Sitting of 27 November 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ADVOCATES' WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Advocates' Widows' and Orphans' Fund (to be proceeded with under section 7 of the Act), presented by Mr. William Ross (under section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next; and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AVIATION

    Combat Aircraft
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Technology what plans he has for initiating a new British combat aircraft.
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Technology what discussions he has held with German Ministers on a replacement for the F104.
    Mr. Corfieldasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the present position of negotiations for the development of an advanced combat aircraft in co-operation with certain other European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): As a result of further discussions with the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and the Netherlands on the possibility of collaborating in the development of a multi-role comlaat aircraft, a feasibility study is now being carried out by industry.
    Mr. Hastings: Can the Minister assure the House that there is now a definitive aircraft, or are we still discussing which of several different concepts to adopt? Can he also assure us that there will be no question on this occasion, given our experience in this field, of giving design leadership to another country?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The project is not at the definitive stage yet. We are still trying to match requirements. I very much hope that the design leadership will rest in British hands.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister giving a holding contract to B.A.C. Wharton to continue with its independent work, pending an agreement with the Germans? How long can this situation be allowed to continue?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I hope not for very much longer.
    Mr. Corfield: Returning to the question of design leadership, will the Minister impress on the Foreign Ministers concerned that as we are the only country with an aircraft industry capable of design leadership it is in their interests as well as ours that our design leadership should be accepted?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that has been done.

    Airbus
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on progress with the A300 Airbus.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement about the A300 airbus.
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a statement about the European airbus project.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made in the development of the 300 Airbus.
    The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Reports have just been received from the airframe and engine contractors on the further study work carried out at the request of Ministers since July. Revised cost estimates have also recently been

    471
    submitted. Negotiations with airlines are also in hand. Ministers from the three countries will meet again as soon as the new reports have been fully evaluated and airlines have expressed their views.
    Mr. Hastings: Is it true, nevertheless, that the French are beginning to have second thoughts about a 240-seater, as opposed to a 300-seater? Does not he think that if that is true it is too late and unreasonable at this stage, after all the work on research that has been carried out, that we should think about changing from a 300-seater if we want to meet the time scale required?
    Mr. Benn: There is an awful lot of talk going on all the time in the aircraft business. The one thing that emerged very clearly from the meeting we had in Paris in August was that we were agreed that the concept of the A300 was absolutely right. We are doing the extra work to see if we can produce it in such a way as to meet the demand at a price t hat airlines are prepared to pay.
    Mr. Fortescue: In view of the very differing financial policies now being followed by the three sponsoring Governments and the noticeable lack of enthusiasm for the A300, by two of the nationalised airlines involved, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that his mind is not closed to giving Government backing to the BAC311 project, which is now very much in existence, as he knows.
    Mr. Benn: As I have just said, everybody is always thinking about all sorts of alternatives all the time. If we are serious about international collaboration, a project of this kind, on which a great deal of work has been done and which meets a pretty clear need, should be pressed forward, and we shall have a Ministerial meeting shortly to have a look at the latest figures provided.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the current estimate of airframe R and D is about £180 million? Will he say categorically that the aircraft, if it flies, will have British engines, and that he sticks to the assurance of the former Minister of State that it will be built?
    Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend the former Minister of State, in talking about this matter, always said that he should
    472
    have to look at it stage by stage, but he expressed confidence that the airbus would go ahead, which is a very different thing. The final figures have not yet come to me. That is why we gave extra time to the companies. But we shall evaluate them soon. The RB207 is available for this aircraft.
    Mr. Rankin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that accidents with aircraft of this capacity would not be tolerable, and since accidents often arise from incidents in flight, will he now make the notification of all incidents by present captains compulsory, so that we may find out what guide technology can give us in preventing possible trouble with these aircraft in the future?
    Mr. Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend that accidents with bigger aircraft, just like accidents with bigger tankers, pose much more serious problems for the community. He may be assured that as we move on to these more sophisticated aircraft the degree of testing work done and the safety standards to be met are infinitely greater than we have accepted for earlier aircraft.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is a requirement for this size of aircraft not only in Europe but in other parts of the world, particularly North America and the continent of Australia, and that if we do not build it one of the American manufacturers will fill the gap?
    Mr. Benn: I confirm that immediately. The aircraft will be wanted not only in Europe but elsewhere. Indeed, although we are concerned probably with the initial market before the final go ahead is given, we do not intend to be satisfied with anything but a share in the world market.
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the Minister of Technology if he is aware that the French Dassault Company is proposing to build a 200–250-seater airliner; and what consideration is being given to this proposal in the negotiations with the French and German Government on the A300 airbus.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: No, Sir. The large civil aircraft project by Dassault of which I am aware is the 130–140-seater Mercure.
    Mr. Howarth: I apologise for over-stating the estimated size of this aircraft. Does not my hon. Friend agree that such a project—which appears to be a replacement for the Caravelle—represents some threat to the proposals for building an airbus?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I would not have thought so. It might be a competitor for the 311. if that were developed, but I would not have thought that it would compete with the airbus.
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the Minister of Technology if he will state the latent estimated launching costs of the A300 airbus; what proportion of this will be borne by Great Britain; and to what extent the share of work will reflect this contribution.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The sum required by the constructors to launch the project is still under negotiation but their combined airframe and engine estimate is close to the figure of £285 million given to the House on 24th June, 1968. The United Kingdom share is expected to be rather less than one half of the total costs. Oar work share will be broadly commensurate.—[Vol. 767, c. 1–4.]
    Mr. Howarth: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the British aerospace companies will receive a reasonable share of this work? I am thinking in particular of the avionics side. Will these companies be able to compete fairly with their French opposite numbers, and receive value for money if the process goes ahead?
    Mr. Mallalieu: Our total share will certainly be a fair one. On the question of the avionics side of the work, I very much hope that that situation will apply, too.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to our partners in this project that if the aircraft is not fittted with British engines Britain will have a right to expect a greater share of the airframe work?
    Mr. Mallalieu: In these negotiations we shall look after our own interests as best we can.

    Short Brothers and Harland
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Technology (1) what progress
    474
    he has made with the financial reorganisation of Short Brothers and Harland; and if he will make a statement.
    (2) what offer he has received from the Rohr Corporation in the United States of America for the purchase of the equity of Short Brothers and Harland; and what stage the negotiations have reached.
    Mr. Benn: My officials met the Rohr Corporation for further exploratory talks on 18th October. I do not yet know when they will be ready to enter into firm negotiations. No firm proposal has yet been received from them. Meanwhile the Government have decided to defer action on the financial proposals put forward by the company's Board.
    Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great strain placed upon the board and management by the delay in the financial reconstruction? Is he also aware of the concern felt by the employees of Short Brothers and Harland, particularly as to the future of the design unit? Will he expedite a decision on these matters?
    Mr. Benn: I am very well aware of those things. Although negotiations of this kind may well take some time, I should not want to see them delayed or prolonged longer than was necessary.

    Military Aircraft (Development Projects)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Technology what military aircraft development projects are currently being sponsored by his Department.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Buccaneer S Mark 2, Harrier, Nimrod, Jaguar (in collaboration with France) and the Speyengined Phantom. In addition the possibility of developing a multi-rôle combat aircraft in collaboration with the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and the Netherlands is being examined. In the helicopter field we are developing the Sea King, the SA340 and the WG13, the last two in collaboration with France.
    Mr. Onslow: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that of that list the M.R.C.A. is the most important for the long-term future of the industry? Will he give an assurance that if it proves impossible

    475
    to draw up some multi-national collaboration on this we are prepared to consider going on with it alone?
    Mr. Mallalieu: We shall certainly have to consider the possibilities if we cannot get international collaboration, but I hope we can.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman remember that when we have an international collaborative aircraft the engine is almost inevitably provided by Rolls-Royce, and this means that the rest of the aircraft—the avionics and the airframe—has to be provided by overseas designers and suppliers, and that this is not a basis on which to maintain a healthy aircraft industry in this country?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are watching that all the time. We hope that we can get rather more avionics than we have been doing.

    Sonic Boom (Survey)
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Minister of Technology what tests he is carrying out to determine the effect of sonic boom on ancient buildings.
    Mr. Bean: My Department, as I informed the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 19th November, has been conducting an investigation into the effects of sonic bangs on cathedrals. It is planned to extend this survey to include other buildings.—[Vol. 773, c. 266.]
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the existence of this decision mean that the Government seriously intend to allow aircraft to fly at supersonic speeds across Britain? If so, has the right hon. Gentleman any idea how many flights will take place daily and how many people will be affected? If it is right to test buildings to see how they stand up to strain, what about testing people? What about having a test to see how right hon. and hon. Members stand up to it? Even better, what about a test to see how the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues stand up to it?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementary Questions make sonic booms.
    Mr. Benn: Whether we make supersonic airliners or not, someone will do so and some British Government will have to decide whether to allow them to fly over land. To help with that difficult
    476
    decision some tests are necessary involving buildings, and of course they must be public tests. This is why I held some early tests last year of a preliminary character.
    Mr. Onslow: Will not the tests be more useful when we know what sort of boom the Concorde will make?
    Mr. Benn: The Church authorities have shown great enthusiasm for the tests because the tests are telling them something about the safety of the cathedrals with or without supersonic aircraft.

    Vertical Take-Off Aircraft
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Technology what action he is taking to encourage the development of a vertical take-off and landing or short takeoff and landing airliner; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Corfieldasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement outlining his Department's proposals for the further development of techniques of vertical/short take-off and landing in the field of civil aviation.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made with the short take-off and landing aircraft.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The study which my predecessor referred to in answer to the question of 18th March last [Vol. 761, c. 3.] by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) is still continuing.
    Mr. Fortescue: I must thank the hon. Gentleman for that very informative Answer. Is he aware that the French, with the Breguet 941, and the Americans are well ahead of us on vertical takeoff techniques, although they were pioneered in this country many years ago? Is he further aware that, since vertical take-off aircraft could control the whole policy of this overcrowded island on new airports, the development of such an aeroplane in this country is of the utmost urgency?
    Mr. Mallalieu: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is for that reason that the study is very wide-ranging and detailed. I would not accept for a

    477
    moment the first part of his Question, that the. French are ahead of us in this technique now.
    Mr. Corfield: Will the hon. Gentleman regard this as a matter of real urgency? Quite apart from the other considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend, it is clear that the possible ramifications of this type of development on the design and operation of airports can be considerable and could be relevant to the present inquiry.
    Mr. Mallalien: Yes, I accept that e ntirely.
    Mr. Rankin: Could the short takeoff and landing technique be applied to the airbus, or is my hon. Friend satisfied that existing runways are sufficiently long to handle it?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I do not think that it could be applied to the airbus. That is not in the design. But, on my hon. Friend's second point, I am satisfied that existing runways are adequate.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very interesting project that Westlands have in hand for vertical take-off and landing civil airliners? Is there a prospect of giving additional support to this work? Would he comment on the urging from the benches opposite for further money to be spent, in view of their Leader's charge on Monday that the Government are spending too much?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I will leave that last point to the Leader of the Opposition. I am aware of the work being done by Westlands, and my Department is participating with Westlands and H.S.A. in a design study. We hope to have a drift specification by the end of the year.

    Concorde Project
    Mr. Ellisasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress of the Concorde project.
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress of the Concorde project.
    Mr. Benn: Manufacture of the two prototype aircraft is now complete, and first flight is expected early in the new
    478
    year. Manufacture of the two preproduction aircraft and of the static test specimen is well advanced, and work has started on the fatigue test specimen and on the first three production aircraft.
    Mr. Ellis: Has my right hon. Friend seen in the Press speculation about cuts from the French side due to their financial difficulties? Could he say what effect this will have on the programme and also what representations he has had from the French Government? Does he also, as many Members do, deplore the kind of speculation that this project is in danger, when we all know that it is not true?
    Mr. Benn: It is true that one difficulty that faces me is the speculation, which tends to be extreme in character. We have had some examples this morning as a result of the statement made yesterday in France about their economy measures. We were not consulted, nor would I expect to be consulted, about them. To the best of my knowledge, it does not affect the progress of the project during 1969, and I have no reason to believe that it will have any bearing on the future of Concorde.
    Mr. Wall: Will the Minister confirm that there will be no comparable financial cuts on the British side, and can he also state categorically that it is the intention of both Governments to carry the project through to its conclusion?
    Mr. Benn: Through to its conclusion means that flight testing will take place, as planned, next year. But Concorde will decide its own future. Let us be quite clear. If it succeeds and people buy it, it will be a success. If it does not succeed and people do not buy it, it will be a failure. If people could realise this and not think that it was the machinations of the Governments concerned that was the cause of the trouble, some of the speculation would not occur.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not extraordinary when my right hon. Friend says that he does not expect to be consulted?
    Mr. Benn: I certainly would not have consulted the French Government about measures taken as part of our own economy discussions at different stages involving central economic policy in either country. Of course not. If there

    479
    were to be a change by either Government that affected the progress of the project, that would be different. But I understand that this is rephasing of payments by the French Government, and I would not expect to be consulted about it.
    Mr. Michael Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that, whilst we welcome the Concorde project and wish it well, Salisbury for seven hundred years has strained every muscle to keep the spire up and it is not anxious now to see sonic booms knock it down?
    Mr. Benn: I do not want to knock down old cathedrals, in case anyone believes that I do. This is why we have had these recent tests, which have been welcomed by the Deans and Chapters who found that Concorde gave them the opportunity to see whether they are safe anyway.
    Mr. Brooks: Will the Minister make a distinction between measures which the French Government properly took to defend their own economy and measures which are bound to have a bearing on our economy and upon which there is a mutual sharing arrangement between France and Britain? In these circumstances, is he entirely satisfied that this is purely rephasing of the expenditure for 1969?
    Mr. Bean: My Department is in close touch with our opposite numbers in France, as we expect, about a project of this kind. The project has been affected by decisions taken unilaterally, including our own decision to devalue last year, which affected the calculations of the cost share on each side. I am satisfied that the measures announced yesterday will not affect the progress of the project next year. I cannot go further than that.
    Mr. Marten: Can the Minister, nevertheless, give a categorical assurance that there will not be any similar cuts by Britain?
    Mr. Benn: I will be perfectly candid. I have always looked at this programme from the point of view that I am responsible, first, to see that it should succeed and, secondly, to see whether there were economies to be made at any point, be-
    480
    cause I am also responsible for public money. If it were possible, as a result of the programme, to make an economy, perhaps by improved management, I should think it right to do so. I would not be doing my job if I did not have regard to the money that I am spending at a very high rate on Concorde.
    Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend, who is a Bristol Member, give an assurance to his fellow Bristol Members that no financial difficulties will be allowed to stand in the way of the completion of Concorde?
    Mr. Benn: No, I will not give that assurance. I never have given the assurance that no financial difficulties will stand in the way. If, as a result of major redesign difficulties, we found that the cost of Concorde had risen to the point where it had no prospect of being a commercial success, both Governments would look at it. I have never given unqualified assurances about Concorde. I have done this, I think, quite rightly, although I am a Bristol Member. I live with Concorde during the week and at weekends. I do not think that anybody else in the House does.

  TECHNOLOGY

    Computers (Information Storage and Retrieval)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Technology what steps he has taken in his support for the British computer industry to co-ordinate the work of librarians and those concerned with the collection, dissemination, storage and retrieval of scientific and technological information with those who design and construct computers.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): The Department is in touch with the computer manufacturers and, in close co-operation with O.S.T.I., with many other interests inside and outside Government, who are concerned with information storage and retrieval.
    Mr. Osborn: Cannot Great Britain take a lead in this new data storage revolution ranging from the House of Commons experiment to the computerisation of the Statute Book, and is it not the case that

    481
    the computers for this purpose need not necessarily be number crushers but may to disc storage machines? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that initiative is taken to bring together the brains that are working on these things? As he is responsible in this respect, will he take the initiative?
    Dr. Bray: Yes, Sir. We are in fairly constant discussion with potential users and also publishing firms as well as computer firms, which are having very active discussions with each other and ourselves.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this matter is very closely related to the general pressure that is building up for an effective national scientific reference library in which the British computer industry has a very large part to play? Are we any nearer now towards resolving the dichotomy between the Department of Education and Science on the one hand and the hon. Gentleman's Department on the other?
    Dr. Bray: Both Departments have an interest in this field. Obviously, in working together we have to keep in close touch with each other. We are well aware of the work of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee in this matter, and are in touch with hon. Members about it

    Motor Car Industry (Sales)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the effect on motor car sales, respectively in export and home markets, of the hire-purchase restrictions announced on 1st November, 1968.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): The estimated effect of this measure is that home market demand in the next twelve months will be reduced by about 5 per cent. below the level which would otherwise have been achieved. The measure does not affect exports directly, but indirectly I believe exports will benefit from this reduced home demand on manufacturers.
    Sir G. Nabarro: As the Question was tabled before the Chancellor's package last Friday, has the Parliamentary Secretary taken into account that the 5 per
    482
    cent. diminution of home sales arising from severer hire purchase restrictions is now made worse by the increase in Purchase Tax, and what evidence is there that by making motor cars dearer on the home market we shall sell more motor cars in overseas markets? Stop whispering; let the hon. Gentleman answer the question!
    Mr. Fowler: Despite the measures of last Friday, which I would expect to reduce home demand by up to a further 3 per cent. next year, my expectation is still that home demand next year will be at least at the level of home demand this year.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the statement supposed to have been made by some of the executives of Vauxhall Motors Limited that the Purchase Tax changes caused the abolition of the night shift at the Luton factory?
    Mr. Fowler: I am not in a position to answer for the executives of Vauxhall Motors Limited, but it seems to me highly unlikely that this could be the explanation for the abolition of night shift working at this stage.
    Mr. David Price: Will the hon. Gentleman say what steps the Government are taking to consider alternative economic regulators on the demand side of the supply and demand equation that do not hit the motor industry, which is a mass production industry, and also investment in it quite as severely as do the economic regulators in respect of hire purchase, Purchase Tax and the like?
    Mr. Fowler: We are always willing to consider any alternative scheme that may be suggested, but, in essence, this is a matter for the Chancellor, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should address his question to him.

    European Launcher Development Organisation
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister or Technology if he will make a statement on British participation in the European Launcher Development Organisation.
    Mr. Benn: As I told the House on 23rd April, the Government have decided not to undertake additional financial commitments to E.L.D.O. At the European

    483
    Space Conference in Bonn on 12th-14th November, I indicated that if the United Kingdom were released from its present financial commitments to E.L.D.O., this would enable us to participate in applications satellites, and other developments.—[Vol. 763, c. 40–7.]
    Mr. Marten: As France and Germany seem likely to go on to build a European launcher, will Blue Streak nevertheless be available to them? Also, what does the new policy mean as regards a possible increase in the cost of our space effort, and does the Minister propose to authorise a U.K. 4 satellite?
    Mr. Benn: Yes, Sir; Blue Streak will be available. Yes, if the switch is possible, it would mean an increase in our commitment to European space expenditure. On the applications side, which we think will be profitable, the opportunity provided by the Bonn conference of explaining our desire to go out for these space projects which will be profitable was very valuable. I should like further notice before answering the last part of the question.
    Mr. Dalyell: What does this mean in terms of our relations with E.S.R.O.?
    Mr. Benn: At the conference—I shall be reporting about this on another Question—we came forward with another increase for E.S.R.O. over a period of three years at 6 per cent. a year in the perspective of a further period at the same amount. We believe that the role of E.S.R.O. in respect of applications work will develop, and we look forward to a new uniform European space organisation.
    Mr. David Price: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is far too big a subject for exchanges by way of Parliamentary Question. Will he present to us a full White Paper or Blue Book giving the Government's proposals, giving the alternatives and, above all, giving all the comparative figures in relation especially to his argument, with which I have a lot of sympathy, for our concentrating on telecommunications satellites and not going for launchers? Will he recognise that in the absence of official figures it is difficult for hon. Members on either side of the House to take an intelligent view?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be brief.
    Mr. Benn: I should greatly like a debate and agree that the value of one would be much improved if we had figures available. I will consult the hon. Gentleman about the kind of figures that he would like. I cannot undertake to bind them in a Blue Book, but I will give an undertaking to make them available in the Library.
    Mr. Moormanasked the Minister of Technology what action he proposes to take following recent representations made by six Western European countries to Great Britain to reconsider her decision to leave the European Launcher Development Organisation in 1971; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The Government decision on the European Launcher Development Organisation announced in the House on 23rd April, 1968, was based on economic consideration. No new factors have been revealed in recent discussions which would justify a reconsideration of that decision.—[Vol. 763, c. 40–7.]
    Mr. Moonman: Bearing in mind the increasing number of European projects in science and technology, does not my hon. Friend agree that the time is ripe for a White Paper setting out clearly where our scientific and technological collaboration with Europe begins and ends?
    Mr. Mallalieu: My hon. Friend will have heard the answer given by my right hon. Friend a few moments ago on that issue.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Does the Minister realise that it is calculated that on long-range communications no less than £8,000 million will be spent in Western Europe during the next 10 years, and that the E.L.D.O. project could make a useful contribution to the space communication satellite, and that it is desperately important that Britain should retain an interest and capability in this sphere?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I am well aware of the enormous possibilities of work in space. Where a dispute would arise is on the part that the European launcher would play in this. It could be a serious handicap because of its enormous expense.

