the same old story: that people who live in urban areas may enjoy this facility—though of course they have to pay for it —but those living in rural areas, where we want people to stay in order to encourage development, will not get the service. I hope therefore that, if the noble Lord cannot accept the Amendment, he and the Secretary of Stare will urge local authorities to provide this service which I regard as being as important as the provision of a proper water supply or a drainage system.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has found a flaw in the Amendment, in that there is no provision for a period

311
of time, but I feel that this is a small matter in comparison with the principle involved, and something that could be put right. The noble Lord must be aware that local authorities are adverse to incurring more expenditure than they need to, and that they have to account to the ratepayers. I am disappointed that he failed to persuade his colleagues that this was a good Amendment, and I am disappointed at the reason which he has given for turning it down.
It appears that the noble Lord's colleagues have no confidence in the local authorities. He has suggested that there might be delay in fixing the appointed day because one or two local authorities might not he ready to accept this. I do not think this a good reason for refusing to accept the Amendment. To say that St. Andrew's House is wiser than the local authorities in relation to their own affairs is to make a rather dangerous statement.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I may speak again only with the permission of the House, but if the House wishes me to reply to the questions which have been asked, I shall be happy to do so. First, in reply to the point raised by the noble Duke about the question which he asked at the previous stage, my Department has made inquiries and I am afraid that I have nothing very heartening to report. As we had supposed, the assessors are essentially concerned with fixing an annual value on which property may reasonably be expected to let. In arriving at their valuations the only sewerage factor they take into consideration is whether a service or apparatus is provided, not whether it has been provided as a public service.
The Secretary of State has no power to instruct the assessors in the carrying out of their duties under the Valuation Acts, and any change here would require legislation. But I think that, so long as there is a system of raising local revenues by reference to the letting value of property, it is only logical that the assessor should fix his valuation in the light of the factors that affect the letting value, taking no account of whether these factors are the result of public or private enterprise. I accept that there is room for more than one point of view about whether local authorities should empty septic tanks, but I doubt whether it would be feasible to
312
amend the rating law to deal with any shortcomings which might be thought to exist in relation to sewerage.
My Lords, I must make quite clear that I have not been trying to persuade my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to do something he has failed to do. What I have done is to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State. It is not a case of my having one point of view and the Secretary of State having another, and of his view prevailing because he is the Secretary of State. We had a full discussion of the pros and cons, and we started off from the point of view which I always try to take on Amendments, particularly when they are not matters of Party controversy, to find the best way of doing a thing, of accepting the Amendment as right and then examining its possibilities. But after full consideration, both the Secretary of State and I were of the opinion that the better way to deal with this point is the way provided for in the Bill. I would not like noble Lords to think that I am on the side of the angels, and that there is a big bad wolf over in Dover House who has stopped this. If the angels are sitting on the Benches opposite, then I am afraid that there are two big bad wolves in St. Andrew's House —and I am the second one.
I have made it clear that I sympathise with what the noble Lord suggests, and so does my right honourable friend. It is a question of priorities. Personally, I have a vested interest in what the noble Lord is seeking to do. Up to a few years ago my permanent home in Dundee was served by a septic tank, but it is now connected with the main drainage system and that is perfectly satisfactory. But I have a temporary home in Angus, which does not have a main drainage system and it would suit me down to the ground if what the noble Lord is asking came into operation. But the last thing on earth which I can possibly allow to influence my judgment is that I might get my septic tank in Angus emptied if I agreed to what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, wishes. It must in fact persuade me to lean over backwards in the other direction, to make certain that no one can say that I have acted in this matter out of personal interest.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is a minor drafting Amendment. Subsection (2) of Clause 18 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations, under which a local authority would compensate any of their officers or servants who suffer loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, because of the dissolution of a special drainage district. Line 12 of page 11 refers to the payment of compensation "to" such officers or servants, but I am advised that this is too restrictive, because it might not cover a payment to the legal representatives or dependants of an officer who has died before the payment was made. The insertion of the words "or in respect of" removes the doubt. The revised wording is precedented in similar legislation elsewhere. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pase 11, line 12, after ("to") insert ("or in respect of").—(Lord Hughes.)

WATER RESOURCES BILL
House in Committee: clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

SALE OF VENISON (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL
7.55 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I think that perhaps I should briefly explain the background to it. The Deer Act 1959 charged the Red Deer Commission with the control and conservation of red deer in Scotland. It gave them powers to obtain the number shot from the various estates and from other people entitled to shoot deer under the Act. The impracticability of obtaining these figures from the smaller estates, more especially from the crofters and farmers who have the right to shoot marauding deer on enclosed land, has meant that the Red Deer Commission have not been able to obtain satisfactory figures of the number of deer shot each year and the sexes and ages of the deer shot.
314
It is therefore proposed by this; Bill that venison dealers should be registered, that they should keep a book recording these facts and that the Red Deer Commission or the Secretary of State, or someone authorised by either of these, should be entitled to inspect these books. This will enable the Commission to obtain much more accurate figures about the number of deer being shot and the sexes of the deer. Perhaps I should point out that the Bill applies to all deer and not only to red deer, so it will have useful scientific purposes when the roe deer and fallow deer come to be counted and some form of control is applied to them.
Clause 1 of the Bill requires dealers in venison to register with the local authorities. Once a year the local authorities have to return to the Red Deer Commission a list of dealers in their areas. Under Clause 1(1)(b) people will only be allowed to sell venison, or to offer or expose venison for sale, only if they are registered dealers, except in the case of people who have legally shot or killed deer in some other way. Clause 2 requires registered dealers to keep a book, in which they record the various details laid down by the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 are respectively the interpretation clause and Short Title.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I rise to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, on the pleasant: and commendably brief way in which he has introduced this Bill and to say that the Government are happy to leave the progress of the Bill to the wishes of the House. The Bill has been based on the recommendations made by the Red Deer Commission in their Report for l967 and, as the noble Duke has explained, its purpose is to enable the Commission to obtain more easily information about the numbers of deer which are killed annually in Scotland.
I do not think it would be right if I were to let this occasion pass without paying tribute to the excellent work that is being carried out by the Red Deer Commission. The Government ar3 very appreciative of the work they have done, during their nine years of existence, in

315
conserving and controlling deer, and they hope that if this Bill is passed it will assist the Commission in their task.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said about the Red Deer Commission and to thank him for the benevolent neutrality which the Government are showing towards this Bill. I should also like to point out that this Bill has been agreed not only by all the bodies represented on the Red Deer Commission but also by the venison
316
dealers and the local authority associations.
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.