    Nuclear Reactor Industry
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Technology when he proposes to introduce legislation for the reorganisation of the nuclear reactor industry.
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Technology when he will be introducing legislation to establish a new publicly-owned company to take over the Atomic Energy Authority's responsibilities for nuclear fuel.
    Mr. Benn: I cannot anticipate when legislation will be introduced, but, as the hon. Members are aware, some aspects of the reorganisation which do not require legislation are already going ahead.
    Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is disappointment among members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, who worked hard on this question, at the great delay in reorganising the nuclear reactor industry? Does not he recall that he himself told the Committee well over 12 months ago that the need for the reorganisation was urgent and that it should be carried through as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Benn: I appreciate that, but we have one design construction company going. The negotiations on the second one have fallen through. The work, involving the Atomic Energy Authority and including legislation, has proved a very big job indeed. I assure my hon. Friend that we have not been slow in tack ling this very complex problem, on which we most certainly received help from his Committee.
    Mr. Price: I understand many of the right hon. Gentleman's problems, but why cannot progress be made with getting ahead with the publicly-owned nuclear fuel company? Does not he agree that continued delay is bad for the morale of the staff both of the A.E.A. and of the private nuclear engineering firms involved?
    Mr. Benn: I appreciate that point, but if we are to have proper legislation it means dealing with the Authority's future, with the Atomic Energy Board and with a number of other things, and all this cannot be rushed. In the industry itself there is now a greater degree
    486
    of certainty about the future than there was before we were able to announce our dicsion.
    Mr. Gregory: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the difficulties we are experiencing in the regrouping and reorganisation of the boiler-making side of the industry, and also in the civil engineering, we should try to speed up the process in order to give a chance to this very important industry? The more delay there is the more difficult the problems become.
    Mr. Benn: The delay on that side is not being caused by me but by the difficulty in getting the industrial mergers set up. I asked the I.R.C. to undertake this some time ago and I am not directly engaged in the negotiations.
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress being made with the reorganisation of the nuclear reactor industry.
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made with the further reorganisation of the nuclear engineering industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Benn: The formation of the first of the two design and construction companies envisaged in my statement of 17th July was announced on 16th September. Negotiations for the formation of the second company are continuing, after the setback which recently became public.—[Vol. 768, c. 1428–38.]
    Mr. Lubbock: A few minutes ago the Minister said that he was not directly involved in the negotiations about the formation of a boiler company among three of the existing firms, because he had asked the I.R.C. to do it on his behalf. Has the I.R.C. reported back since the breakdown of negotiations, and what steps are being taken to have them restarted?
    Mr. Benn: We left it to the I.R.C., because this is a matter where business skill and flexibility is of the greatest importance. We are in continual contact with the I.R.C., but we do not have formal negotiations or discussions with it. I know that it was disappointed at

    487
    the setback and it is continuing its work to find a solution.
    Mr. Gregory: Is the Minister aware that the long delay in completing reorganisation is causing great anxiety to workers and management in the nuclear engineering industry in my constituency? The question that must be put is: what will be the future of those firms at present within the nuclear engineering industry which may be left out on the fringe of a second consortium structure?
    Mr. Benn: The truth is that if we try to reorganise anything it is bound to affect those concerned in the work which was done before, and uncertainty is inseparable from this process. If my hon. Friend has any particular points in mind which he would like to bring to me I will see what I can do to ease unnecessary uncertainty.

    Culham Laboratory Experiments (Superheated Plasma)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the recent successful experiments conducted at the Culham Laboratory of the Atomic Energy Authority in the containment of superheated plasma in a magnetic field.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Recent experiments reported in the Press demonstrated that the ideally-expected slow rate of escape of hot plasma across the confining magnetic field can be achieved under these particular experimental conditions. This is encouraging to the scientists whose work is directed ultimately to the development of a fusion reactor.
    Mr. Palmer: Would not my hon. Friend agree that nuclear fusion is still of the greatest importance to the development of nuclear reactor technology in this country?
    Mr. Mallalieu: Certainly I agree that it is of immense importance, and a great deal of important work has been done on it.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the very much longer time scale on which most of the work at Culham operates compared with the rest of the work in the A.E.A., will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility that the S.R.C. might be
    488
    the better auspice under which to put the Culham Laboratory?
    Mr. Mallalieu: These things are being considered and I will look at that suggestion.

    British Industry (Inventions)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Technology what steps he has taken to publicise to British industry inventions communicated to the National Research and Development Corporation, but which are not taken up as a project by the Corporation.
    Dr. Bray: The National Research Development Corporation is responsible for publicising to British industry all inventions communicated to them by Government Departments. They write to firms, circulate data sheets, and publish a booklet "Inventions for Industry" every six months. In view of the large number and variable quality of inventions submitted from outside Government the approach to firms is adapted to each case.
    Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the information gets through to industry? How is it that so many useful British inventions get adopted in the United Staes and we then have to pay for them on their arrival back here?
    Dr. Bray: I would be happy to look at any case which has been put to the N.R.D.C. which has failed to be adopted in this country and which has been adopted in the United States. Of course, the N.R.D.C. seeks licencees in the United States as well.

    Fast Breeder Reactors
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about progress on fast breeder reactors.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The Atomic Energy Authority's Dounreay Fast Reactor, which commenced operation in 1959, has provided information and operating experience needed to design a prototype reactor for full scale power production. This 250 MW(E) prototype reactor is now being built, and it could be the basis for designs of commercial fast reactors to be introduced by the mid to late 1970s.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have some difficulty in comprehending the meaning of that answer? Is

    489
    he telling us that there was another gross miscalculation in the White Paper on Fuel and Power?
    Mr. MallalieuI am sorry that my hon. Friend has difficulty in understanding the Answer and that he draws that sort of inference from it. There has been no miscalculation that I know of.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will this development put more coal miners out of work? Since tens of thousands of miners are going home with less than £14 a week wages, will the hon. Gentleman see that their interests are safeguarded in this development?
    Mr. Mallalieu: This is a development for the mid-1970s. The future of the coal miners will be safeguarded.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is any work being done by the A.E.A. on gas-cooled fast reactors? Has the hon. Gentleman had discussions with European countries, such as Sweden, which are interested in this kind of project?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I had better have notice of that question. I know that some research is being done but I have not the details.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will my hon. Friend confirm that before the mid-1970s power will be available to Scottish industry from the prototype fast reactor?
    Mr. Mallalieu: Yes, certainly.

    Research Establishments (Scientific and Engineering Personnel)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated number of personnel with scientific or engineering university degrees or degree equivalents etr ployed in research establishments of the Ministry of Technology.
    Mr. Benn: Approximately 2,850.
    Mr. Biffen: What is the Minister doing substantially to reduce this very large number? Will he initiate a policy of sub-contracting to private industry much of this research so that it may be pursued in a much more commercial atmosphere?
    Mr. Benn: We are encouraging more research in industry. On the defence side we have been able to get a reduction. On the civil side, the position is being
    490
    held. As our industrial policy develops and bigger corporations come into being, I want to see as much research as possible done in industry for the reason mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Dobson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a lot of useful and decisive work is being undertaken in the research establishments of his Ministry, much of it of great use to industry, and that this reduces the prices of the ultimate products?
    Mr. Berm: There is no doubt that the value of the research done in Government establishments, not least the A.E.A., has been of enormous importance to the nation. But I think that everyone who has thought about this matter has realised that the transfer problem, of getting the work directed towards commercial ends and the product of that being applied commercially, is easier if one can clear one's links with industry.

    Foreign-Based Companies
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Technology if he will take steps to ensure that international companies operating in Great Britain do not exclude, as a consequence of rationalisation, products made at their factories in this country from vital world markets which are then assigned to their foreign-based plants.
    Mr. Benn: I am well aware of the problem here. I shall seek assurances where appropriate and watch the situation carefully.
    Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware of reports that the Ford Motor Company is planning to transfer the export market in North America for cars to Ford of Germany? Would this not have a very detrimental effect on our exports if it were carried out, and will he ensure that the interests of achieving a healthy balance of payments are put before the individual private interests of any such organisation?
    Mr. Benn: This really encroaches upon the next Question that my hon. Friend has on the Order Paper, but I am happy to answer them together. The relationship between national interests and the rationalisation policies pursued by international companies is a very interesting one to which a great

    491
    deal more thought has to be given. International companies own about 10 per cent. of our industry and do about 20 per cent. of our exports. Ford has had an £850 million net balance in exports in the last few years, and £200 million this year. We have done quite well out of the exports of these big international companies.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman resist any narrow and introverted blandishments from the benches behind him and recognise that West Germany is Britain's second largest export market after the United States of America and that we do not want to take action which is likely to diminish that important export trade?
    Mr. Benn: Certainly I will note that, and I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that he would never be guilty of a narrow introverted blandishment.
    Mr. Moonman: Putting on one side narrow extroverted or introverted blandishments, would my right hon. Friend say how many other companies since 1960 have been asked to honour their assurances? If this information is not available, will he make it available?
    Mr. Benn: I will look at that. I was involved in two other cases. One was Chrysler and Rootes, and the other was Philips and Pye. I will see what others there were, if any.
    Mr. David Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the logic of modern technological development is for the emergence of cross-frontier companies, whether American or British in origin? Will he ask his right hon. Friends, when making arrangements for immediate economic difficulties, to bear that fact more in mind than has been done in the case of the special deposits on imports?
    Mr. Benn: I am aware of this. But the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as the international companies develop, national Governments, including our own, will be reduced to the status of parish councils in dealing with the large corporations which will span the world. That is a real problem to which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will need to give careful attention.

    Ford Motor Company
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied that the Ford Motor Company is continuing to honour the assurances given to Her Majesty's Government in 1960 in connection with the acquisition of the British-owned shareholding by the parent United States organisation in that year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Benn: I have really answered this in replying to my hon. Friend's supplementary to his previous Question. At my request the company have provided information which satisfies me that they are honouring the assurances given in 1960 which are still applicable.
    Mr. Newens: Is it not a fact that the increased manufacture of components overseas which could be produced in this country inevitably will add to our import bill?
    Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend raises a very real point. One can either look at individual examples or at the overall effect on the balance of payments. I think that we have to look at both. It is a fact that, as this company and others develop, they will be thinking of Europe in a much freer way than any national company looking simply at its manufacturing capacity in the United Kingdom. That is the nature of the problem which I tried to describe just now.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the statement by a Ford executive yesterday that Ford Motors has lost £25 million in exports this year through industrial unrest? Is he aware that this is a two-way bargain and that, if we want all the benefits, we must get our own house in order?
    Mr. Benn: That is why my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has been engaged in these discussions. We are living in an increasingly open world, where investment decisions will be taken according to a variety of factors and where the brain drain will draw away people who wish to be employed elsewhere at higher salaries. That is the nature of the change, and it is a very important one.
    Mr. Heller: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very strong rumours that the

    493
    Ford Motor Company is dividing its export programme in the sense that North Atlantic exports, in particular of the Escort, will take place from Genk in Belgium, and that Commonwealth exports of it will take place from Britain? Irrespective of what hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, this is a very important question. and I would like my right hon. Friend to indicate whether he has heard the rumours and, if so, what action the Government intend to take about them?
    Mr. Benn: I appreciate the importance of what my hon. Friend says. Some time ago, I initiated discussions with the motor companies about developments of this kind. If he would care to get in to touch with me specifically about this point, I should be happy to hear from him.

    Hovertrain
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Technology what study he has made of the use of hovertrains to link urban centres such as London to potential off-shore airport sites; and if he will now consider making more money available for hovertrain research and development.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: My right hon. Friend has recently approved additional expenditure of £1½ million by Tracked Hovercraft Limited to produce an experimental manned vehicle on a track several miles long.
    The Department and the Ministry of Transport are jointly undertaking studies of the applications of novel systems of high-speed transport, including tracked hovercraft. At present these are necessarily general and not related to particular routes.
    Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend at least accept the implication of the possibility of airports being sited on the coast and that Government resources should be devoted to the problems of the design of such airports and the development of fast links to urban centres?
    Mr. Mallalieu: Of course, it would be very nice to have all airports sited in the middle of the Atlantic, but there is the problem of reasonable access to where people want ultimately to go. The question cf fast transport to and from airports is being seriously considered.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: As this hover-train experimental track runs through my constituency, is the reason for the shortening of the original track by about 4½ miles, announced a short time ago, due to the Chancellor's recent package?
    Mr. Mallalieu: Not that I know of.

    Uranium Supplies (Scotland)
    Mr. Alex Eadieasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress made in prospecting for uranium in Scotland.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: As part of the uranium reconnaissance programme carried out in the north of Scotland numerous samples of water and stream sediments have been collected. Much analytical work has still to be done but at least four areas appear to merit more detailed assessment.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that this has created a great deal of interest in the Press in Scotland? Can he tell the House whether any calculations have been made of the economic and financial advantages this would mean to the economy?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I am sure that it is arousing interest in in Scotland, as elsewhere. On the economic question, this is trying to prepare an insurance, a fall-back position, in case there is any difficulty in getting supplies from elsewhere.
    Mrs. Ewing: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether a comprehensive mineral survey is being carried out in Scotland and, if not, whether he has any plans to do it, because it is known that there are some very fine mineral deposits of many kinds in Scotland?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I think that is a different question.

    Advanced Passenger Train Project
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Technology what consideration has been given by the National Research Development Council to participate in the development of the advanced passenger train, or the gas turbine power unit to drive it; and what proposals he has for the future.
    Dr. Bray: Participation by the National Research Development Corporation in the advanced passenger train project was considered. It was decided that it would be more appropriate for the Ministry of Transport to contribute to the development. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport told the House on 11th November that he had offered assistance to British Rail, and there are other Questions for him to answer today.—[Vol. 773, c. 21–2.]
    Mr. Osborn: Why was my Question transferred to the Minister of Transport, bearing in mind that there was a possibility of the N.R.D.C. taking a bigger role and his own Ministry taking a bigger role? Do we understand from this that the active role by the industry for which the Minister is responsible is a smaller one. Is it not regrettable that the Minister has not got a bigger interest in it?
    Dr. Bray: No. I think this arrangement is most appropriate. The work on the advanced passenger train project was, after all, done by British Railways, in the first place. It is, therefore, right that the Minister responsible for the finances of British Railways should look after this particular project.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May we at least have an assurance that the project will go forward under a new project manager and that there will not be a duplication of Ministries?
    Dr. Bray: There will be no confusion at all between responsibilities in separate Departments.

    Ships (Nuclear Propulsion)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the development of a nuclear reactor for surface ships.
    Mr. Fowler: I have nothing to add to the Answer my right hon. Friend, made in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 14th October.—[Vol. 770, c. 4–5.]
    Mr. Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Italians are now building a nuclear-powered naval auxiliary ship? Is it not time that this country, the leading maritime nation, should begin to get some experience of this new type of propulsion afloat? Will the Government con-
    496
    hider building some sort of naval vessel to give us that experience?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman asked about naval vessels. If he wants an answer on that subject he must address his question to the Secretary of State for Defence. We have two shipbuilders in touch with us about possible mintech support for a study of this and other projects, and we shall need to do some work on it. We are determined to go ahead with a prototype ship only if it can be justified in terms of the expected benefits to British industry, and if they are commensurate with the costs.
    Mr. Small: Does my hon. Friend recognise that we are being leapfrogged in maritime reactor technology by Japan, West Germany, and Russia, and that active attention is urgently necessary?
    Mr. Fowler: Much of the technology is quite familiar to us. My hon. Friend must accept from us that we are determined to do only what is commercial. We are not going to commit ourselves to a prestige project which is not commercial.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is not the hon. Member aware that his reluctance to add to his statement of 14th October is a little odd in the light of the news which has since come to hand that Germany now proposes to build a second ship after the "Otto Hahn"? Should not we examine carefully the economics which led Germany to that conclusion?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member is aware that in terms of nuclear power technology we have a considerable lead over the Germans. It may be necessary for the Germans to do more research in this field than it would be necessary for us to do. I repeat that we shall go ahead with the project when it shows commercial viability

    Research Policy (White Paper)
    Mr. Horderncolasked the Minister of Technology whether he intends to publish a White Paper outlining the Government's future policy towards Government research establishments.
    Mr. Fowler: As my right hon. Friend has previously explained, he has decided to defer the publication of the

    497
    White Paper on Research Policy in view of the Defence Review and the current investigation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology into research and development.—[Vol. 762, c. 48.]
    Mr. Hordern: Can the Minister say when he expects to get the Select Committee's Report?
    Mr. Fowler: That is a matter for the Select Committee. I have no influence over it. Present indications are that its report should be expected in the spring.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Training Colleges
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from the Vice-Chancellors in respect of Civil Service training colleges; and what reply he has made.
    The Paymaster-General (Mrs. Judith Hart): None, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are the Vice-Chancellors still discontented?
    Mrs. Hart: As far as I know, no. They are aware that we are completely at their disposal to discuss this subject if they want to do so.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind the fact that in setting up this suggested college it is necessary that it should not become a hothouse for the Civil Service for studying at weekends or at any time time? Is she further aware that there would be great advantage in having a mixture of business people and civil servants so the we could have discussions between Government organisations and outside private industry?
    Mrs. Hart: That point was fairly fully discussed in the very interesting debate that we had last week. I can assure the hon. Member that the very last thing we want to do is to create a Civil Service hothouse. We want to expose it to outside influence as much as possible.

    Residential Colleges
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has for a Civil Service residential college in Scotland or the north of England.
    Mrs. Hart: The Civil Service College is likely to need a residential centre close to London, and for this we intend to use the former Civil Defence College premises at Sunningdale, and another centre which can be in some other part of Britain. We are not yet near a point of decision about its siting.
    Mr. Dalyell: Although in the view of many of us what the Fulton Committee said about civil servants' lack of knowledge of areas outside London was too glib by half, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless recognise that there is a strong case for a Civil Service College either in the North of England or in Scotland?
    Mrs. Hart: The factors which will govern our decision on this college will be, first, that it will have to have premises which are suitable; secondly, that we shall want the premises to be near either a university or a large technical college and, thirdly, that we shall want our decision to be totally in line with our overall and very successful policy for dispersal.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the right hon. Lady consider going in for advanced planning, and consider her other function, as Minister for devolution, and then go for a college sited near a Parliament, namely, one in Scotland?
    Mrs. Hart: I was wondering how the hon. Lady would resolve her conflict on this question. It would be an advantage to Scotland or to any other part of Britain far from London if we were able to site this part of the college somewhere else.

    Fulton Committee (Report)
    Mr. David Howellasked the Minister for the Civil Service in which Departments of Whitehall senior policy advisers have been appointed in accordance with the recommendations of the Fulton Committee.
    Mrs. Hart: A number of Departments have senior officers with particular responsibility for long-term policy. No new advisers have been appointed since the publication of the Report with precisely the role and status recommended by the Committee. But this recommendation is being studied.
    Mr. Howell: Is this not rather an urgent matter in the light of the events of the last few days and the stormy history of the Government? Is not the impetus for forward thinking which Fulton argued would follow the setting up of senior policy advisers and planning units badly needed? Should not we get on with this matter?
    Mrs. Hart: We are getting on with this matter. There is a distinction to be made between medium-term and long-term planning, and there is also a need for each Department to work out the best arrangements for its responsibilities and needs. There is real urgency in our approach to this matter.
    Mr. David Howellasked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps she is taking to initiate an early review of the question of hiving off public programmes into autonomous public boards or corporations, as recommended by the Fulton Committee Report.
    Mrs. Hart: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when he moved the motion on the Fulton Report (Cmnd. Paper No. 3638) on the Civil Service on 21st November, 1968.—[Vol. 773, c. 154265.]
    Mr. Howell: But is the right hon. Lady aware that we did not gather very clearly what the Prime Minister intended when he spoke in that debate? Does she not accept that the hiving off of Departments is inseparable from the development of the Civil Service Department and the whole Fulton Committee philosophy? Could she tell us what plans are intended and what Departments will, possibly, disappear as a result of setting up separate agencies instead?
    Mrs. Hart: My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear last Thursday that what we are doing at the moment is carrying out a review ourselves, while not precluding the possibility of taking it to outside experts later, but if I understood correctly the hon. Member's own contribution to that debate, he was concerned not only with hiving off to autonomous organisations but with hiving off—I think I quote him—to the price mechanism and the private sector, and that, of course, would be a very different matter.
    Mr. Hordern: Has the right hon. Lady's Department any intention of hiving off public programmes to autonomous bodies or not?
    Mrs. Hart: This is precisely the point on which an extremely careful review is now being conducted. The House would agree, I think, that it would be most unfortunate if hasty decisions were reached on a matter of such fundamental importance. What is important is that we should consider this carefully, as the Fulton Report recommended.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Marten: On a point of order This point concerns Question Time, Mr. Speaker, and I think that this is the proper moment to raise it. The other day, I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House if we could see the right hon. Lady the Paymaster-General at the Dispatch Box more often, and he said that she would appear as often as any other Ministers. But she has been here today since 3.25 only and has answered only three Questions, all of them important. Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider this again, since it is for back benchers that I am asking for the right to question the right hon. Lady.
Mr. Speaker: This is rather a matter for questions at business time on Thursdays, I think.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order—
Mr. Gordon Campbell: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker cannot take two points of order from two hon. Members at the same time.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I wondered how the title "Minister for the Civil Service" had found its way on to the Order Paper. I understood that the right hon. Lady is the Paymaster-General, and that she answers for the Civil Service, but the title "Minister for the Civil Service" is surely new. Is this in order on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Baronet might refer to the Prime Minister's statement

501
on this very issue when the matter was debated.
Mr. Barnes: On a point of order. I think that there is a serious point here, because the order of Questions sheet issued to hon. Members makes it clear that the Paymaster-General will answer Questions starting not later than Question No. 35, and there has been no indication, I think, that the Questions to my right hon. Friend would be grouped in the way that they have been, with the Civil Service ones first and those in her capacity as Paymaster-General second. Surely they should all be taken in the order that they are tabled by hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker: This is a point which the hon. Gentleman must take up with the Leader of the House, I think.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: On a point of order. May I give notice that I intend to raise this matter at business question time tomorrow, in view of the fact that the Paymaster-General is due only today to answer Questions throughout the whole period from the beginning of the Session until the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Speaker: It is an ultra-refinement to give notice that an hon. Member intends to raise something at business question time.

NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Frederick Malley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government consider it vitally important to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by bringing the Non-Proliferation Treaty into force at an early date.
As foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech, and in order to give renewed impetus to the Treaty, we are today depositing our instruments of ratification. We hope that other States will follow our example as soon as possible.
Mr. Wood: Does this take us very much further beyond the point that we had reached before the Recess? Second, as he has taken this further step, could the right hon. Gentleman say anything
502
further about the security arrangements for non-nuclear Powers? Third, can he, with his right hon. Friend, give an assurance that before there are any developments this House will have the chance of a debate, which, I think, was pressed on him on the last occasion from both sides?
Mr. Mulley: On the last point, we debated this after the signature of the Treaty in July and, of course, it was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, so it was open to any hon. Member during that considerable debate to raise matters affecting our ratification of the Treaty.
As to whether it takes us further, we must ratify before the Treaty can come into force. A lead is needed at present, and I am happy that the Government are giving a lead in disarmament.
As to the security assurances, these were, as I reported, welcomed by the Security Council and the resolution was adopted.
Mr. Pavitt: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his success in this venture of pressing for the further implementation, may I ask whether he has been able to make any further progress with the Labour Party's policy of a nuclear-free zone?
Mr. Mulley: The nuclear-free zone in Europe really falls under general N.A.T.O.-Warsaw Pact considerations and would be outside the detailed provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, although, of course, if all the European countries sign, it will have the same effect as a nuclear-free zone.
Mr. James Davidson: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, perhaps, one of the useful by-products of the recent financial crisis is that France, although not a signatory of the Treaty, will have to curtail her nuclear programme, nevertheless? Have any steps been taken through normal diplomatic channels to get both Communist China and India to sign the Treaty, since if one does not sign the other obviously will not?
Mr. Mulley: It is unlikely that France will sign the Treaty, but she made clear in a number of public statements that she would behave as if she had. China, in view of the harsh terms in which she has described the Treaty, is unlikely to change her mind. We hope that India will one

503
day adhere to the Treaty, although present indications are that she is unwilling to adhere to it in its present form.
Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend agree that some non-nuclear Powers may be reluctant to sign the Treaty as long as the present nuclear Powers are able to continue underground testing? Is he aware of recent evidence that it is now possible to distinguish such tests from earthquakes and other physical phenomena?
Mr. Mulley: I am obliged. One of the important aspects of the Treaty is the firm commitment to further measures of nuclear disarmament. There is general agreement, I think, that a comprehensive test ban should be one of the early measures. My hon. Friend will know that I made an initiative in this regard in July at Geneva. I hope that we can make progress shortly when those discussions resume in the new year.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since four members of the United Nations voted against the Treaty and 22 abstained, and the President-Elect of the United States has grave doubts over signing it while Soviet troops are in Czechoslovakia, how soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect that it will take effect? In view of the fact that, on the very day of that invasion, the United States and the Soviet Union were about to go further in talks on offensive ballistic missiles, and this was stopped by the events in Czechoslovakia, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that Mr. Nixon has good cause for caution?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
Mr. Mulley: It is not for me at this stage to give advice to the President-Elect of the United States, but I am confident that the United States will ratify the Treaty before too long. As the hon. Gentleman knows, to bring the Treaty into force requires the three depositary Powers, of whom we are one, together with 40 other members. It is impossible to speculate about the exact date in those circumstances.
Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that pessimism in this
504
matter will get us nowhere, and that those of us on this side welcome the steps which the Government have taken in laying these articles? What reaction does my right hon. Friend think West Germany will have towards this Treaty? Does he think that she will sign it?
Mr. Mulley: I would expect that West Germany will adhere to the Treaty in due course. It is true that West Germany is already bound by treaty not to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Mr. Marten: What is holding up the renegotiation of the Nassau Agreement within the context of this statement? Could the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister that he might get all the ambassadors from the Nassau Agreement countries together, after midnight some time?
Mr. Mulley: I do not see that any questions relating to the Nassau Agreement arise in the context of this Treaty.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is a good thing that General de Gaulle has cut down France's expenditure on nuclear testing? Is that not an example which this country might follow in reducing its wholesale spending on nuclear weapons and their development?
Mr. Mulley: We have no plans to expend money on further nuclear testing.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of our N.A.T.O. allies can be expected to follow suit, and when?
Mr. Mulley: I would expect in due course that all the members of N.A.T.O., with the exception of France, will adhere to the Treaty. I would like to take the opportunity to reaffirm our continued and wholehearted commitment to the collective security arrangements of N.A.T.O., as I did on 8th July. I also made clear then that the Treaty would not prohibit N.A.T.O. nuclear consultation and planning and the bilateral arrangements for the deployment of nuclear weapons within allied territory or the succession of a federated State to the former nuclear status of one of its components. We have made this clear and for these reasons I do not expect any difficulties with our N.A.T.O. allies.
Mr. Dalyell: have my night hon. Friend's excellent initiatives in chemical and biological warfare met with any progress?
Mr. Mulley: We have a resolution before the United Nations General Assembly, which, I hope, will be endorsed, to set up a study on both chemical and microbiological weapons of warfare, and I would also hope to pursue it further when the Geneva 18-Nation Committee reconvenes in the new year.
Mr. Ridley: What consultation did the Minister have with the West German Government before ratifying the Treaty? Was it one of the subjects which the Prime Minister discussed with the German Ambassador at 2 o'clock in the morning the ocher day?
Mr. Mulley: I was not present on that occasion, but I think that I can assure the hon. Member that this was not one of the subjects under discussion.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does my right hon. Fiend think that those diplomatic exchanges would be assisted if Her Majesty's Opposition ceased to display their patriotism by becoming the sychophantic apologists for the West German Government?
Mr. Mulley: I have been asked to advise the President-Elect of the United States and the President of France and I have declined to do so. It is not for me to advise Her Majesty's Opposition how to conduct themselves. I do not think that we have many complaints at the moment. We seem to be doing very well in debates in the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  Transport (London)
  Bill to make provision with respect to transport in and around Greater London and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Richard Marsh; supported by Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. John Diamond, Mr. Stephen Swingler, and Mr. Bob Brown; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS
  EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT)
  Bill to make further provision with respect to the liability of an employer for injury to his employee which is attributable to any defect in equipment provided by the employer for the purposes of the employer's business; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, presented by Mr. Hugh D. Brown; supported by Mr. John Cronin, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, Mr. William Molloy, Mr. George Lawson, and Mr. James Hamilton; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 6th December and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
  FREEDOM OF PUBLICATION (PROTECTION)
  Bill to give greater freedom of publication of matters of public interest by clarifying and amending the law relating to contempt of court, official secrets and defamation, presented by Mr. Reginald Eyre; supported by Mr. Jasper More, Mr. William Deedes, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. Woodrow Wyatt, Mr. Iremonger, and Mr. Mark Carlisle; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
  MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY
  Bill to amend the law of England and Wales in relation to the property rights of husband and wife; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Bishop; supported by Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Daniel Awdry, Mr. Robert Edwards, Dame Joan Vickers, Dr. Shirley Summer-skill, Mr. Eric S. Heifer, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mrs. Jill Knight, and Mr. Douglas Houghton; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th January and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (FURTHER PROVISIONS)
  Bill to make provision for the payment of pensions out of the National Insurance Fund for certain classes of person not eligible for pensions under the National

  507
  Insurance Act, 1946, presented by Mr. Maurice Macmillan; supported by Mr. Airey Neave, Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Terence L. Higgins, and Mr. Anthony Royle; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th February and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

  DISABLED PERSONS' PENSIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
  Bill to provide for pensions for disabled persons who do not at present qualify for benefit under the national insurance, industrial injuries or war disability schemes; to make provision for certain aids and amenities for the disabled; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Prior; supported by Dame Joan Vickers, Sir Harmar Nicholls, Mr. Richard Sharples, Mr. David Price, Mr. Timothy Kitson, Mr. Gordon Campbell, and Mr. Maurice Macmillan; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st February and to be printed. [Bill 25.]
  SCOTLAND AND WALES (REFERENDA)
  Bill to authorise referenda in Scotland and in Wales to enable the Scottish and Welsh peoples respectively to indicate their views in regard to the future government of their countries; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. James Davidson; supported by Mr. Peter Bessell, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Richard Wainwright, and Dr. Winstanley; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th February and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS
  Bill to make, in place of certain statutory provisions relating to Sunday observance and the playing of games, provision, in relation to Sunday, for preventing, in the case of certain spectacles taking place during certain hours, payments being made by members of the public for the privilege of watching them and, in the case of public dancing so taking place. payments being made by members of the public for the privilege of participating therein; to exclude certain acts from the scope of the Sunday Observance Act 1677; and to make provision for, and in connection with, the winding up of the
  508
  Cinematograph Fund, presented by Mr. John Parker; supported by Mr. William Hamling, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Ian Gilmour, Mr. Douglas Houghton, Mr. Charles Pannell, and Mrs. Renée Short; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

  PONIES
  Bill to improve, the conditions under which ponies are exported; to prohibit or restrict the export of certain ponies; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Sir Robert Cary; supported by Mr. Albert Morris, Mr. John Eden, Mr. Leslie Lever, Mr. Frank Taylor, Mr. Gordon Campbell, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Burden, and Mr. Marcus Kimball; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th December, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
  DIVORCE REFORM
  Bill to amend the grounds for divorce and judicial separation; to facilitate reconciliation in matrimonial causes; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Alec Jones; supported by Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Daniel Awdry, Dame Joan Vickers, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Peter M. Jackson, Mr. Anthony Royle, Mr. Ian Gilmour, Mr. Alexander Lyon, and Mr. William Wilson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 6th December, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]
  NURSERY SCHOOLS (PARENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS)
  Bill to enable education authorities to charge fees for nursery schools, and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. David Howell; supported by Mr. John Hill, Sir George Sinclair and Mr. Kenneth Baker; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th January and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to enable local authorities to deal more effectively with recurring nuisances, presented by Captain Walter Elliot; supported by Mr. Joseph Hiley, Dame Joan Vickers, Mr. R. W. Brown, Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby, Miss Joan Quennell,

  509
  Mr. James Tinn, Mr. W. H. Loveys, Mr. Dudley Smith, Mr. Willam Hamling, Mr. Edward Milne, and Mr. Iremoonger; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

  INDUSTRIAL INFORMATION
  Bill to provide for the protection of industrial information, presented by Sir Edward Boyle; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th December, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend the enactments providing for benefits out of the Industrial Injuries Fund in respect of industrial diseases; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Michael McGuire; supported by Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. Eric Ogden, Mr. Tom Swain, Mr. Robert Woof, Mr. G. Elfed Davies, Mr. Adam Hunter, Mr. S. 0. Davies, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. Albert Roberts, Mr. John Forrester, and Mr. Charles Mapp; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th February, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
  HOUSE OF COMMONS REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1949 with respect to the obligation of the Secretary of State to take action on the Report of a Boundary Commission, presented by Sir Cyril Black; supported by Sir Frederick Bennett, Mr. Charles Doughty, Mr. Victor Goodhew, Sir Stephen McAdden, Sir Gerald Nabarro, and Mr. Frank Taylor; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th February, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
  REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACT 1965 (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, presented by Mr. Ire-monger; supported by Mr. Marcus Kimball, Mr. John Farr, Mr. Michael Jopling. and Mr. Peter Mills; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
  AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) ACT 1927 (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to render illegal certain agreements and transactions affecting bidding at auctions, presented by Mr. Costain; supported by Sir John Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Chichester-Clark, Mr. Anthony Royle, Mr. George Strauss, Mr. Ire-monger, Mr. David Webster, and Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st February and to be printed. [Bill 35.]
  EXPORT OF MANUSCRIPTS
  Bill to control and regulate the export of historical manuscripts, presented by Mr. David Marquand; supported by Mr. John P. Mackintosh, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Philip Goodhart, and Mr. Esmond Wright; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
  ESTATE DUTY (SURVIVING SPOUSE)
  Bill to amend the enactments relating to Estate Duty to provide for the deferment of payment of Estate Duty by a surviving spouse; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Humphrey Atkins on behalf of Colonel Lancaster; supported by Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Anthony Royle, Mr. Ian Lloyd, Sir George Sinclair, Dame Joan Vickers, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, and Sir Spencer Summers; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th February, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

  CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT
  Bill to require employers and each of their employees to exchange a written contract of employment comprising certain specific terms and conditions; to regulate the rights of employer and employee to minimum periods of notice; to regulate the calculation of holiday pay and sick pay; to provide for the registration of contracts of employment; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Richard Wainwright; supported by Mr. Grimond, Mr. Peter Bessell, Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. David Steel, and Dr. Winstanley;

  511
  read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st February, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend section 1 of the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Amendment) Act, 1965, presented by Mr. James Griffiths; supported by Mr. Harold Finch, Mr. G. Elfed Davies, Mr. S. 0. Davies, Mr. Clifford Williams, Mr. Arthur Probert, Mr. Donald Coleman, Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Fred Evans, Mr. William Edwards, Mr. J. Idwal Jones, Mr. T. Alec Jones, and Mr. Arthur Pearson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th January, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
  CONTROL OF VENEREAL DISEASES
  Bill to provide for the compulsory examination and treatment of persons suspected of suffering from venereal diseases by the restoration of provisions similar to those formerly contained in Defence Regulation 33B, presented by Sir Myer Galpern; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st March, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
  RENAL TRANSPLANTATION
  Bill to permit removal from the body of a human person, duly certified as dead, of any kidney or kidneys required for the direct purpose of saving the life of another sick human being unless there is reason to believe that the deceased during his lifetime had instructed otherwise; and to establish a Central Renal Registry, presented by Sir Gerald Nabarro; supported by Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott, Dr. Reginald Bennett, Mr. John Cronin, Dr. Broughton, Dr. John Dunwoody, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Laurence Pavitt, Mr. David Lane, Sir Donald Kaberry, Mr. Peter Emery, and Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

  LIVE HARE COURSING (ABOLITION)
  Bill to abolish live hare coursing, presented by Mr. Robert Sheldon; supported by Mr. Eric S. Heller, Mr. Rafton Pounder, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Joel Barnett, and Mr. John Ellis; read the First
  512
  time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th December, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Bill to provide a pension out of the National Insurance Fund to certain widows unable to qualify under the National Insurance Acts, presented by Mr. Bruce Campbell; supported by Mr. R. Bonner Pink, Miss Mervyn Pike, Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Walter Clegg, Mr. Hugh Rossi, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. Philip Holland, and Mr. Maurice Macmillan; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th February, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
  EXPANSION OF NEW TOWNS (REFERENDUM)
  Bill to enable not less than 100 ratepayers in any area scheduled for expansion under New Towns procedure to require local authority to hold a Referendum to decide whether or not to proceed with the expansion, provided that such a move is made within two years of the Designated Plan being made public, presented by Sir Harmar Nicholls; supported by Sir David Renton; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]
  INSURANCE (EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY)
  Bill to require employers to insure against their liability for personal injury to their employees; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, presented by Mr. David Watkins; supported by Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Bishop, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Donald Coleman, Mr. George Craddock, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. Alexander Lyon, Mr. Stanley Orme, and Mr. Edwin Wainwright; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]
  DISABLEMENT COMMISSION
  Bill to establish a Commission to review pensions and benefits for the disabled and to make recommendations on changes and additions, presented by Mr. Gordon Campbell; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th December, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Staternent of Government proposals for reorganising local government in Wales (Command Paper No. 3340). being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration. —[Mr. Peart.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE [MONEY] (No. 2)
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present session relating to elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and to local government elections in Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise any payment out of moneys provided by Parliament or payment into the Consolidated Fund which nay be required by or result from provisions relating to the registration of political descriptions in order to allow their use on nomination papers and ballot papers at local government elections in Great Britain.—[Mr. Fitch.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
  Again considered in Committee [Progress, 26th November].
  [Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Clause 2

  SERVICE DECLARATIONS AND QUALIFICATION
  3.50 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 31, after 'Council', insert:
  'Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes., the Red Cross and other services ancillary to or sponsored by Govermnent departments'.
  Subsection (3) says that:
  "Persons who are employed by the British Council in posts outside the United Kingdom and their wives…"
  shall be included among persons having a service qualification in the same way as members of the forces and their wives.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the privilege given by the sub-section to people who are employed in very much the same way as members of the British Council, and who may be employed by Government Departments. I appreciate that there are difficulties in extending almost indefinitely the kind of people who may be entitled to have the same voting privileges as members of the Services. I also appreciate that it was a recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference that this privilege should be extended to members of the overseas staff of the British Council and their spouses.
  What I do not know is why Mr. Speaker's Conference decided that the privilege should be extended only to members of the British Council and riot to those people employed by the Government in very similar capacities. If one accepts that the privilege should be extended to members of the British Council, it is very difficult to leave out members of the N.A.A.F.I. staff. Their position is much more akin to that of the Service voter than is the position of the British Council.

  515
  We also mention members of the Red Cross in the Amendment. When the Services are overseas, members of the Red Cross are frequently attached to them in ancillary capacities. If the privilege is extended to members of the British Council, it should equally be extended to members of the British Red Cross serving in this capacity.
  We also include a rather more general phrase:
  "…and other Services ancillary to or sponsored by Government departments."
  This covers the people who may be attached in one way or another to the Services, or may have attachment to Government Departments in the same way as the British Council.
  I think that I need say no more in explanation. The Amendment speaks for itself.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): As I was until recently at the Ministry of Defence, I should go a long way with the Amendment—that is, if I were dealing with it purely on sympathy. But I shall advance good reasons why we cannot accept the Amendment.
  The first is a question of principle to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) referred, namely, that the main purpose of the Clause as a whole is to give special arrangements to Crown servants, members of the forces and their wives who are overseas, so that they can be registered as electors while they are abroad and when they have no residence in the United Kingdom. The problem is to know where one draws the line in going outside that very specific delimitation.
  On the question of the N.A.A.F.I., I found in my travels with the Services, both recently and in what is now the far distant past, that there are also, certainly on R.A.F. stations, the Catholic Women's League, the Church of Scotland Canteen, the Salvation Army, the Malcolm Club, the W.R.V.S.. S.S.A.F.A., and the C.V.W.W. There is an inherent difficulty in deciding where, if we extended the list of people given the special arrangement for registration, we should draw the line.
  There is also a practical problem. I do not suggest that it necessarily applies
  516
  to N.A.A.F.I., but it might to some of the other organisations. It was as a result of Mr. Speaker's Conference that it was decided to bring in the British Council. It was an essential part of the special arrangements for Crown servants and Service men and women that the appropriate Government Department accepted the responsibility for making arrangements to give an effective opportunity to persons having a service qualification to exercise from time to time, as occasion might require, the right of making and cancelling service declarations and of appointing proxies.
  I concede that by its nature, if my argument were on that precise point, N.A.A.F.I. is an organisation which could probably do this. But N.A.A.F.I. cannot be singled out. All of us know that on Army bases and R.A.F. stations other excellent people are providing a variety of social services for the Armed Forces. Much as my right hon. Friend realises the good work done by this variety of organisations, he cannot accept the Amendment, because of the matter of principle on where one draws the line, and the practical problems. The Services accept a great deal of responsibility for making sure that Servicemen know of their rights as Service voters. I ask the Committee to resist the Amendment.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I have never heard a weaker argument from the Government Front Bench. The first thing we must ask is whether the individuals concerned are doing a job of national service in supplementing the work of the Armed Forces. No hon. Member will disagree, particularly those who have seen the wonderful work they are doing, that they are doing good service. Why should we disfranchise them because a Government Department finds it too difficult to give them the vote, and says that the privilege in question cannot be extended any further?
  Surely the Home Office can think of a formula whereby those people would be certified by the local commanding officer as being essential? There would be no loophole. We have lived in an era of peace for many years, and the longer we are in such an era the more need there is for such services overseas.
  The Minister has put forward a deplorable case. In fact, there is no argument to be put. I hope that my hon.

  517
  Friend will divide the Committee on the question. I cannot see any hon. Member voting against it.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: I hope that the Government will go a little further than they have done. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary has given a sympathetic reply; that is to say, I do not understand that he is in any way hostile to the spirit or principle of the Amendment. I am extremely suspicious of arguments against accepting an Amendment which is good in spirit and in principle simply on the basis that we do not know where to draw the line. I understand this argument where any substantial Government expense is involved. I am told that Treasury officials have the word "repercussions" graven on their hearts and utter shrill screams in their dreams when the word occurs to them. But we are not here dealing with such a case because, as far as I know, the expense involved would be virtually nil.
  I do not see why the N.A.A.F.I. should not have the privileges of the Services, or why the Red Cross should not have the privileges of the Services, especially as the line has been enlarged to include the British Council. I should have thought that the Government could have retained control, perhaps by a redraft of the Amendment, of such organisations as the Malcolm Clubs and the Catholic Women's League by retaining the power to approve the particular organisations concerned.
  I am very reluctant to divide the Committee within 10 minutes of its restarting, but I shall certainly advise my hon. Friends to do so unless something more is forthcoming from the Government.
  Sir Donald Kaberry: I believe that the discussion as to whether members of the British Council must go abroad when posted, whether members of the N.A.A.F.I. must go abroad when posted, and whether members of other organisations must do so is a very doubtful edgeline decision. I should have thought that in response to the appeal made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), the Clause could be looked at again. It will not swing a General Election, it will not decide a by-election, but it will, at any rate, give a few people the satisfaction
  518
  of feeling that they have the right to be put on the register so that they may vote if they so desire at an appropriate time.
  I hope that the Government will look at the Clause again.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I assure the Committee that, because of my special interest in the matter, I have looked extremely carefully at the Amendment—probably more carefully because of this sympathy—than I have at other Amendments. It is not a question whether people do a good job. No one denies that excellent work is being done by the N.A.A.F.I. and other bodies which I have mentioned. I advance a technical argument—the question of an organisation on behalf of the Government dealing with this question of registration of non-Service personnel. I have before me a photostat copy of a D.C.I. which deals with Parliamentary and local government elections—we may return later to the question of how absentee votes will be dealt with—which illustrates that in the case of service personnel this matter can be handled by the Service authorities. Similar arrangements can be made with regard to the British Council.
  There are many people in this country who are civilians and who go abroad and move off the registration roll and there is a real problem in deciding where to draw the line in the case of civilians. It is not a question of expense. A fundamental issue is involved as to the degree to which we allow those not domiciled in this country to have the right to vote.
  There is the additional point that with the Service member it is not just a question of going abroad for a short period. Members of the Services move about in the country, for instance, from R.A.F. station to R.A.F. station, from ship to ship or from one Naval base or port to another.
  Much as I would, by sympathy and attachment, like to make some arrangements for the N.A.A.F.I. and the Red Cross and others, I must, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, resist this Amendment.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I always understood that the difficulty was rather different, that where we had these people serving abroad in what I might

  519
  term quasi-Service organisations like the N.A.A.F.I., the difficulty was one of registration, not of principle. I remember the discussion we had at Mr. Speaker's Conference, when we were told—if I can paraphrase the evidence we received without causing a breach of privilege—that there was no one person who could be made responsible for dealing with N.A.A.F.I. personnel or the W.R.V.S. or other personnel who might benefit from this Clause.
  I did not understand that there was this question of principle; that it was not the wish to grant the franchise to someone serving abroad for a limited period if that person was not a member of the Armed Forces. If that is the Government's motive in refusing the Amendment, I would be very much inclined to the view of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that it is not a valid argument for refusing those people the vote. I cannot see any distinction between a member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces serving, say, for two years abroad, and someone in the N.A.A.F.I. serving for a similar period. I think that both types of people would be equally interested in the results of a General Election which might take place while they were abroad.
  I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again about this matter. If he were to tell me that it was physically impossible, as we were informed by the Home Office at Mr. Speaker's Conference, I would, of course, have to accept it, but if it is merely a question of making a distinction between those serving in the Red Cross and members of the Armed Forces as to the interest they may take in the results of a Parliamentary election, I cannot accept it as valid.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I cannot see any difference in this respect between someone serving in the N.A.A.F.I. and someone serving in the Armed Forces. As the Committee may know, I come from a Service town, and in such places one finds that most of the men have their votes in the constituencies in which their relations are living, and not necessarily where their wives are living at the
  520
  time. That should apply to N.A.A.F.I. personnel. Why should not a dockyard worker, who has the possibility of being stationed in Malta or Singapore, or else. where, be able to exercise his vote in the same way as does his opposite number in the Armed Forces? It seems contradictory.
  I can understand the difficulty about the Red Cross and other voluntary organisations, because these people are not posted but go abroad voluntarily and must have a base in this country. But the people I think of do not have a base. If a dockyard worker goes overseas, and he relinquishes his residence in this country, if it is a council house he must get out of it, and if it is a private house he generally lets it. He therefore has no residential qualifications for voting. As these N.A.A.F.I. personnel serve the forces overseas, it is legitimate to argue that they should be also granted the vote.
  Mr. Donald Williams: I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). The difficulty seems to be about the domicile and position of a taxpayer serving abroad. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that when it comes to the taxation of firms the Treasury is very quickly able to isolate the problem, and give those firms relative domicile for taxation purposes.
  It seems extraordinary that since it is possible to do that so easily when taxation is concerned it cannot be done equally easily for the enfranchisement of these people. There is an obligation in terms of taxation—surely they should be entitled to vote.
  Mr. Rees Mr. Rees rose—
  Mr. Hogg: I hoped that I was right in thinking that the Under-Secretary was rising to give me a little more comfort from the Government Front Bench. If, by rising now, I am stopping that comfort, I will readily give way to the hon. Gentleman, but if I would thereby be receiving another dusty answer, which seems to be the case from the manner of the hon. Gentleman, I have no alternative but to ask my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's good will, but, obviously, he is in the hands of bureaucrats. If only to

  521
  teach the bureaucrats a lesson, we have to act.
  Apart from the P.P.S., who is in an embarrassing position, there are only three supporters of the Government in the Chamber at the moment. I was assured last night that the Government Whips mean nothing to them and that they vote accord ng to their consciences. The other 300, or whatever the number is, cannot vote according to their consciences, because they will not have heard the debate.
  So there are four consciences on the benches opposite to which I appeal. Let them vote according to the way in which the debate has gone. I shall ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote with me for the Amendment and I am very grateful for the support of the Liberal Party.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 187.

  Division No. 11.]

  AYES

  [4.10 p.m.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Gurden, Harold

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Bell, Ronald

  Harrison, Brian (Maidors)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Percival, Ian

  Biffen, John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Pounder, Rafton

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Hawkins, Paul

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pym, Francis

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Renton, Fit. Hn. Sir David

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Boyd-Carponter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Holland, Philip

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.Col. Sir Walter

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Scott, Nicholas

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hornby, Richard

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Sharples, Richard

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

  Hunt, John

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

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Silvester, Frederick

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Speed, Keith

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Stainton, Keith

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Clegg, Walter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Stodart, Anthony

  Cordle, John

  Lane, David

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Costaln, A. P.

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

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Tilney, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Loveys, W. H.

  van Straubenzec, W. R.

  Dance, James

  Lubbock, Eric

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Dean Paul

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Cromly)

  Waddington, David

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  McMaster, Stanley

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Doughty, Charles

  Maginnis, John E.

  Walters, Dennis

  Drayson, G. B.

  Marten, Neil

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Eden, Sir Jchn

  Maude, Angus

  Webster, David

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carsisalton)

  Mawby, Ray

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn.

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

  Maxwell-Hyslop, P. J.

  William Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Eyre, Reginald

  Monro, Hector

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fisher, Nigel

  More, Jasper

  Worsley, Marcus

  Galbraith, His. T. G.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wright, Esmond

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wylie, N. R.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Murton, Oscar

  Goodhart, Philip

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gower, Raymond

  Neave, Airey

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Grant, Anthony

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

  Griffiths, Elden (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Onslow, Crarney

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Bence, Cyril

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

  Andritt, Walter

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

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

  Allen, Scholefield

  Binns, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Anderson, Donald

  Bishop, E. S.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Archer, Peter

  Blackburn, F.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Armstrong, Er nest

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Booth, Albert

  Chapman, Donald

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Coe, Denis

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bradley, Tom

  Coleman, Donald

  Barnett, Joel

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Concannon, J. D.

  Baxter, Wlllian

  Brooks, Edwin

  Conlan, Bernard

  Beanin, Alan

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Helper)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Palmer, Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hynd, John

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Delargy, Hugh

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

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Dempsey, James

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Dickens, James

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

  Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Dobson, Ray

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pentland, Norman

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Judd, Frank

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Dunwcody, Mrs. Gwyne'h (Exeter)

  Kelley, Richard

  Probert, Arthur

  Eadie, Alex

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Randall, Harry

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Rankin, John

  Ellis, John

  Lawson, George

  Rees, Merlyn

  English Michael

  Leadhitter, Ted

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Ensor, David

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Richard, Ivor

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lester, Miss Joan

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Evans, Cwynfor (C'marthen)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Finch, Harold

  Loughlin, Charles

  Ross, Rt. Iln. William

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McGuire, Michael

  Sheldon, Robert

  Ford, Ben

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Forrester, John

  Mackie, John

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

  Fowler, Gerry

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Short, Mrs. Reneé(W'hampton, N.E.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Silverman, Julius

  Gardner, Tony

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Small, William

  Garrett, W. E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Snow, Julian

  Ginsburg, David

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Strauss, Rt. Mi. G. R.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mahon, Simon (Bootie)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Tinn, James

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

  Urwin, T. W.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Manuel, Archie

  Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Griffiths, Rt. kin. James (Llaneily)

  Marquand, David

  Wallace, George

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mendelson, John

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Hamling, Wiliam

  Mikardo, Ian

  Weitzman, David

  Hannan, William

  Milian, Bruce

  Wellbeloved, James

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Haseldine, Norman

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Hefter, Eric S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Willis, Rt. Ho. George

  Herbison. Rt. Hit. Margaret

  Medley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Winnick, David

  Hooley, Frank

  Neal, Harold

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Horner, John

  Newens, Stan

  Woof, Robert

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oakes, Gordon

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Orbach, Maurice

  Mr. John McCann and

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Padley, Walter

  Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 37, leave out from 'shall' to end of Clause and add:
  'likewise be qualified if he is residing outside the United Kingdom to be with his wife.'
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I suggest that the Committee discusses with this Amendment, Amendment No. 63, in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), in page 3, line 7, at end insert:
  'and the wife of a merchant seaman shall be entitled to be treated in like manner in circumstances corresponding to those in which the merchant seaman is so treated'.
  Mr. Sharples: I am in a little difficulty, because Amendment No. 4 is purely drafting. Amendment No. 63 covers a much more substantive point.
  524
  Subsection (4) is difficult to understand and also ungrammatical. It says:
  "Where a married woman has a service qualification, her husband shall have one in circumstances corresponding to those in which a wife does."
  The subsection is badly drafted and is meaningless. Our proposed wording is an improvement.
  I do not propose to develop the argument in support of Amendment No. 62. I will leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), who has much more experience of these matters than I do and who will be able to develop the point much better.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I base the wording of Amendment No. 63 on Clause 2(4). If the husband of a married woman

  525
  with a Service qualification is to have such a qualification, the same should apply to the wives of merchant seamen. In these enlightened days of merchant shipping—I have had the opportunity of going over many ships—there is special accommodation for wives. It is desirable that wives should travel with their husbands. When they go overseas for lengthy periods, they must give up their residential qualification in Britain. Therefore, the wives of merchant seamen should have an equal right to that granted to spouses in Clause 2(4).
  I cannot see how the Amendment can be rejected, because it obviously ties up with the Government's intention in subsection (4).
  Mr. John Tilney: I strongly support the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). Many wives sail with their husbands in ships leaving Liverpool. I hope that in future more ships will sail carrying the wives of merchant seamen. Wives who accompany their husbands often have to shut up their homes for one voyage. The wives need not always be on board.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I read of an agreement arrived at recently between the National Union of Seamen and certain employers to extend the practice of wives sailing with their husbands regularly. I am not sure whether this practice calls for action under the Clause or for the wives of merchant seamen being given the same proxy voting facilities as their husbands have. The Government should consider this aspect further because more wives will travel with their husbands on long voyages. The agreement to which I have referred relates to absences of 60 days a year.
  Mr. Costain: I added my name to Amendment No. 63 because I think that it is a very proper one. I have a good deal of experience of tankers. Increasingly, tankers' crews are accepting that it is right that wives should travel with the men. Ships are getting bigger. The larger ships provide facilities for wives and families to travel with the merchant seamen.
  The principle enshrined in the Amendment is accepted in relation to British
  526
  Council employees. Merchant seamen are accepted as right and proper people to be put in this category. It is only fair that the wives of merchant seamen should be accorded exactly the same privilege as that which applies to British Council employees.
  I hope that we shall not be told that this would be too difficult to organise. We know who the wives and families are. We know that the seaman has a vote. The Government should accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am not opposed to the principle of the Amendment. However, I ask the Minister to consider whether it would be possible for this to be abused. I understand that there is a new system of legal tax dodging by which a Briton wanting to dodge tax theoretically does not have a residential qualification in Britain; he stays abroad theoretically for more than six months and hence is not liable to our tax laws.
  I am told on good authority that there is a lady who is also a wife, but not of a merchant seaman; they have a very big yacht. She is never here, theoretically. She goes abroad with her husband. She spends all the time on the yacht. She does not pay tax, nor does her husband.
  Sir D. Kaberry: Is she a British subject?
  Mr. Lewis: Yes.
  Sir D. Kaberry: Would the husband be a merchant seaman?
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis: I am concerned in case such a concession as is proposed here should be abused by someone saying," I, too, am sailing the high seas on my yacht and I am, therefore, doing some merchant trading."
  Mr. Lubbock: If the hon. Member looks at Clause 3(1,b) he will see that to be a merchant seaman one has to be employed on board ship. If he is referring to the owner of the ship, I would point out that the owner is not a merchant seaman within the meaning of the definition.
  Mr. Lewis: I agree. I have said that I am in favour of the principle suggested

  527
  here, but I was asking the Minister to ensure that there was no danger of tax evaders using this concession on the basis that they are not domiciled here. It seems to me that the Amendment safeguards the position, but I ask my hon. Friend to watch it because it seems to be the growing practice for very rich people to have yachts on which they live, theoretically not being domiciled in this country, and paying no taxes anywhere.
  I know that a merchant seaman would not do that, but I should not like to see others trying to cash in on the concession. I know a very big merchant seaman who, I am told, gets £450,000 a week—or so the Press states. He is one of the biggest shipowners in the country, and he pays no Income Tax anywhere. Theoretically, he lives nowhere. He has an Argentinian passport and a house in Greece, he lives on his yacht and he is in the merchant shipping business.
  Mr. Peter Mahon: is my hon. Friend talking about shipowners or about merchant seamen?
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is quite right to make that intervention, but some of these people have very clever lawyers and accountants, particularly when it becomes a question of registering for tax-dodging purposes.
  Sir D. Kaberry: Could the hon. Member state at which hostel or club his friend, who is getting £450,000 a week, stays?
  Mr. Lewis: It might well be a club or hostel which he owns.
  Mr. Lubbock: It seems to me that the point of substance raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has been overlooked by Mr. Speaker's Conference. I have not re-read all the evidence which we received, but this is a point of such importance that I am sure that it would have come to my mind when I saw the Amendment on the Notice Paper. If I am allowed to say so, I am certain that if this had been drawn to the attention of Mr. Speaker's Conference they would have said that it was illogical for us to extend the vote to wives accompanying husbands away from their homes where their husbands are
  528
  qualified because of their occupation, service or employment and not to extend the vote to the wives of merchant seamen.
  I ask the Minister whether these ladies will be qualified within the terms of Clause 5. If so, we need not worry about the matter; they are accompanying their husbands away from home and, because their husbands are qualified, through occupation, service or employment, the wives will similarly be qualified. If he cannot give that assurance, then the hon. Lady's Amendment should be incorporated in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) commented on the drafting of the Clause. I agree that the wording of subsection (4) is extremely clumsy, although it does not appear to be ungrammatical. May I pursue a point which I made on Second Reading—probably unwisely, because Mr. Speaker told me then that it was a Committee point—as this seems to be the most suitable opportunity for me to raise it. The comment applies not only to Clause 2, but to some other parts of the Bill.
  Where we are, in effect, amending the provisions of the 1949 Act—in this case Section 10—it might have been much simpler if we had reprinted those Sections as amended by the Bill rather than legislate by adding bits here and there so that we are obliged to look at the two Acts simultaneously. I cannot deal with that point on this Amendment, but, as I mentioned it on Second Reading. I am sure that the Minister is seized of it. Will he therefore consider whether this Clause should be taken away entirely and a new Clause brought back on Report which incorporates Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949 and the Amendment in subsection (4)? That would be a much tidier method of approaching the problem and would remove the drafting difficulty mentioned by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): The discussion has ranged widely. I never cease to wonder at the ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). With respect to him. I do not think that the point which he raised about taxation has much to do with the problem under discussion, but it was highly illuminating.

  529
  I challenge the claim made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) that the subsection is ungrammatical. I can see the problem which faces him in seeking to clarify it, but the clarification takes place in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3, which uses the words:
  "and any man who is the husband of such a person and is residing outside the United Kingdom to be with his wife".
  There are two difficulties about the Amendment. In the first place, there is a difficulty in the attempt to make the situation analogous with that of wives of Service voters. Such a wife has a Service qualification not only when she is residing abroad with her husband, but from the moment that she leaves the United Kingdom to be with her husband. Adding a tighter qualification here to clear up the grammar, therefore, would wipe out the additional provision which gives her a qualification from the moment she leaves the United Kingdom to be with her husband.
  The hon. Member criticises the grammar. I do not particularly like the wording, nor do I like the wording in a great deal of legislation, but as long as the wording is accurate, effective and meaningful, and as long as it serves its purpose, as it does here, I see no reason to change it. It seems to me quite clear and, because of Schedule 3, we should not change it.
  We must look at what Clause 3 does. It is involved with the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference as they affect merchant seamen. The problem of the merchant seaman is that he is abroad for a long period and that when he is not abroad he is often living not at his permanent home address but in a club or hostel. Therefore it was felt that such a club or hostel would be acceptable as a place of residence for him. Merchant seamen are at sea for such periods that by any normal standards they can hardly be regarded as residents of the United Kingdom for registration purposes.
  I am not sure that that is true of wives. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) suggested that this problem had never been properly looked at. I have done so. It does not seem to me that the situation which he envisages can
  530
  arise. We are discussing the matter in terms of registration and not in terms of voting. It should be taken care of under Clause 5, dealing with the right to vote. A wife can register in the normal way, at her home address. Even with the present enlightened policies of most shipping companies, I hardly think that a permanent odyssey will take place with husband and wife abroad. If we went further we should be taking it further in concept than the extension for Service men, whose wives are not entitled to make a Service declaration until they are about to proceed overseas with their husbands.
  The other problem remains. I understand that the reason for the Amendment, although I think that it is basically mistaken, is to ensure the right to vote by postal voting, for instance, or by proxy, but that is taken care of under Clause 5. The Amendment would be inappropriate in any case, because it asks that the wife should be resident at the place at which she would have been resident but for the nature of her occupation, and, with all respect, I can hardly think that being a wife would be acceptable as an occupation.
  Although a merchant seaman might be resident in a hostel or club, I would hope that, in general, this would not be true of the wives of merchant seamen. I hope that, with that explanation and assurance, the hon. Lady will see fit to withdraw her Amendment.
  Mr. Sharples: The Committee will be disappointed with that reply. The wording of my Amendment may well not be perfect, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to consider the matter between now and Report. The Committee is in some difficulty over the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). Every hon. Member who has taken part in the debate has spoken in favour of that Amendment, but, because of the way in which the Amendments have been selected, it is not possible for the Committee to reach a decision on the matter this afternoon.
  It is difficult to know how to advise my hon. Friend, but I suggest that she puts down an Amendment in similar terms on Report. That will give the Home Office time to consider this very

  531
  important matter, which does not seem to have received proper consideration.
  Mr. James Dempsey: If the hon. Lady withdraws her Amendment, what assurance have we that a similar Amendment will be considered on Report? My hon. Friend's reply was rather negative. Whether a lady is resident in a hostel or on board ship, if her husband is in the merchant navy, she is entitled to the consideration which is given to the wives of Service men.
  Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out the difficulty in which the Committee finds itself. My Amendment is purely drafting, but the substantive Amendment, that of my hon. Friend, was selected only for discussion and not for a Division. Had it been possible to have a Division on it, I would certainly have advised my hon. Friend to divide the Committee in the absence of an assurance from the Government. As it is, I think that her only remedy is to try to put down a similar Amendment on Report, and I understand that that would be possible.
  Dame Joan Vickers: We ought to have an assurance that the matter will be considered between now and Report. I understand that this matter is tied up with Clause 5(1,b). If the hon. Gentleman will agree to look at this matter and give us some assurance, I shall be happy to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Buchan: I am in some difficulty because I am not clear what it is I am being asked to make a statement about. I explained that we were really concerned with the problem of voting, and I gave the assurance that that was covered by Clause 5. I thought that I had made the position about registration clear when I said that any of the ladies involved would be regarded as normally resident at home, unlike merchant seamen.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: There is one difficulty about registration. If a wife accompanies her husband on a long voyage, they may let their house furnished while they are away. If the period of their absence coincides with the date for registration, the people then resident in the house will not be registered anywhere on the qualifying date if the merchant seaman and his wife are regarded as
  532
  being resident in the house. Will my hon. Friend consider that?
  4.45 p.m.
  Sir D. Kaberry: I hope that the Under-Secretary will make it abundantly clear that this is a question of registration and not of claiming the right to vote as an absentee voter, as it were, by postal vote.
  Mr. Buchan: I thought that I had made it clear from the beginning when I tried to make a distinction between registration and the right to vote by proxy or a postal vote.
  The issue now being raised is general and could apply in many situations. I think that hon. Members are concerned to ensure that we reduce the possibility to a minimum. I will consider that. However, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, because, although I understand the anxiety, I do not believe that it is warranted. But I will consider the matter. I hope that that will not be taken as a commitment, because there may be nothing to be committed about.
  Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend saying that he will consider the principle of ensuring that the wives of merchant seamen who are travelling with their husbands in some other parts of the world will have the right to vote?
  Mr. Buchan: I do not believe that I can be much clearer than I have been. I have said several times that voting is dealt with in Clause 5 and that the issue of voting is different from that of registration. Hon. Members have now raised what is a general difficulty of those people who are absent from their residences at the time of registration. This is a general problem rather than a merchant seaman problem. I have said that I will look at it. I am not giving a commitment, but saying that I will consider something which is of general application. I am trying to be fair to the Committee, and I hope that I have been.
  Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman has said that he will consider the point which has been raised by my hon. Friend. This has been a useful discussion. The hon. Gentleman asked us originally to reject the proposal, but, of course, the Committee is not in a position either to accept or reject it, because the Amendment has not been selected for a Division.
  Mr. Buchan: I suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, which might solve the problem.
  Mr. Sharples: As the substantive Amendment has not been moved but merely discussed with my Amendment, it is not possible to withdraw it. However, it has been a useful discussion and several matters have been raised which hon. Members will wish to consider on Report. It is not possible to carry the matter further now and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Sharples: I urge the Government to reconsider the whole drafting of the Clause. I appreciate the difficulty involved in drafting a Clause of this kind, but considering that many people other than lawyers will have to read this provision to know their rights, it should be drafted in more understandable language.
  I am particularly concerned with subsection (1) which says:
  "A service declaration shall be made with a view to registration in the register of electors for a particular year, and with reference to the qualifying date to which that register looks, and shall not have effect to enable the declarant to be registered in any other register."
  That is extraordinary language which is almost impossible to understand. I still do not know what a register looks at. My hon. Friend's and I tabled an Amendment to cover this point, but, unfortunately, it was not selected. I also hope that consideration will be given to my earlier remarks about subsection (4).
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I appreciate his remarks about the need for people, and particularly lawyers, to understand this provision. Discussions have taken place with the Service Departments, which assume a certain responsibility for legislation of this kind. I also note his remarks about the Opposition Amendment which was not selected.
  We have here a change in regard to the Service vote in that we are making arrangements whereby a form can be filled in in advance of the compilation
  534
  of a register. That is the reason for the present wording of this provision. Information about a Service vote can be left, to be given to the registration officer after 15th October. The wording of the Clause has been chosen carefully to cover this point. I am always prepared to re-examine the drafting of any legislation, but I am strongly advised that the present wording is necessary in view of the change in the Service vote that is involved.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

  OTHER AMENDMENTS AS TO PROXY AND POSTAL VOTING
  Mr. Keith Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 4, line 33, at beginning insert:
  (1) In section 12(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 there shall be added subsection (f) as follows:—
  (f) those who on polling day will be on holiday at an address at least 50 miles from their qualifying address;
  and in section 23(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 there shall be added subsection (e) as follows:—
  (e) those who on polling day will be on holiday at an address at least 50 miles from their qualifying address.
  This is an important Amendment which basically seeks, in the first part, to extend the right to vote by post at Parliamentary elections to people who will be on holiday and at least 50 miles from their qualifying address on polling day. The second part extends the same right to people who vote by post when on holiday and are at least 50 miles from their qualifying address in local elections at which they are allowed to vote, since postal votes are not allowed at certain local elections.
  In discussing the Bill we have been considering an expansion and extension of the franchise. Yesterday, we discussed extending it to 3 million people by reducing the voting age to 18. There are later proposals to extend hours so that people who, because of their work or for other

  535
  reasons, may be unable to vote up to 10 p.m., will have an extra hour in which to vote.
  Large numbers of people who at present go on holiday are not able, in practical terms, to cast a vote either at Parliamentary or local elections. This problem has exercised Parliament in previous years and various of my hon. Friends—notably my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles), my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Frederick Harris) and, most recently, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty)—have tried to introduce legislation to extend the postal vote at Parliamentary elections for people who will be on holiday. However, they attempted to go wider than this Amendment and their proposals did not contain the limitations which this one does.
  I am not being unfair in paraphrasing the opposition which was forthcoming to previous Private Members' Bills from the Government as having been broadly in two categories: first, the administrative difficulties—because my hon. Friends sought to go much wider than this Amendment—and, secondly, the fact that if one is to have reforms of representation of the people from the voting point of view, they should be part of a comprehensive change rather than being piecemeal reforms.
  That point was made with some strength in the debate in June, 1966 by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), when opposing the Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East. It was also the tenor of the objections voiced by the right hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) when, as a Home Office Minister, she was replying for the Government. It has been 20 years since the last reform. It may be another 20 years before the next reform takes place. The time has come when, if this matter is to be tackled properly, it must be tackled in this Bill, I hope in the manner I have outlined.
  The arguments in favour of the Amendment are overwhelming. The holiday patterns and the periods of
  536
  holiday in this country have changed substantially since the war. Today, many sections of British industry and commerce give three or four weeks' annual holiday as the rule rather than the exception. This is often achieved by employees taking a fortnight's annual holiday at one time and then an additional week or two later on at the mutual convenience of the employer and employee. I am convinced that by 1989—which is probably when we shall next be discussing this matter—six weeks' holiday will be the rule rather than the exception throughout British industry, and I hope that it will because we are already falling behind the Continent in this matter.
  With this trend in mind, we must consider the period when holidays are taken. A few years ago it was standard practice for the majority of workers to have a fortnight's annual leave, and they usually took it in the first or second half of August. At that time the whole country ground to a halt. We have now moved the August Bank Holiday to the end of August or the beginning of September and increasingly firms are trying to stagger the holiday period. The result is that the summer holidays band now ranges from June to October, and during this period people may be away on holiday. That band happens to coincide, particularly in October, with one of the most popular months for holding General Elections.
  The trend goes further than that. Not only do people in industry take their holidays during this band, but certain sections of the community, because of their occupations, trades or professions, are obliged to take their holidays in October or November or in May or June as well as at other times of the year which clash with the popular dates for holding General Elections. Seaside landladies, workers in the tourist industry and hotel employees, in addition to farmers once the harvest is in, often go away on holiday in October and similar out-of-season months.
  There are other smaller sections of the community who find it almost impossible to take a holiday between July and September. They are, therefore, obliged to holiday either earlier or later in the year. In addition, there is another section of the community, old people, who

  537
  take their holidays outside the main band. It is usually cheaper for them to holiday earlier or later in the year and their holidays often coincide with popular times for General Elections.
  There are schemes under which old people take coach trips to seaside resorts at cheaper rates, and these schemes are operative particularly early and late in the year. This enables them to take a holiday at reduced rates in hotels at the start or end of the season, a holiday which they could not otherwise afford. This is organised by old people's clubs, and so or, and is a growing and most desirable practice. But it means that these people cannot vote when a General Election is held in October.
  5.0 p.m.
  Also, a growing number of people are having winter sports holidays in Scotland or on the Continent, and this activity covers the months from December to March, and March is another popular month for General Elections. In addition, Parliamentary by-elections can occur at any time. Since the General Election of 1966 we have had by-elections in March, April, June, July, September, October and November. It is crystal clear that very many people find it impossible to vote because they are away on holiday during one of the months chosen for an election, and they are away largely because of circumstances of their occupation. I believe that in by-elections alone many thousands have been disfranchised.
  There are problems if one extends this too far. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends who tried to introduce legislation some years ago made this mistake. If we give people on holiday postal votes without laying down any conditions we might as well cease to have people going to the polling station because all can say that they might be on holiday on a particular day and so everybody in the country could vote by post.
  That is why we have specifically provided that these people must be on holiday 50 miles or more from their qualifying address. It is possible to argue about the 50 miles. The principle must be accepted that if people are within a certain distance of their polling station it is not unreasonable for them to cast their vote there. But I would point out that anyone in my constituency who
  538
  wishes to go to the seaside must travel more than 50 miles, and it is such cases that we ought to cover.
  Sometimes the administrative difficulties involved are referred to. Most of the holiday makers about whom we are speaking are not those who go away on the spur of the moment. They plan their holidays some time in advance and make their bookings. They know that for a certain period they will be away. If an election occurs during that time, their holiday will genuinely have been settled beforehand and it will not be a spur of the moment decision.
  Another argument concerns extra work for returning officers and their staff. I do not consider that the rights of the electorate should be subordinate to the administrative difficulties involved for civil servants, returning officers, Parliamentary parties or Members of Parliament. It seems to me that on occasions the Civil Service and the Establishment have the best of it and the people themselves have the worst of it.
  I pay tribute to the way returning officers and the others involved do their work. We are already adding to the work of the staffs by agreeing to votes at 18. I believe that a large number of those who will have votes at 18 will wish to be postal voters because they will be away at university and so on. We are also to extend the voting hours by one hour. I shall be interested to hear what is said when we discuss that subject.
  As I have said, we are already adding to the work of staffs in a large number of constituencies. Where one has an electorate of 100,000 or 120,000, the number of postal votes will, by definition, be greater, even without having postal votes for those who are on holiday, than in a constituency of 25,000 or 30,000. Perhaps the Governent will reply to the challenge that I put forward on Second Reading in this regard.
  The additional work put on the staffs already depends upon the efficiency and enthusiasm of local electors and local party organisations. It is interesting to look at the number of postal votes published after elections. In the very safe seats there are usually only 200, 300 or 400 postal votes, while at the other end of the scale in the marginal seats there may be 3,000. No one argues that when

  539
  voters registering for postal votes for business reasons it is an added burden on the staffs. So I find the argument unacceptable.
  The proposal means that in the first week when the postal votes are being registered there will be a lot of work for the staffs. This may entail obtaining additional staff to cope with it. I believe that in the marginal constituencies where traditionally there has been a high number of postal votes the extension of the franchise to persons of 18 may well require additional staff to cope with the work. Therefore, I do not regard the administrative difficulties as insoluble.
  People who have to be on holiday because of the circumstances of their work should be given a reasonable chance to cast their votes at local elections, General Elections or by-elections. The onus will be on them to apply. This is not spoon-feeding; they have to take the initiative. It is wrong that the House should deny these people the exercise of that responsibility.
  I believe that in some by-elections up to 5 per cent. of the electorate have been disfranchised in this way. I am convinced that at General Elections, particularly those held in October, the number of disfranchised runs into many hundreds of thousands. I find this situation completely unacceptable, and am not prepared to wait another 20 years before we can look at it again.
  If the Amendment is not accepted for insertion in the Bill, when hon. Members try to raise the subject in future by means of Private Members' Bills they will be told, "It cannot be done piecemeal. You must wait for comprehensive legislation." Here we have comprehensive legislation.
  I believe that the Amendment is realistic. It may cause difficulties, but it is workable. It will help people who wish to do so to exercise their voting rights when they will otherwise be prevented from doing so because of their occupation and having to be away on holiday at certain times. I commend the Amendment to the Minister, the Committee and my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I remember—when having been in the House, like the hon. Member for
  540
  Meriden (Mr. Speed), for a few months—reading the Official Reports of the Administration between 1945 and 1951, looking at issues which had been raised, reading the speeches from the Government Front Bench in defence of the status quo and then the speeches from the Opposition Front Bench, putting down appropriate Ten Minute Rule Bills and typical Amendments and standing up and making the speeches that had been made by the previous Opposition and receiving answers from the then Government Front Bench in the same sort of language that I and my colleagues experienced when we sat on the other side of the House. But I have never previously heard anyone make both the speeches of the Opposition and the speeches of the Government as the hon. Member for Meriden has done.
  The hon. Gentleman began by making a proposition that used to be made between 1945 and 1951 for having a vote while on holiday. Then he quoted a lot of the material which used to be put forward as to why this could not be done. It was material quoted by the previous Conservative Government as well. His last point was that anyone who could not afford a holiday at a distance of over 50 miles should not be allowed to vote by post, but that anyone who could afford a holiday over 50 miles could vote.
  That is the point. Many people can afford to take holidays perhaps only 20 or 30 miles from home but, according to the hon. Gentleman, they are not to have a postal vote because they will not be far enough away.
  Dame Joan Vickers: Surely people can travel 20 miles to vote if they are keen enough.
  Mr. Bence: Many of them could not travel back home on polling day. Many people go on holiday with very small budgets, especially the retired.
  Mr. Speed: There is no limit to the number of cars a political party may employ on polling day. Surely in both parties there would be sufficient cars available to bring back those only 20 miles or so away.
  Mr. Bence: Here is another difficulty. Thousands of electors are away from home on holiday within 50 miles of home

  541
  on polling day. The hon. Gentleman said that more and more people go on holiday. He said that coach loads of old people are taken on holiday and at various times of the year. He said that the holiday period had spread. Now he says that, if people are less than 50 miles away, there are plenty of cars available to their parties to fetch them back. Is he advocating the free use of cars in Parliamentary elections, with no expense limitation?
  Mr. Speed: The hon. Gentleman could employ 5,000 cars in his constituency, if he wished, to bring people to the poll.
  Mr. Bence: There is an expenditure limitation.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: Candidates cannot hire cars, but volunteer cars could do the job.
  Mr. Bence: In any election there is a lirc itation of expenditure by the candidate and his agent. The point that the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) made is that, if sufficient people are prepared to use their own cars to fetch constituents 40 or 50 miles back from holiday, they can do it. But there is a limit of expenditure by candidates and agents in doing that.
  Sir D. Kaberry: Surely it is only illegal to hire transport to bring in electors.
  Mr. Bence: A candidate cannot spend in excess of a certain sum. Volunteer cars may be used. I know that there are agents and candidates who can get that sort of volunteer assistance, but it would be a complete injustice between candidates and agents to have a system whereby people were collected from 40 or 50 miles away by car. I know areas of the country where the cars would not be forthcoming and people on holiday would not be collected. They would, therefore, be disfranchised if they were on holiday less than 50 miles away. That is a fair point.
  Mr. Costain: If we made the limit 25 instead of 50 miles, would the hon. Gentleman support it?
  Mr. Bence: No, because all that we should be doing would be fixing the anomaly at a different point. The anomaly would still be there.
  542
  A major administrative machine would have to be created for this purpose. Three weeks elapse between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day. In that time, the administrative staffs would have to find all the people on holiday. The hon. Gentleman himself pointed out that there are certain months in which the fewest number of people are on holiday, including October and March.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Speed: I pointed out that, in October, people such as seaside landladies and hoteliers and farmers must take their holidays. I would say that the fewest number of people on holiday is in November. I remind the hon. Gentleman that both March and October have been popular months for elections.
  Mr. Bence: These are months when, according to the hon. Gentleman, the fewest number of people are on holiday. The hon. Gentleman said that, in October particularly, people like seaside hoteliers and others are on holiday. Therefore, during that period, fewer of the rest of the population are on holiday.
  Mr. William Hamling: Spell it out in words of one syllable.
  Mr. Bence: Perhaps I should use a blackboard.
  Obviously, if those who cater for the holidays of the rest of the population take their own holidays in certain months, that is when the rest of the population are not on holiday. That is common sense and that is what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Speed: It is not what I said. People who go on holiday may even be having a busman's holiday. When seaside landladies and hoteliers return from holiday they are involved in renovation and redecoration of their establishments and they are working throughout the winter. But I do not only stress the point of view of such people. There are many others, in farming and in industry as a whole, who take their holidays in these months. The holiday band is widening from the traditional month of August.
  Mr. Bence: There is a widening holiday band which goes beyond those particular months. That is the point I was making. If there is a widening band for holidays, we would he laying upon

  543
  administrative staffs a huge burden in having to be ready over an ever-widening band to deal with elections which might come forward. One cannot produce staff in 10 minutes.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: Surely the point is that boarding-house and hotel proprietors from Blackpool, for example, do not go to Scarborough for holiday, but to Madeira or Spain. No one has yet said whether this postal service is to be extended to the four quarters of the globe. The proposal is impracticable.
  Mr. Bence: It is proving so difficult to point out simple elementary truths that we have not got anywhere yet. If we try to analyse the hon. Gentleman's speech any further, it will be a long time before we get to Madeira.
  Mr. Dempsey: The claim is that, if one is on holiday less than 50 miles away, cars should be sent to bring one back for the vote. We had an election during July not so long ago. Many thousands of Scottish people were on holiday on the West Coast of Scotland, only 35 miles from their constituencies. How many cars would have been necessary to bring them to the polls?
  Mr. Bence: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that when we are dealing with this sort of distance. People who live in Glasgow, for example, go to Rothesay or the Western Isles for their holidays, only 20 or 30 miles away. They have to take a train and then cross the water. There is a sea journey involved as well. How is it proposed that they should be brought back to vote? Is it suggested that a ferry should be chartered?
  I am glad, too, that the hon. Gentleman has read the speeches made by his right hon. and hon Friends in the past when they have put forward similar propositions, and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends when in Opposition in the last Administration. This case has been shattered time and time again.
  It would be impossible to recruit sufficient staff to deal with the situation, even if it were limited to voters on holiday in the British Isles. But suppose they decide to go to Madeira or Bermuda. In the South of France and the West Indies at
  544
  any time of the year there are hundreds of thousands of British citizens on holiday incognito. It would be impossible to find them. It would require thousands of civil servants to search for those people all of whom would be known by the name John Smith.
  Sir D. Kaberry: The hon. Gentleman then raises the delightful question of who they will be with in the South of France or the West Indies. However, he has missed the essence of the Amendment, which is designed to make certain additions to Section 12(1) of the Representation of the People Act enabling people to claim a postal vote. If any of his friends is spending a holiday incognito in the South of France and does not wish to claim, he need not.
  Mr. Bence: He would not be a friend of mine. He might be a friend of the hon. Gentleman's. The hon. Member for Meriden is worried about such people being disfranchised, but they are not concerned about that. They would prefer to be incognito than enfranchised.
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): If the hon. Gentleman would address the Chair, I, too, would hear what is going on in the Committee.
  Mr. Bence: I am sorry, Mr. Gourlay, but we are now in areas which are always subject to a considerable amount of humour.
  In the event of a sudden General Election, it would be an impossible task to recruit the necessary forces in the three weeks between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day. In that connection, the hon. Gentleman's last point was about the most absurd that I have ever heard expressed in this House. He said that it would mean increased work for the Civil Service and local authorities, which, in turn, would mean slight increases in staff. He added, however, that this Measure and other tasks imposed on various Government Departments in recent years had resulted in the recruitment of more civil servants in any event, and it would not matter about adding a few more.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman is never put in charge of a Department. I can see that he has never worked in a factory. It is probable that he has been a director—
  Mr. Speed: Perhaps I might tell the hon. Gentleman that I was in industry for nine years. However, is he aware that, by the Bill, his Government are adding very substantially to the work of local authorities and civil servants? Will he vote against the extension of polling hours to 10 o'clock, and will he press, as I have, for redistribution so that, when my constituency has 160,000 voters, my electoral registration officer will not die from a heart attack?
  Mr. Bence: I can answer that straight away. I am more interested in creating extra work for the administrative machine in seeing that ordinary working people car vote after they have finished work than in saying that Mr. Smith, incognito in Madeira, shall vote. I think that that is worth a little extra staff.
  Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman knows that his name is Mr. Smith, how can he be incognito?
  Mr. Bence: People who spend their holidays all over the world in that way generally choose the name Smith. Because of the publicity which surrounds the right hon. and learned Gentleman, they would never use the name Hogg.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment. It will create even more anomalies, among them that of the line being drawn at 50 miles. It will add to the difficulties of agents, candidates and workers in elections if, when an election is declared, a person with his name on the electoral register can be anywhere in the world yet have to be notified by the registrar, and sent a polling card. Apart from anything else, such people have to be found. If someone in Bermuda or Patagonia is not notified, the law will not have been carried out.
  This proposal has been made sereval times before by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The same sort of argument has been raised against it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
  [Sir Barnett Janner in the Chair]
  Mr. David Lane: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has drawn a flaming red herring across the Committee's deliberations and grossly exaggerated the com-
  546
  plications arising from acceptance of the Amendment. I hope that I can bring the Committee back to the main point, which is to remedy what strikes ordinary people as a plain injustice. There are strong feelings about this among voters of all parties, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware.
  If I may corroborate what my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) said by a recent example from my own experience, at a by-election in the middle of September a year ago it was discovered that the number of people away on holiday and, for that reason, unable to vote totalled thousands rather than hundreds. No doubt they included Cambridge landladies anxious to fortify themselves before the arrival of undergraduates. The whole situation left a bad taste in the mouths of many of my constituents.
  A number of hon. Members raised the general question of postal voting for people on holiday in the Second Reading debate. We were answered rather curtly by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who said:
  "When people will take their holidays is unpredictable. It would be very difficult to regulate this, but it was estimated that it would mean a considerable increase in the number of people having postal votes. It would mean that an extension of time would need to be allowed to the electoral registration officer for issuing forms. At the moment, I think it is 12 days. It would need to be at least 18 days. This would affect the timing of the election. Because of that, and because of the confusion and difficulties which would arise, this has hitherto been ruled out. This is why we rule it out now."—[Official Report, 18th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1028–9.]
  Having thought about this, I find his objections quite unconvincing, in view of the wording of the Amendment. 5.30 p.m.
  My hon. Friend referred to the earlier debate in June, 1966, when a Private Member's Bill was moved with the same purpose in mind, but drawn much wider than this Amendment. It was criticised then because of the extra administrative burdens this very wide proposal would create. The Government spokesman made virtually the same reply as that made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on Monday last week, quoting the figure of 12 days, as it now is, having to be lengthened to 18 days, as it would be. I

  547
  am sorry to weary the Committee with these figures of days, but it is relevant to the Amendment because we have tried to meet the objections previously raised.
  I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will agree that, in the light of experience, Section 12 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, is too narrow. We propose a modest alteration to cover the one case which sticks out more than others as needing to be put right, because there is even more of a gap in our arrangements today than 10 or 20 years ago.
  On distance, we have tried to strike a reasonable figure. I will not be distracted by the lurid points about water and air which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East raised a few minutes ago. I heard only this morning about a constituent of mine who was compelled, by his own enthusiasm and the present law, to go from Edinburgh to Cambridge to cast his vote in the by-election last year. I am grateful to him, but this should not be necessary, so we have suggested 50 miles as a reasonable figure.
  Concerning the extra days which might be necessary before polling day when the lists for postal votes would have to be closed, if the Government were arguing in 1966, on the wide Amendment then proposed, that it would need 18 days, on the much narrower one that we are now proposing at most it would mean extending the 12-day period to 14 or perhaps 15 days. I am sure that this is not an administrative difficulty which ought to stand in our way if we believe the principle is right. My hon. Friends and I are open to discussion on the details of the Amendment, provided that the Government accept the principle. They may feel that 50 miles is wrong. In that case, let us discuss it. If they think that the proposal is open to abuse for any reason, let us consider what was suggested in 1966 for some arrangement for attestation in addition to the simple form which postal voters now have to fill in.
  I appeal to whoever is to reply for the Government not to stick to the stock objections which have been raised on earlier occasions, but to recognise that we have made a real effort to meet them and to consider the Amendment sympathetically. I hope it will also be recognised
  548
  that we are not proposing this change in aid of one party or another, but in aid of a more healthy democracy in Britain, which should commend itself to the Government and to the Committee.
  Mr. Dempsey: I just want to look—[Interruption.]—I have only made one intervention. I sat here until 11.30 last night and did not say one word, so hon. Gentlemen cannot complain about my being vociferous or bellicose.
  I want to consider the difficulties in operating the system outlined in the Amendment. First, who will measure the distance? What staff will undertake the decision whether a person is 50 miles away or even 25 miles away? Consider the work involved. It is not so simple. One important factor which has been overlooked is that in this affluent society, many people, even in the West of Scotland, travel by charter flights for three-and four-week holidays to all parts of the world. My son is connected with continental airlines, and he arranges charter flights. I should like to know, from the announcement of a Parliamentary election, how we will manage to issue postal votes to people in places like San Francisco and other parts of the United States of America and have them returned in time. During the last General Election one of my agents happened to be in Australia. There was no hope of contacting him with a postal system and giving him the right to cast his vote.
  I was a General Election agent for several years at Bothwell. I had a great deal to do with the organisation of elections. I know how difficult it is to organise the present postal vote without being involved in organising a postal vote to cover all corners of the world. The Amendment would have been simpler had it been tabled to instruct the Prime Minister not to call a Parliamentary election during the holiday months. That would have been much more effective and would save a lot of trouble and a great deal of cost.
  We live a free and easy and comfortable life in Scotland—[Interruption.] We take the climate as it comes, whether political, economic or social, and we will take the General Election, when it comes, in the same way.
  I was an election agent during the famous July 1945 General Election. To

  549
  talk about fixing a mileage perimeter and sending cars to return thousands of holiday makers within the 50 miles mentioned in the Amendment, for example, from the West Coast of Scotland to the constituencies, to vote is a physical impossibility.
  Mr. Bence: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Scotland many constituencies are over 50 miles in width? Are we to fetch voters backwards and forwards to the polling stations there?
  An Hon. Member: So what?
  Mr. Dempsey: So what. In many areas people have to go on horseback.
  It could be argued that, for example, instead of having tours to the Argentine or to San Francisco, in future we might be touring in space for several weeks at a time. In that event there would be no hope of contacting people with a postal vote. It might seem idealistic to argue that people should have the right to vote—I accept that—but if an election is called and people are not in their places of residence that is a risk that they must run.
  I appreciate the sentiments expressed and the sincerity of the Amendment, but it just is not practicable. Because it is not practicable it would be unwise to burden the United Kingdom's election organisation with such an impossible task. It would be easier to tell the Prime Minister not to call a General Election during holiday months.
  Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I wish to return to several points which have been made today. I start by saying that when I next go on holiday incognito and I want to be known as someone who will give a splendid chuckle to everybody else I shall call myself Cyril Bence. I take it that we can all start from two common assumptions—first, that we all want to make it possible for as many people as possible to record their votes as reasonably as may be, and, secondly, that we have moved into a totally new climate in respect of holidays.
  A few years ago the holiday was the prerogative of a very few people. Today, mercifully, it is the prerogative of large numbers. We are told that leisure is
  550
  increasing. It we did not believe it, we had the Secretary of State for Education and Science telling us recently that it is on the increase. It therefore follows that a serious point is involved which is not met by witticisms about holidays, and so on.
  The first serious point to consider is that at the relevant time a person may be holidaying abroad. I see the Under-Secretary nodding. He will know that: at present if a person has reasonable grounds for believing that he will be away from home on business he is entitled to a postal vote. Many of my constituents are airline pilots. Under the present law they are entitled to apply for and to receive a postal vote. But at any time between applying for that postal vote and their receiving it in some way, they may have gone abroad—perhaps to one of the places that have been referred to. I am sure that hon. Members would not say that that physical fact makes it unreasonable that they should receive a postal vote.
  If the system can be operated quite reasonably in the case of persons on business there is no logical reason why it should not operate in the case of persons on holiday. If a person is away on business the electoral returning officer does not have to seek him out in Timbuctoo or Patagonia. Such a requirement would be totally unreasonable, and we would never impose it. But a person must record the address to which his postal vote application is to be sent.
  Furthermore, there is a reasonable period of time—because a person receives his postal vote application appreciably ahead of polling day—within which he can operate. I have no doubt that some people abroad are too far away and are not able to use their postal vote. That objection, whatever other objections there may be, does not stand examination.
  The case was most persuasively put by the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks). Even if we concern ourselves with General Elections alone—when the dates are restricted to certain days of the year—we know that many people will be away on holiday at the time. I agree that it is possible to pick holes in the 50-mile limit. I speak without any consultation on the matter, but I am sure that if it was purely the question of the

  551
  50 miles which caused the Under-Secretary difficulty he would find my hon. Friends and myself amenable. Furthermore, if he feels that there is something technically wrong with the drafting, he knows that in the ordinary course of events the Amendment can be withdrawn on an undertaking by the Under-Secretary to bring in another one. In principle the case is a very strong one.
  We have agreed that in future persons of 18 years of age and over shall have the vote. Many of those are students. An increasing number of students now travel abroad together, in organised groups. I must declare a personal interest here, because I have only just become a member of the travel board of the National Union of Students, which is one of the greatest and most efficient travel organisations in this country—or at least it has been until my joining it. I declare that personal interest because an hon. Member opposite got in a very good commercial plug.
  Many of the voters whom we have added to the registers are likely to be travelling on holiday in organised groups at the time of an election. We want them to have the widest opportunities for voting. I hope that the Under-Secretary will appreciate the genuine concern on the part of the proposers of the Amendment to make the electoral process available to the largest number of people, and that they have accepted a certain limitation because they wanted to make the Amendment a practical one.
  Since the holiday habit is widely spread in these days I very much doubt that this Amendment would stand to the advantage of one party or the other, although that would have been the case not many years ago. Therefore, there are grounds for its serious examination.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Walden: I rise only to make one point. I would not have done so had I not felt that it was a point of substance which is seldom mentioned in such a discussion as this. We used to have a system of voting in which local authorities were responsible for getting voters' names on to the registers. Electors were sent forms to fill in and if a local authority had reason to believe that in a certain area or dis-
  552
  trict a substantial number of eligible voters had not returned their forms it had a duty to do something about it and to get those people on to the register.
  The Americans have always had a very different system, of voting by claim, in which a would-be voter goes to the town hall and registers himself. He does not receive a vote unless he does that. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) is right in saying that there is nothing peculiar, unusual or strange in the suggestion contained in the Amendment. It is in line with the provisions of Clause 6. I have long had grave doubts about the principle enshrined in that Clause, because I believe that we should not have an absurd system in which a local authority has to trace people all over the country.
  That would happen if we had a system of vote by claim. If people wanted to vote they would register a claim to exercise their vote. From the point of view of the definition laid down by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) there is nothing at all against it. The aim is to get as many people as possible to the polls. An individual citizen, as with the postal voting system, has every right to claim a vote. But we must not forget what we are doing when we tack on the American claim system to the British system, under which a local authority gets people on to the register, thus biasing the socio-economic content of the register as a whole. In the United States, those who are not registered to vote, in every major state, are overwhelmingly the poorer section.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: Does the hon. Gentleman not see some flaw in the fact that one cannot exercise one's right to claim unless one is already on the register?
  Mr. Walden: This is a valid point and I was coming to it. I was about to say that it would be unjust to suggest either that the hon. Member for Meriden is trying to institute a different claim system from that which we already have, or that he is not dealing only with those already on the general register, but the principle is the same. What will happen if this is not done is that everyone who goes on holiday outside the 50-mile limit will not get the vote. If it is done, there will be a right of claim and in any

  553
  thousand cases no one here has any doubt as to which way the bias will be. It is unfortunate that we, like most countries, haw a system whereby the better off tend to vote with the party opposite, and the reverse is true of the poorer section——
  Mr. Nigel Birch: Not next time.
  Mr. Walden: It would help my argument if that were so, but I am not making a party point.
  I know that the system which the hon. Member for Meriden suggests is attractive, but we should not have such a system, even if it is convenient for individuals, even if it is a right which is already exercised in a series of categories. There should not be a system under which people must claim a vote. This has always been my objection to postal votes. Admittedly, it may be administratively difficult to do anything about it, but in principle it is wrong. It biases the socioeconomic content of the postal vote, as everyone who has fought an election knows.
  I am glad to have been able to speak on the Amendment, not because I think that it is wrong or because I think that the hon. Member has not put it forward reasonably, or because it has no merits. I simply wanted to call attention to the principle of claim voting. I do not like it and I do not want it extended.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) needs some answers to his argument. which was logical enough but had fundamental weaknesses. But I also want to support the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) who has said what many ordinary people think is right, despite what was said earlier, and particularly despite what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) said. In fact, the principle of the Amendment, whatever the phrasing and whatever the distance involved, is a good principle. En other words, we are trying to ensure that there is minimum inconvenience and expense involved in voting. That is why we already put polling stations in out of the way places. That is why, although my constituency is the largest of all—probably 100 miles across
  554
  —polling stations are put there in out of the way places, so that people can vote without expense.
  Our holidays are increasingly determined by the kind of jobs we do. I see no distinction in logic between saying, "You are a sailor and therefore are entitled to a postal vote," and saying, "You are a miner and, because of the way your mine operates, your holidays will be within a specific period, so you will go away, because you deserve your holiday as much as anyone, and will get a vote for the election or by-election which falls in that period." What is the distinction between giving a vote for certain occupations—long-distance lorry drivers, for example—because of the movements which their jobs demand, and giving it to people who have gone away because that is the only time that they can go?
  Mr. Walden: But they would not be given a vote: they would have to claim that vote. That is the trouble.
  Mr. Johnston: I will return to that point in a moment. The whole burden of the series of conservative speeches which we have heard from hon. Members opposite was that this was very difficult indeed. I was astounded that two successive Labour speakers should say that this would mean some increase in the Civil Service. That was an astounding argument from members of a party which spends most of its time doing just that.
  Already, this is done in 34 states of the the U.S.A. and it is done in Australia and it can be done here: it is possible.
  There were three basic arguments. The first was that the local authorities would be overburdened, that they might take up to 18 days because of this great avalanche of postal votes. This is a considerable exaggeration, and I have yet to hear any specific evidence of the number of votes involved in each kind of constituency and the amount of extra time which it would take to open the extra envelopes and count them. It is true that there is no capacity to check. This is probably a weakness of the argument. One cannot prove whether a man is going to Holland, Madeira or Blackpool——
  Sir D. Kaberry: But would not the hon. Member agree that, to get a postal vote,

  555
  the elector would have to make a declaration on a form, and would be liable to some penalties if he made an incorrect statement?
  Mr. Johnston: I accept the point, and was about to say that, if the elector said that he was going to stay, say, in No. 5, Hogg Mansions, Blackpool, the voting form would be sent there; if he were not there, that would be unfortunate. The basic principle is that one cannot prove that one is going, for instance, to Holland.
  Mr. Speed: This is a point, but let us not overstress it, since, at present, a commercial traveller or someone who is away on holiday because of his business can claim a business vote. This is a very narrow dividing line. After all, we must trust people. Most are not dishonest and the postal vote will go to the place involved. Some hon. Members seem to have a very low opinion of the electorate, but I am inclined to trust them.
  Mr. Johnston: I accept the hon. Member's argument. I do not think that the normal elector would go to the trouble of getting a postal vote for simple amusement. The number of people who go to the trouble of getting postal votes already, and who are entitled to them, are on the register, and this depends on the degree of political activity in any constituency. The party representatives go around looking for these people and there is little impetus from the people themselves. Although there is little capacity to claim, and although, if this were extended, it might potentially be wide, I do not think that, practically—and that is the argument, the practical argument, which hon. Members opposite have used—any number of people would do it just for the sake of it.
  6.0 p.m.
  I would leave out of account the argument whether the distance should be 50, 45 or 43 miles; that is not important. I think that the Government Front Bench would either accept or reject the principle. The question of the arbitrary line which would be drawn is not something about which people would die in the last ditch.
  The hon. Member for All Saints made the point about this being what he called
  556
  socio-geographic—a new and vogue word——
  Mr. Walden: Socio-economic. Mr. Johnston: I am sorry—
  Mr. Hogg: Specially designed for Conservative voters.
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member has in mind Conservative voters in social and economic terms. He said, reasonably speaking, that when a vote is obtained only on claim, this has a certain bias towards people who are better off, more intelligent or something. I am not sure whether the hon. Member was indicating to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that within the socio-economic group to which he referred people are necessarily more intelligent. I would not have thought so.
  Mr. Hogg: He meant it but he did not say it.
  Mr. Johnston: One admits that this is a weakness of any postal system. The question then becomes, which of two choices do we make? Do we try in some way to make it possible for people to vote who otherwise will not be able to vote or do we say that merely because of a hypothetical bias—this bias exists in voting itself; we all know what the Labour Party think about wet days. They say, "Oh, they will stay at home and watch television"? This applies to all participation in public activity generally.
  I do not see that the hon. Member for All Saints has any justification in singling out one area and separating it from all the rest. That is not necessarily logical. In the end, however, to pursue his argument, if one were to accept it, one has to make a choice.
  Should we try to provide for the increasing numbers of people—the hon. Member for Meriden was right, and so was the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee)—who have to go on holiday at particular times, not because of choice, but because of the pattern of their work and staggered holidays. It is not, therefore, simply a question of having a General Election in December. I would not like that to happen in Inverness. [Interruption.] There are indications that General Elections should be held outside the holiday period.

  557
  We have to make a choice. Do we try to provide for the increasing numbers of people who have to go on holiday at a particular time, or do we not? On balance, I very much think that we do, despite even the acceptance of the argument put by the hon. Member for All Saints.
  Mr. Hamling: I have great sympathy with the Amendment. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is not present to hear these comments. I do not know whether in due course he will cast his vole by proxy.
  This matter was discussed by Mr. Speaker's Conference when I was on it and Mr. Speaker's Conference came down against it. I do not use that as an argument why the House of Commons should also come down against it, because as a model of consistency I intend to take the line that if Mr. Speaker's Conference is against it, I am for it; and if Mr. Speaker's Conference is for it, I am against it. I will not repeat that for the benefit of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, who has now returned, beyond saying that I am not using Mr. Speaker's Conference as an argument in this case.
  I have great sympathy with the Amendment because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), I do not take the view that we should accept a situation that people are denied the opportunity to vote because they are sick, in hospital, at work or for many other reasons. I do not share that view. I think that others of my right hon. and hon. Friends have an inferiority complex about postal voting because their constituencies cannot get the postal vote out. My view is that in West Woolwich we can, and in my constituency at the last election, and certainly the election in 1964, we had a majority on the postal vote. That, however, is not relevant to the argument.
  I certainly acquit my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints of any party bias in this matter. I know my hon. Friend a lot better than the Opposition do. If there is any hon. Member on this side who could be described as being objective in this matter, it is my hon. Friend. I have no doubt about this. The right hon. and learned Member for St.
  558
  Marylebone is far too suspicious of motives in this debate. [An Hon. Member: "He is a lawyer."] That is not a reason. Some lawyers are quite reasonable.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends not to take a subjective view of this matter. I have great sympathy with the Amendment because I take the view that, where we can, we should let people have the opportunity of voting if they can. Having looked at the Amendment and listened to some of the earlier speeches, I think that one of the troubles with the Amendment is that it is open to a great deal of abuse. If the Amendment means what it says when it specifies 50 miles, 49 miles or 48 miles will be out. In my view, somebody who is on holiday 40 miles away is as entitled to vote by post as anyone who is on holiday over 50 miles away.
  Where I live in South-East London is not very far from Southend or Herne Bay. A great many people could be on holiday at Herne Bay who certainly would not be covered by the Amendment but who might find it extremely difficult to come back on polling day. It is not only people who go away on holiday who would be penalised in this way. I think also of day trippers. One should not look down one's nose at day trippers.
  When planning their holidays, a great many people—I think particularly of railwaymen's families—use privilege tickets as the basis of their family holiday to travel about from place to place and use their home as their base. These people would be excluded by the Amendment. These are serious anomalies. One of the dangers is that by seeking to end what one can consider to be an anomaly, one can create many more anomalies. People might have a legitimate grievance and say, "Parliament is giving the right to vote in this way to one group of people and not to us. This is a grave injustice."
  Sir D. Kaberry: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should not be a mileage limitation and that anybody who is on holiday should be able to claim this vote?
  Mr. Hamling: I am merely pointing out how difficult it is to find a reasonable method of administering votes of this kind for holidaymakers.
  Sir D. Kaberry: With or without a mileage limitation?
  Mr. Hamling: Even if there were no such limitation, one would have to certify the fact. "I am on holiday," one could say, but who would prove that he was not at the dog track on that day? Would a visit to a race meeting constitute a holiday?
  Mr. Speed: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of how a businessman at present certifies that he is away on business?
  Mr. Hamling: Returning officers are hot on this. I know the returning officer for my borough extremely well and I am aware of the basis on which he regularly throws out claims for postal votes. The hon. Gentleman knows the position, too, as does the returning officer for his constituency. Claims for this purpose made by business people are normally based on the fact that they are away on business regularly. No businessman would claim that he should have this right merely because he is away for one day out of 365. A fortnight's holiday once a year is no comparison.
  There are insuperable administrative difficulties involved in achieving a reasonable and desirable reform of this kind, and, however admirable the Amendment might be, I believe that it would prove unworkable on administrative grounds.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) made a serious speech on this important subject, which is more than can be said of the remarks of most of his hon. Friends, who made a joke of the whole affair. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) invariably gets himself into a tangle and produces as many red herrings as he can. He certainly did that today, followed by a Punch and Judy performance between himself and some of his hon. Friends.
  This is a serious subject and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), who is to be congratulated on the way in which he moved the Amendment, has probably had the most recent experience of handling postal votes in connection with the by-election which brought him here. As he pointed out, over the years many of my hon. Friends and I have tried hard to persuade the Govern-
  560
  ment to accept that if people are away on holiday they should be as entitled to a postal vote just like people who are away on business. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) pointed out the anomaly of allowing postal votes to people who are absent for business reasons but forbidding them to people who are on holiday.
  I confess to not being happy about the reference to 50 miles in the Amendment, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend has tried to overcome the argument which has been adduced against this sort of proposal in the past and which the hon. Member for Woolwich, West highlighted. However, if 50 miles is not an acceptable distance, the Government could make another suggestion to achieve the same object and ensure that the facility of a postal vote is not easily abused.
  6.15 p.m.
  The Minister is aware—indeed, I believe that he nodded assent when this point was made earlier—that a satisfactory answer could be found. After previous debates on this subject I have spoken to Ministers and they have told me privately that the problem could be solved if it were faced up to. It must be, for many thousands of citizens should not be prohibited from the votes to which they are entitled.
  Contrary to the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, I have found in previous elections in my part of the world that Labour Party organisers have thought that we in the Conservative Party are better able to organise postal voters. I appreciate their reasoning hut, whatever the facts may be, people should not be prevented from voting.
  We hope for a serious response from the Minister on this occasion. The time must come when the law in this respect is changed, particularly in view of the trend for holidays to be spread over the year. This will happen increasingly in future, and the problem will therefore become greater. It will particularly apply when youngsters are able to vote from the age of 18. I, therefore, beg the Minister to treat the Amendment with seriousness and at last try to find an answer to this problem.
  Mr. Costain: The Amendment, which was moved brilliantly by my hon. Friend

  561
  the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), has been received with an extraordinary amount of chit-chat from hon. Gentlemen opposite. One cannot gather from their remarks whether they oppose it or support in The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) suggested that there would be convoys of charabancs travelling the length and breadth of the country carrying hordes of people wishing to cast postal votes. He then argued in the opposite direction, and in the end I was not sure precisely what he meant.
  I represent the coastal resort of Folkestone and this Amendment has a strong bearing on my constituents. One need only analyse the percentage of votes cast at General Elections in the last 25 years to appreciate that when one takes place in the autumn, and particularly in October, as is frequently the case, the number of voters absent is greater in an area like mine. There is a limited period in the year when those employed in the local hotels, shops and so on are able to take their holidays. October is one of the most convenient months for my constituents to holiday; at the end of the holiday season yet before the Christmas season.
  It is wrong that constituents like mine should be prevented from voting. The only argument adduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite against the Amendment appears to have been that it would be difficult to organise postal votes in this way. I thought that they were about to suggest that we should not have any more General Elections because they are difficult to organise. That would suit them very well. It was noteworthy that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), whose postal voting arrangements are obviously better organised in his constituency, did not oppose the Amendment with the same enthusiasm as some of his hon. Friends.
  I suggest that the trouble in the past has been that hon. Members opposite have felt that the Conservative supporters were better able to deal with postal votes. The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) said that, but I think that he is doing his supporters a disservice, because we do not agree that they are all as unintelligent as all that——
  Mr. Walden: I know the hon. Member well and I am quite sure that he would not like to misrepresent me. I am not talking about intelligence. It is the fact that the less well educated, manual section of the population always has far more difficulty with forms—filling them in, disposing of them and collecting them—and they are also more difficult to find at the appropriate times. It is simply that.
  Mr. Costain: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument carries much weight: has he ever had a Littlewood's coupon?
  This is a serious debate. We are discussing how, for the sake of democracy, we can give all our electors an opportunity to vote with the minimum of inconvenience. Those of us who represent coastal resorts do not think—and this has happened in my own experience—that our electors ought to feel it their duty to give up a holiday in order to vote, but that is what is happening.
  Hon. Members opposite want to make a party issue of this, but I suggest that it is the Conservative supporters who are better able to alter the dates of their holidays with regard to the date of a General Election than their own supporters, who are probably going away because the trade is slack. It is an illusion for hon. Members opposite to say that this is a party matter, and that therefore they should not vote for the Amendment. They forget that the number of people taking holidays every year is increasing, and the longer this matter is left in its present stupid state the longer we will have people disfranchised, and the more difficult it will be to get an election which truly represents the feeling of the nation. That is what democracy is about, and what it should be about.
  The question should not be: is it more difficult? I believe that if it is now impossible we should so organise things as to make it possible. If hon. Members are prepared to accept polls of 65 per cent. and 75 per cent. as indicating the feeling of the nation, then let things go on as they are, but my belief is that unless we get 90 per cent. of the people voting we do not get a true, democratic picture.
  In Australia voting is compulsory, and if it were compulsory here there would be

  563
  an even better argument. The hon. Member for All Saints said that people have to claim a vote. If people have to claim the vote because they have gone away, they have gone away for a purpose, so it is necessary in the nature of things that they have to go through some process, and to do that is not too difficult.
  This is a matter of real principle to those representing seaside resorts and other holiday areas. It is essential in the name of democracy that we should allow the people to vote, and I am delighted to find the Liberal Party here is fully in agreement with this Amendment. It is only those who do not want the real truth to come to the nation that are against it.
  Mr. Onslow: I want to echo the expressions of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). He is glad, as I am, that this has now become a serious debate, because the earlier knockabout attitude adopted by some hon. Members opposite was quite deplorable.
  To put things in perhaps the most dramatic way, an elector away from his constituency on holiday at the time of an election is at present obliged to return home if he wishes to vote. I believe this journey to be wholly unnecessary. How many of those who make that journey expose themselves to the risk of death or serious injury as a result? That is a factor we have to take into account. We know that many road casualties are wholly unnecessary, and this should be made a wholly unnecessary journey.
  I hope that the Minister will not tell us that it would be impossible to do as the Amendment suggests. He may tell us that it is difficult to operate such a scheme—I do not know that he knows necessarily how difficult—but I hope that he will not exaggerate the difficulties, as some of his hon. Friends undoubtedly have. The average number of extra postal votes in an average constituency is very unlikely to run into four figures, and that would represent, I suggest, an increase of about 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. on the number of postal votes already dealt with. I doubt whether that would mean a very large increase in the number of man hours involved. This is not really a burdensome thing and, in any case, we
  564
  know that most of the work is done by the parties and not by the returning officer's staff.
  When all the prepared positions of the Home Office have been stormed and all its arguments exposed as invalid, there are only two ultimate grounds on which such an Amendment as this can be opposed. The first is a feeling of guilt; a feeling that there is something wrong in going away on holiday at election time; that if there is an election one ought not to go on holiday, and that if one does one ought to pay a penalty for one's presumption or affluence. What a wholly ludicrous nineteenth century notion that is. I hope that the Minister will not seek refuge in it. In my constituency I have many airline pilots. Is it to be said that these men, who have an opportunity by reason of their profession of a very favourable concessionary rate to take their families overseas on holiday, should forgo that opportunity because they would then be unable to vote? This can be a very considerable penalty in some cases, and it is an aspect that ought not to be Lightly dismissed.
  The other ground is sheer fear. It is distrust of the electorate in some degree. It is a political fear that if we advantage people who are going on holiday they may not vote for us. There may be something to be said for the view that people who go to Madeira for their holiday have more sense than to vote for this Government and some of its present financial wizards. Never mind, this Chancellor of the Exchequer will in due course, disappear and the time may even come when some of the people going to Madeira will be perfectly prepared to vote for the Labour Party. Meanwhile fear is not a respectable argument for opposing the Amendment.
  Nor is there much in the argument of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), who says that because this proposal would give a number of people a right to claim and because some with the right would not use it, none should have it. That is a very sterile and unprogressive argument, as he probably will understand, because we might as well say that because some people on the register do not vote—and one main reason there is that they are dead—none of the people on the register should have

  565
  the vote. That is the result if we extend the same principle to its logical extremity.
  [Mr. Sydney Irving in the Chair]
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Walden: That is not my point at all. In this country even today, and certainly in other countries, those who for one reason or another do not have a vote because they are not on the register come overwhelmingly from one social class. If elections are to be an attempt to find the wishes of the majority, one must take account of how the system is already biased and not bias it further in that direction.
  Mr. Onslow: We might have to have the blackboard of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) before us if we were to go into detail. That would be out of order.
  I turn to the final element of fear in this equation. It is the fear that if the postal vote system were extended there would be more opportunity for people to make fraudulent use of it. This may be technically so. But, I am not averse to the argument that anyone ought to be entitled to vote by post. I do not see any reason to object to that, because I do not believe that people would sell their votes, or that there would be traffic in the franchise or large scale bribery or impersonation. I am prepared to proceed on the assumption that the electorate is mainly honest. As things stand at the moment there may be electors who make declarations which are not necessarily wholly honest, but it really is unnecessary to put any electors in this position. There can be no objection in principle to passing this Amendment.
  Dame Joan Vickers: It is said that in my constituency we have more experience of postal voting than in other constituencies. The socio-economic theory of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) falls down altogether there, because the people in my constituency probably earn a quarter of tie amount in wages that his constituents do. My constituents are made up mostly of weekly wage-earners.
  Mr. Walden: The hon. Lady is reading into what I said that this argument
  566
  is about Labour and Tory. I was simply talking about having a given social group excluded, or largely excluded, from those who get on to the register. This may not apply to a particular party, but the fact remains that those against whom the system is biased come from the poorer income groups.
  Dame Joan Vickers: The hon. Member defeats his own argument. Voters in my constituency are largely from the poorer income groups and the average wages are £11 per week. We have at least 60,000 voting and they are able to fill in forms as well as anyone else can. The hon. Member is underestimating the average intelligence of those in the lower income groups.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: Has the hon. Lady had the interesting job of canvassing in a major slum clearance area? It is deplorable to find the overwhelming number of people in such an area who for some reason or other cannot get on the register. This is out of all proportion in a major industrial town.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I have stood for election in Poplar. I should not have thought that, particularly in 1945, any place had worse slums than Poplar, but I managed to find plenty of people in the electorate.
  I cannot see why in this computer age we cannot arrange things more easily. How is it that overseas Americans can do this? I should like to know who is against this proposal. I believe the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) voted yesterday against the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. Perhaps he will do the same today as he is a man of independent mind. I understand that the A.M.C. is objecting to the proposal, but why should we take its objections so seriously? In 1945, when there were many Service votes, we did not have the results declared on the same night but waited three weeks for those votes. There is no need to count all the votes on the election day; they could be counted the day after.
  In the West Country there are problems for hoteliers and boarding-house keepers who have to take their holidays after the season. There are also problems of farmers who cannot go away until the harvest is over. They cannot fix their dates for

  567
  holidays some time ahead. In a Service town, if we have these people on the register, directly nominations are closed one can send out election addresses to those who are overseas. There is no reason why that should not be done for all people who will be away on election day. I cannot see difficulty over that. If it can be done for those who are in Singapore, Gibraltar, Bahrain and so on and their votes are collected three weeks after the election day, it could be done for other people.
  Canvassers have to go to search out people who are blind or disabled and help them to fill in forms, and they have to get a doctor to sign a certificate. Those with whom the Amendment is concerned are not asking that to be done because they are able-bodied and all they need do is to say that they will be away from home. I do not believe my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) is absolutely wedded to the 50 miles limit. These people would be able to go to the office of the local organisation of the Socialist or Conservative Parties. They would not have to go through the registration officer. A great deal of heavy weather is being made over this proposal. I suggest that the Minister should think again and see if we cannot find a way of giving these people their just rights.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I were to give the Government's view on this Amendment. I should have expected that on a subject on which there are 629 other experts we might have had a broader discussion.
  I found the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints, (Mr. Walden) one of great interest. I believe that all the research that has been done shows that there is this socioeconomic base to the application for the variety of different types of postal and proxy voting. I did not think my hon. Friend was making any judgment on the intelligence of anyone. Everyone has given his personal experience on this matter, so I am about to do so. What I have found over the years is that, in regard to the postal vote which is done rather differently from normal voting by being registered, the work done by the registration officer is not so much a
  568
  question of intelligence and of knowing how to fill in a form but of knowledge of the facilities available.
  Anyone who has been a postal vote officer will know of the knowledge needed about illness, incapacity, blindness, a journey by air or sea, or being a member of Her Majesty's Forces or the Auxiliary Forces. My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints raised an interesting point about the way in which the vote is expressed in this country and pointed out that getting people on to the postal vote register comprises a voluntary effort. People working on the system will, for example, go round to the surgeries. When I stood for election in a marginal constituency my garage was full of postal votes for registration. There were 2,500, one of the largest postal votes in the country, and this was because of the effort of one person who spent his whole time in getting those postal votes.
  The percentage figures in the recent presidential elections in America showed that 68 per cent. of the population voted whereas in this country over 70 per cent. voted and in many marginal constituencies 85 per cent. voted. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and others quite rightly said that we are trying to get as many people to the poll as possible. In Australia voting is compulsory, and in Iron Curtain countries voting is done in a different way. We in this country are remarkably successful in getting such large numbers of people to the poll.
  Mr. Peter Mahon: Although we are remarkably successful in this country, will not my hon. Friend concede that there is a natural antipathy against the postal vote and that people who have voted in the normal way all their lives are very reluctant to use the postal vote when they become ill or infirm, and that they need strong persuasion to make them do so?
  Mr. Rees: We are all expressing our own personal experiences of various elections. Certainly I have detected something like that among the older generation—I am not now referring to those of any one political persuasion. There is a sense among older people that they prefer to go to the poll and put a cross on a bit of paper. This is the generation which lived through the extension of the franchise and perhaps it therefore feels more

  569
  strongly about having the vote than do those people who have been born to expect it and who accept it.
  Mr. Onslow: Surely there is a much simpler explanation, which is that in a way the admission of physical inability to reach the polling station is an unpleasant admission for an old person to have to make.
  Mr. Rees: That is perfectly true. I was not using that in any sense as the most important argument. I was simply agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) that older people prefer to go to the poll under their own steam.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to provide absent voting facilities at Parliamentary and local government elections for people on holiday. I was interested in the views of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I asked one of my hon. Friends to take the opportunity to look at the percentage poll in the hon. Gentleman's constituency over the years, because I take his point that October is a bad month when so many people are away and in which the percentage poll should therefore be the lowest.
  Mr. Costain: If the hon. Gentleman is about to draw an analogy from the last election, let me say that that is not a viable argument. There were other reasons for the size of the poll on that occasion.
  Mr. Rees: There may have been other reasons. I have gone back further than tha:. In March, 1966, the poll was 70·6 per cent.; in October, 1964, 71 per cent.; in October, 1959, there was the highest percentage poll in recent years, 76 per cent.; and in May, 1955, it was 73 per cent. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument about things shutting down in a seaside constituency in October, but those figures show that there are many factors as well as postal voting for people going on holiday to take into account.
  Mr. Costain: The hon. Gentleman is paying me a very subtle compliment; 1959 was the first year I stood.
  Mr. Rees: The poll was the lowest last time, which may mean that people get used to things.
  Mr. Speed: Those figures reinforce my point, because all the percentage figures in Folkestone, a seaside town with a Member of Parliament as forth-right as my hon. Friend, are nevertheless below the national average.
  Mr. Rees: The whole point of this part of my speech is simply to point out that there are many factors which account for the size of a poll, not merely giving prospective holidaymakers the right to have a postal vote.
  The restriction in the Amendment that the voter must be on holiday at least 50 miles from his home is obviously designed to keep the privilege within bounds. It makes little difference to the general consideration of the matter, although I understand the argument of many of my hon. Friends that it would raise many technical difficulties. I would be the last to argue that if one had a Clause defined in certain ways, one could not get over these difficulties in some way. It might be extremely difficult to decide whether it should be 50, or 49, or 48 miles, or whatever it should be, but the burden of my argument does not rest on that difficulty. We had some interesting talk about Madeira and the travelling incognito and I am glad that it was not related to Clause 2, when it would have given rise to a most interesting discussion.
  6.45 p.m.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) said, absent voting facilities for electors absent from their homes on polling day were considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference. I may do no more than say that no recommendation came from the conference to alter the present law, for as my hon. Friend said there would be a certain inconsistency if I said more than that about it. The present law limits the granting of absent voting facilities in Parliamentary and local government elections to the people who are listed in the Representation of the People Act, 1949, and all hon. Members will know the two different sections for local and national elections.
  In Clauses 5 and 6 minor extensions to these categories are made in accordance with Mr. Speaker's Conference. We have now included wives accompanying husbands away on business, a subject on which we touched when we dealt with the

  571
  problem of merchant seamen, although we were then concerned with a Clause which dealt with registration. Also included are persons who have moved from one constituency to another in the same borough, which is also a marginal extension of those entitled to obtain a postal vote.
  To make a further extension to those on holiday would virtually mean extending absent voting facilities to all persons who were unlikely for any reason to be able to attend the polling station. There would be little equity in giving absent voting facilities to people on holiday but not to people temporarily away from home for other equally good reasons. I agree that it would be possible to have another Amendment to cover them, too, but once one opens the gates in this way, why should not somebody else have the opportunity to have a postal vote? Much as I appreciate the problem, there is no doubt that being on holiday is not as good a reason for having a postal vote as those which I have already listed, such as employment or occupation. For instance, a lorry driver may be away from home on polling day and a lorry driver drives a lorry not for a fortnight, but for 50 weeks a year.
  While I appreciate the difficulty involved in certain areas, general elections and local government elections are usually—and I accept that I can make this no more than a marginal argument—held in periods outside major holiday times.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: Should it not be the task of Parliament to do its utmost to enable every person to be in a position to vote?
  Mr. Rees: I agree. But what I am arguing is that it the Amendment were conceded, the extension would go on and on and postal voting would become far more typical. My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints mentioned the philosophical considerations. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnson) said that Australia had such a system, but Australia also has compulsory voting and the two go together. I agree that other things are involved, but if there is compulsory voting, obviously arrangements must be made for well nigh every-
  572
  body who is away from home to have a postal vote.
  An extension of facilities for absent voting to people on holiday would virtually open the door for absent voting by anyone at all. All that the person concerned would need to say is that he was likely to be away from home on the day of the poll, and the registration officer would have no option but to accept the application. I shall return to this technical point later. The registration officer would not have the time to check the statement just before an election. Even if he had, how could he question a statement about the likelihood of a person's whereabouts at a future date? All of us in this Committee have dealt with postal voting and know that the variety of R.P.A. forms involved require a signature. What are we to have—the signature of the landlady that somebody has booked? There are problems which would arise by providing absent voting facilities in circumstances other than illness and occupations, to cover those on holiday.
  Mr. Onslow: Does not the hon. Gentleman concede that there is nothing particularly terrible about everybody having the right to a postal vote, and an argument to which he has not yet responded is that, if they did, it might lead to a great deal of simplification and probably a great deal less bureaucracy and form-filling?
  Mr. Rees: The essence of my argument so far, without touching on the technical point, is that there should be a limit on the amount of absent voting which takes place. Once it is conceded that a large number would be involved if there were any extension, the practical difficulties of a wide extension of postal voting turn mainly on the timetable for elections.
  I am advised that at present just over 2 per cent. of the total vote is cast by post. The last day for considering applications for absent voting facilities is 12 days before polling day. This is laid down in the Representation of the People Regulations. It could well be that this period would not be sufficient to enable registration officers and returning officers to cope with the increased volume of absent voting which might be expected as a result of any wide extension of

  573
  absent voting facilities. It is understood that these officers throughout the country have expressed the view that, in the past, the period of 12 days has been found to gave just sufficient time to handle the number of postal votes.
  The work involved consists primarily in checking applications against the register, deciding whether they may be allowed and informing the electors; ascertaining that the proxies nominated are willing to act; marking the ordinary registers to show who may not vote in person; preparing the special lists—we all know what they consist of—of postal voters, proxy voters and postal proxy voters. Lists of postal voters and postal proxy voters are required by returning officers before they can despatch postal ballot papers and by the party agents so that they may send election matter to absent voters.
  The general view of representative registration and returning officers—I believe that it should be taken into account—is that, if as a result of an extension of absent voting the number of postal votes were to increase from the existing figure of about 2 per cent. to, say, 5 per cent.—I believe that this is a conservative estimate of the increase that might be involved——
  Sir D. Kaberry: Surely all these claims are made on forms which are subject either to the Perjury Act or to some other sanction? There would be some penalty if people made wrong claims.
  Mr. Rees: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The point I am making here is that, whether they are perjured or otherwise, an increase in the figure to 5 per cent. as a result of including those on holiday would put a great burden on returning officers in doing the work which they have to do.
  I am also advised that there would be a real risk of breakdown in the election machinery, unless the period between the last day for the receipt of applications and polling day were to be extended to at least 18 days instead of 12 days. I do not say that this comes down from Mount Sinai. I simply say that this is what I have been advised by those who have been doing this for a long time.
  Mr. Speed: If the hon. Gentleman were again to look at The Times guide, he
  574
  would find that, for example, in the constituencies of Eastleigh and Buckingham the number of postal votes returned in 1964 and 1966 was roughly 5 per cent. of the total electorate.
  Mr. Rees: That is no doubt true. The hon. Gentleman will know something about the nature of the constituencies of Eastleigh and Buckingham. There is a very good reason for its being 5 per cent. in those two places.
  Mr. Speed: But the returning officers have not died.
  Mr. Rees: I am not worried about the returning officers dying. I am simply saying that if it were done in general there would be a need to extend the period over 18 days. This would necessitate an extension of the timetable for parliamentary elections, and polling day might need to be as much as 23 days after the issue of the writ, instead of 17 days as at present.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is using a whole lot of hypothetical phrases, such as, "it might be", "it is possible that", and "the general view is this". Are there any surveys or any practical evidence of any kind to indicate what proportionate increase might take place if this happened?
  Mr. Rees: All the evidence that I gave, in so far as it is hypothetical—it must be so—has come, as I understand it, from discussing the matter with returning officers in different parts of the country. Specific practical problems would undoubtedly arise. I am not denying that they could be overcome locally by taking on more people at election times, and so on. However, there is a practical problem. I say no more than that.
  Mr. Lane: As I recollect it, the hon. Gentleman is using almost exactly the same phraseology and quoting the same number of days as was used in a similar debate in 1966 on a Bill designed to open the door very much wider than the Amendment would. Those former arguments cannot possibly apply to the far more modest proposal contained in the Amendment.
  Mr. Rees: The disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and myself must be on the word "modest" in relation to the number of people on holiday who would

  575
  be able to register as absent voters. There are practical problems involved in allowing holidaymakers to have postal votes. The major argument involved is a question of principle. The various documents issued under the 1949 Act and the Regulations made under that Act, just as Regulations will have to be made under this Bill when enacted, contain references to employment or occupation, illness, incapacity or blindness, journey by air or sea, removals, down to a parliamentary candidate and wife/husband, to indicate people allowed a postal or a proxy vote. There is an extension, which I mentioned earlier, to cover a move inside a borough. This was not a large extension. It has gone on over the years since 1945.
  The question that the Committee must answer is: is the amount of postal voting in our electoral system to go any further than it is now, where we look after the man who works away, where we look after the man or woman who is ill, or incapacitated, or blind, and where we look after cases of removal? This is what it is so far. The Amendment would allow an extension for those on holiday. The advice I give to the Committee is that the Amendment should be rejected.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Hogg: I thought it right to reserve whatever thoughts I had until I had heard the Minister. I do not pretend that I did not start with a bias in favour of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed). I should not be human if I did not start with a bias in favour of my hon. Friend. However, I thought it fair to wait until I had heard the Government's case.
  Having heard it, I am bound to say that my bias in favour of my hon. Friend becomes a conviction that he is right. Nothing was more startling, if I may be forgiven for saying so, than the stark contradiction between the arguments which were advanced against the Amendment from below the Gangway and those against the Amendment to which we have just listened. The only common feature was that these inconsistent arguments were against the Amendment.
  I was accused by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) of being unduly suspicious. I have no need to be suspicious of motives in this case because
  576
  they were starkly declared below the Gangway. I accept that hon. Members mean what they say. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) made no bones about it He wants to keep off the register the man who can afford a holiday in Madeira. He wants to keep his own supporters on it. This is stark political discrimination. The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), who purported to put forward an intellectual argument, was the most biased of them all, because he declared a bias in favour of class discrimination. Both are contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights to which this country is a signatory. That does not worry them. As long as they can keep off the register those who are relatively well off, that is a good thing. That is what the hon. Member for All Saints said, in so many terms.
  Mr. Walden: No man of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intellectual brilliance can possibly misunderstand what I was saying.
  Mr. Hogg: I did not misunderstand it.
  Mr. Walden: What I am saying, and what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is unable to deny, is that the overwhelming majority of people in this and other Western countries who are not on the register and not eligible to cast their votes come from the lowest economic class.
  Mr. Hogg: That is not what the hon. Member said, and even if it had been, it would have been totally irrelevant because, as has been pointed out, this Amendment has nothing whatever to do with being on the register. If the hon. Member had troubled to study the principal Act for a moment, he would have seen that a person cannot get a postal vote in this country unless he is on the register. This Amendment has nothing to do with a claim to be registered. It has to do only with the way in which a person exercises a right which he already has.
  Hon. Members opposite who are trying to defeat this Amendment by one inconsistent argument after another are inventing reasons—and I deliberately use the phrase "inventing reasons"—for stopping people from exercising a right which they already have, knowing that in this case these people will not be able to

  577
  exercise that right at all unless the Amendment is accepted. That is the object—and that is what they are about.
  The hon. Member for All Saints was perfectly frank. He said that he thinks that it will have the effect that persons belonging to particular social groups will be unable to exercise their votes. That is what he wants. It is class discrimination, and it is contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights.
  Of course, there is no particular reason why I should contrast the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East with the Under-Secretary of State, but the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East said that there would be so many of these postal votes that it would break down the machinery, whereas the Under-Secretary was at pains to suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone arid Hythe (Mr. Costain) that so few people in his constituency were involved that we need not bother about them.
  Some hon. Members were against the Amendment because, they said, the holidaymakers would be so close to the 50 miles limit that they could go back to the polling stations. Others thought that they would be so far away that they would be unable to exercise their votes at all—unaware of the fact, which they could have seen had they bothered to study the principal Act, that those who have to make a sea or air journey already are on the postal list or can be on it.
  The truth is that, whatever arguments are advanced for the Amendment, those hon. Members will find something against those arguments, because they have the extraordinary belief that those take advantage of this Amendment will be more likely to vote against them than to vote for them. Yet I am accused of suspecting people's motives! This is the most bizarre and extraordinary exhibition of cloth-cap Socialism that. I have heard in the House. After the great victory of the last election, we were told that cloth-cap Socialism was a thing of the past. We were told that the Labour Party was a great national party, not confined to any socio-economic groups. We were told that the cloth-cap Socialists were out for ever. It is as if one were walking down Whitehall and suddenly met an ichthyosaurus. Indeed,
  578
  it will soon be like meeting an ichthyosaurus, because hon. Members opposite will never get into power again. After the next election, they will be as obsolete as ichthyosauri.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn) rose——
  Hon. Members: Divide.
  Mr. Campbell: I have been waiting for some time to speak. The Under-Secretary of State said that he was merely intervening in the debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has dealt most effectively with the motives which the Government and their supporters seem to have for objecting to the Amendment. I wish to deal with one or two other objections which the Under-Secretary produced from a technical point of view to the Amendment, which was very well argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed). I hope that I may have the Minister's attention, because I shall not take very long.
  The Minister's main argument was that if the Amendment were accepted it would open the door to allow anyone to have a postal vote who wanted not to go to the ballot box. In that argument he disregarded the reference in the Amendment to a 50-miles limit. There is no question of lazy voters deciding that they want to have postal votes because they want to stay at home although they are only 300 yards from the polling station. The provision of a limit of 50 miles in the Amendment makes it clear that it is only for people who are some distance away from their homes and on holiday.
  Another objection which the Under-Secretary of State deployed to the Amendment was that it would produce enormous administrative complications. That may be a difficulty, but it is not an objection. We are in a technological age—a white-hot technological age, according to the Prime Minister—and to say that we should have to extend the 12-days period to 18 days, in the age of the computer, seems to me to be nonsense. Surely we can improve the procedures of checking the lists which the Under-Secretary described. On Second Reading the Home Secretary said that he was considering the introduction of voting machines. Much more important than that, surely, is to introduce mechanical devices to

  579
  assist in checking these postal votes, thus overcoming the difficulties which the Under-Secretary of State described and which are purely procedural difficulties of dealing with pieces of paper, lists and numbers. I cannot accept that that administrative difficulty can be regarded as a major objection to the change which we propose.
  Next, the Minister suggested that there would be an increase in the possibility of abuse. I do not believe that that is an objection. It is something on which the electoral staff should be able to check. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who said that the number of unscrupulous persons who might try to use this system to vote more than once would be a very small proportion of the electorate.
  I end by making a plea for those constituencies which contain industries such as the tourist industry in which the staff—for the benefit of the hon. Member for All Saints (Mr. Walden) I am speaking of hotel staffs of all kinds and not just of managers—as well as workers in other industries have to take their holidays in October. Elections often happen in October. Two of the last three elections have been in October. As a result, these people are automatically disfranchised. Their holiday period is directly associated with the kind of work which they do, and they cannot change it.
  I therefore support the proposal that we should extend in this way the right which people on the register already have to exercise the vote, because if people on holiday, over 50 miles away from their residence, were allowed to be postal voters in the way suggested that would contribute to solving the problem. I believe that most of those who are 50 miles away from their place of residence at the time of a General Election would thus be covered—and these are people who at present do not have a chance to use their votes—in addition to those already covered by the postal voting regulations.
  There are too many electors in this country who lose their opportunity of voting when a General Election takes place. They are on the register, but they are unable to vote because, for reasons over which they have no control, they are absent from their place of residence and where they are registered. I am sure that that is wrong. It must be the responsibility of both sides of the House to reduce the number of such persons who have the right to vote but who, through no fault of their own, are unable to vote when Elections take place. This Amendment would make a great contribution to enabling them to vote.
  Sir H. Harrison Sir H. Harrison rose&—
  Sir Douglas Glover Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk) rose&—
  Hon. Members: Divide.
  Sir H. Harrison: I want only to put a quick question to the Minister.
  Mr. Peter Mahon: They are all quick.
  Sir H. Harrison: I will make it longer if that attitude is adopted. It is a very important question.
  The Minister argued that if the postal vote reached 5 per cent. then, according to reports made to him by returning officers, the system would be unworkable. In the constituency of Eye we have had a postal vote of over 5 per cent. on occasions. Has the Minister had any representations from the returning officer for the Eye Division—the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of East Suffolk County Council—or from the returning officers for Buckingham or Eastleigh, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) referred, specifically stating that on those occasions the system was unworkable?
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 132, Noes 190.

  Division No. 12.]

  AYES

  [7.14 p.m.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

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

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Body, Richard

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Bell, Ronald

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

  Braine, Bernard

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brew John

  Clegg, Walter

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Cordle, John

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Costain, A. P.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speithorne)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Crouch, David

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pym, Francis

  Dance, James

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Royle, Anthony

  Dean, Paul

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Russell, Sir Ronald

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

  Lane, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Longden, Gilbert

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Drayson, G. B.

  Loveys, W. H.

  Sharples Richard

  Eden, Sir John

  Lubbock, Eric

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

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Silvester, Frederick

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

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McMaster, Stanley

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maddan, Martin

  Speed, Keith

  Farr, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stainton Keith

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Marten, Neil

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Maude, Angus

  Stodart, Anthony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mawby, Ray

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Gower, Raymond

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Grant-Ferns, R.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Gurden, Harold

  Monro, Hector

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  More, Jasper

  Waddington, David

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Webster, David

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Murton, Oscar

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Neave, Airey

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wright, Esmond

  Holland, Philip

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Hornby, Richard

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pearson Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Mr. Anthony Grant and

  Hunt, John

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Timothy Kitson.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Delargy, Hugh

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dempsey, James

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Dewar, Donald

  Howarth, Robert (Dolton, E.)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Dobson, Ray

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Doig, Peter

  Howie, W.

  Atkins, Rinald (Preston, N.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Ashton, J. W.

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hunter, Adam

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ellis, John

  Hynd, John

  Barnett, Joel

  English, Michael

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Baxter, William

  Ennals, David

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

  Beaney, Alan

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

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

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Binns, John

  Fernyhough, E.

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Blackburn, F.

  Finch, Harold

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lawson, George

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Foley, Maurice

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Booth, Albert

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Ford, Ben

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Forrester, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Fowler, Gerry

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lomas, Kenneth

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

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Loughlin, Charles

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Gardner, Tony

  McCann, John

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

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

  Buchan, Norman

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mackie, John

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

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Chapman, Donald

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Coe, Denis

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hamling, William

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hannan, William

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mapp, Charles

  Cronin, John

  Haseldine, Norman

  Marks, Kenneth

  Cullen, Mr. Alice

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marquand, David

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Henig, Stanley

  Mason, Rt. Roy

  Davies, Dr, Ernest (Stretford)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mendelson, John

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hooley, Frank

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Homer, John

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  582

  583

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Snow, Julian

  Moonman, Eric

  Pentland, Norman

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham S.)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Neal, Harold

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Tinn, James

  Newens, Stan

  Probert, Arthur

  Urwin, T. W.

  Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Randall, Harry

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Rankin, John

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Rees, Merlyn

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Richard, Ivor

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Orme, Stanley

  Rose, Paul

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Padley, Walter

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Sheldon, Rt. Hn. E.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Palmer, Arthur

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

  Woof, Robert

  Pannell, Rt. He. Charles

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

  Park, Trevor

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Silverman, Julius

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Small, William

  Mr. Eric G. Vaeley.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 14, at end insert:
  (4) In section 23(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 there shall be added the following paragraph:—
  (e) those unable or likely to be unable to go in person from their qualifying address to the polling station by reason of their obligation to comply with the rules of the Jewish religion.
  The Amendment deals with a very much smaller group of people than the last one. I hope it will not create burdens for registration officers if it is accepted. It applies only to the small group of orthodox Jews whose religious observances prevent them from attending the poll in person on a Saturday.
  We are seeking to add a subsection to Section 23(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, so that these persons would be allowed to vote by post in local elections. This is a real problem in certain communities, as has been found by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), who had experience of it in a local election in his constituency. Others have since drawn attention to it, and as a result of their correspondence with us we wrote to the then Minister of State for the Home Office, the right hon. Lady who is now one of the Ministers of State at the Department of Education and Science. I understand that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) has also made approaches to the Home Office on the question, and he has attached his name to the Amendment.
  When we first raised the matter with the right hon. Lady, which was in June, 1966, she told us that arrangements
  584
  already existed for Jews to be able to vote in local government elections on a Saturday and that these were apparently working all right. But we had to point out that they did not work satisfactorily in cases where rabbis had instructed their congregations that it would be a breach of their faith to vote in the manner laid down in the local government election rules. This point was raised on 23rd June, 1966, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle asked a Question that was answered by the right hon. Lady.
  I understand that subsequently the right hon. Lady looked into the matter and found that the problem was as we described it. But there was the additional difficulty that no provision is made for postal votes in rural district council elections. If I had had time—there was a rather short period between the Second Reading and the Committee stage—I should have tabled an Amendment to provide for postal voting in rural district council elections. Our Amendment will deal with only half the problem. It will enable orthodox Jews to cast their votes by post in urban district council elections, where postal votes are allowed, but not in rural district council elections, where Section 23(7) of the Representation of the People Act makes no provision.
  In passing, it strikes me as odd that postal voting is allowed in urban district elections but not in rural district elections. After all, if people find it difficult to get to the poll in an urban district, the arguments must apply much more so in rural districts, where the distances that have to be travelled to get to the polling station are obviously greater. It would be interesting to know why we inserted that provision in the Representation of

  585
  the People Act, and whether we may take steps to rectify the situation before the Report stage of this Bill. But that is a matter that occurred to me after I had tabled my Amendment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has had some correspondence with a rabbi in his constituency whose congregation was affected. The rabbi said he thought that an Amendment such as we had tabled would secure a vote for those affected by the rules. I understand that certain rabbis have made representations to the Home Office on similar lines. I hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment. It is a very small ex tension of the franchise to a group of people who have been disadvantaged. We know that the problem exists in local elections, and if we do not take the present opportunity to clear it up, another will not occur for some time.
  I think that, in all fairness, if a person is prevented from going to the poll by reason of his religious observances provision such as we propose should be made. I extend that remark to others who may be similarly disadvantaged, such as the Sabbatarians. If the Under-Secretary of State requests me to withdraw the Amendment and bring forward a wider one on Report, I shall be only too happy to do so, so that all the religious minorities affected may be included. Probably I have said enough to ex plain the intention of the Amendment.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I support the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). The Amendment is necessary, and will be easy to operate, and I do not think it could be or would be abused.
  I declare an interest because I have a large Jewish fraternity in my constituency. I am not sure that the proposal will make any political difference to me. These very strict orthodox Jews are mainly of the older generation, and in my constituency the older generation will probably vote against me. But that does not matter. That does not matter because, if for religious reasons—and I do not subscribe to their faith—they find that they are not allowed to vote on a Saturday, I cannot see why, two or three days before the poll, they should not be allowed to send in a postal vote. This would absolve them from anxiety about upsetting their conscience.
  586
  7.30 p.m.
  As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there is a very strong check, because the rabbi could, if necessary, be called in aid. An electoral officer who had any doubts could consult the rabbi to confirm whether or not the postal voter concerned was one of his people. That would be good enough. I cannot see that this proposal would be abused as some other claims for postal votes might be.
  However, it is not only the Jews who are involved. There are other groups such as the Strict Sabbatarians and the Seventh Day Adventists. They, too, should be allowed to exercise this right. It may be argued that not many people can be involved in this issue, but if there are not many then it is all the more necessary that they should have this right.
  If the Home Office has already told my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that this cannot be done, I hope that he will tell the Department that it must have another look at the Amendment. I hope that the matter will be discussed with the reputable organisations which would be able to help in overcoming any difficulties which the Home Office might foresee. They would work with the Department in order to overcome any possibility of abuse.
  Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has done a useful job with the Amendment. I cannot see that any hon. Member will oppose it in principle, but I am not certain that the Government could accent it as it stands. However, the hon. Gentleman has said that he would be happy to withdraw the Amendment if the Home Office gave a favourable answer.
  I do not think that this proposal, in our changed society, could apply only to people of the Jewish religion. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) mentioned the Sabbatarians and the Seventh Day Adventists. We have other strict religious sects in the country—Mohammedans and Hindus, for example—who may have certain days on which, if they are strictly orthodox, they are not allowed to carry on secular activities.
  I am sure that it is the consensus of the Committee that the Home Office should look at this problem and consider

  587
  how it can avoid any people being disfranchised because of their religious beliefs. It would be unjust if only the Jewish people were allowed to have this right and the rest not. I hope that the Government will look at this before Report stage to see whether they could bring forward an Amendment to cover what the whole Committee is in favour of doing. Mechanically, this scheme would be workable.
  Mr. Maurice Orbach: I do not think that there should be any great division on the issue. It does not affect a large number of people. It is part of our task in this Committee to protect the rights and responsibilities of minorities. We are considering orthodox Jews in the first place, but, as has been pointed out, other religious groups may be affected. We are, in fact, considering about 250,000 Jews and I should think that the others concerned probably total 150,000.
  I myself am of the Jewish faith but that does not affect me in my constituency. There are six Jewish families in the area and the heads of two of them are councillors in the Labour interest. I am sure that it would not be very difficult for me to persuade the others to vote for me at a borough election, provided that they could vote in accordance with their religious scruples.
  The difficulty for an hon. Member who represents a provincial constituency is that the smaller the minority the more orthodox it tends to be within the community. I hope that my hon. Friend will give serious consideration to this matter. It is true that we should not like this extended only to members of the Jewish faith, since this would look like discrimination on behalf of a particular religion. I want the right extended to all those whose religious scruples would prevent them from voting in the normal way on a polling day. I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some encouragement by saying that, on Report, the Government will bring forward a suitable Amendment.
  Sir D. Kaberry: The Under-Secretary of State and I represent different parts of Leeds, which has the largest proportion of Jewish inhabitants of any town in the country. Of course, the Amendment
  588
  would not affect us because we are not likely to have our county borough elections on a Saturday and, in the wisdom of the national Government, we are not likely to have a General Election held on a Saturday. But circumstances could occur when polling would interfere with religious festivals, and those whose religious susceptibilities could be touched upon by voting should have some form of exception.
  I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn and that the Government will introduce an appropriate Amendment later. I have in mind, for example, the Moslems. There are a lot of them in Leeds. If we had a local government election on a Friday, it might affect quite a number of them. There are a large number of believers in other religions and this right should apply to everyone and not just to one sect. I support the principle of the Amendment.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: It might be useful if I speak now. It is the aim of the Government to be as helpful as possible on this. Special provision is already made for Jewish voters at both Parliamentary and local government elections. If a poll is taken on a Saturday, the election officer has the obligation, if a voter declares that he is a Jew, and cannot, on religious grounds, vote in the manner prescribed, to mark the voting paper in the manner asked by that person in the presence of his polling agents.
  This has been done since the Ballot Act, 1872. Lord Rothschild played a considerable part in the formulation of that Act and I believe that the appropriate Section was moved by the then Member for the City of London, and it was accepted by the Liberal Government of the day. The Board of Deputies of British Jews pointed out to the Home Office last year that these special provisions did not meet the position of strict Jews. The physical action of marking a ballot paper is regarded as work which, apparently, contravenes the Fourth Commandment, and it is not permitted to ask any person, whether a Jew or non-Jew, to do "for one what one is forbidden to do for oneself". As the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) has pointed out, there is no difficulty at Parliamentary elections, because polling day is on a Thursday. In the case of borough

  589
  council elections, my right hon. Friend the Horne Secretary, decides the date, and again it is the practice to fix a Thursday for polling. One of the considerations in choosing this day is the position of strict Jews. Accordingly, it is understood that there has been little problem for members of the Jewish community living in urban areas. However, more recently, they have tended to move to areas outside the towns and, in view of what I have to suggest, it is important that the Committee should be in possession of the facts in connection with local government elections outside de boroughs.
  In 1967, the latest year for ordinary county council elections, and the triennial year in which most district councils who hold their ordinary elections triennially last held them, of the county councils, including the Greater London Council, 24 held their elections on Thursday, 19 on Saturday, 12 on Tuesday and four on other days. Of the urban district council elections, 211 were held on Saturday, 114 on Tuesday, 99 on Monday, 69 on Thursday, and 36 on other days. Of rural district council elections, 146 were held on Tuesday, 111 on Saturday, 87 on Monday, 62 on Thursday and 46 on of her days. Taking all these types of elections together, 341 were held on Saturday, 272 on Tuesday, 118 on Monday, and 155 on Thursday. This Amendment is concerned with the 341 which were held on Saturday.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend must appreciate that, in the case of the Jewish religion, and the position is probably the same with others, it is not only Saturdays which are important. There are other holy days in the week. Any day may be affected. I hope that he will not stick only to Saturdays.
  Mr. Rees: I am not sticking only to Saturdays, but it is a major part of my argument. Saturday is the most important day for local government elections.
  When the Board of Deputies of British Jews approached the Home Office, it was agreed that we should send it a list of those areas holding elections on a Saturday. That was done in April, 1967. The Board undertook to examine it, and indicate which town had a Jewish population which might be affected. The Home Office agreed that it would then consider
  590
  approaching the county councils concerned so that they could be reminded of one of the factors to be taken into account when deciding their election dates.
  I understand also that the Conference on Local Government Elections Law for England and Wales considered a proposal that all local government elections should be held on a weekday other than a Saturday. There was also before it a proposal from another source that all local government elections should be held on Saturday. The conference came to the conclusion that, at this stage, there should be no alteration in the discretion given to county councils to fix election dates locally within the prescribed weeks. The Government accepted that conclusion.
  The Board of Deputies of British Jews has not yet supplied the information as to which of the areas holding elections on Saturdays contain Jewish communities. As a result, there has been no question of the Home Office taking the next step and writing to the counties concerned. It is possible to argue from that that perhaps the problem is not very pressing. That is not to say that it is not important. Incidentally, I understand that there is no problem in Scotland.
  Mr. Dempsey: When my hon. Friend says that there is no problem in Scotland, has he had discussions with the Jewish interests there about their holy days?
  Mr. Buchan: The point is that Saturday elections never occur in Scotland. The problem of the number of Jews affected by religious festivals occurring on weekdays is on a much more minor scale than the position in England. I have had no direct representations about that.
  Mr. Rees: I wish to be helpful. If there is only one person who feels aggrieved, obviously one should do something about it. Whether postal voting is the appropriate way of dealing with it all along the line is another matter.
  I do not suggest that I know the answer. It is not a matter, however, in which the Home Office wishes to be unhelpful.
  Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman has been very helpful and, obviously, is well-briefed about the Jewish community.

  591
  But other problems have been raised in this short debate. I am not asking him to deal with them now, but, so far in his remarks, he has not mentioned them. If the Home Office is to consider the Amendment, I hope that it will be considered on an overall basis, otherwise even greater injustice may be produced.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. ReesI was about to come on to that point and deal with the technical problems raised by the Amendment. It is open to objection on a number of grounds. It is not wide enough to cover everyone who may object to marking a ballot paper on the Jewish Sabbath. There are other religious bodies such as Seventh Day Adventists who regularly observe the Jewish Sabbath as it applies to members of the Jewish religion.
  It would call in question the position of many other persons for whom voting in person may be difficult or impractical on religious grounds. The position of members of enclosed religious orders is not crystal clear and, in any promise which I make, I can see many pitfalls in trying to be fair to all concerned.
  The Amendment refers to those who are unable or likely to be unable to go in person from their qualifying address to the polling station. It is probable that the obligations of Jews do not prevent them from going to polling stations, though I cannot be dogmatic about that even as an hon. Member having many members of the Jewish faith among his constituents. The difficulty is that they are prevented from doing "work" on the Sabbath. That prevents them voting on that day.
  The difference between rural and urban district councils crops up in another part of the Bill.
  I would like to be helpful, but there are large numbers of problems involved. If one accepts the principle on a narrow front, people of other religious faiths are upset. I assure the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that it is our wish to be helpful. It may be that, if he accepts my word on that, he will withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. Sharples: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the sympathetic view which he has expressed about the Amendment. We are also grateful to the hon.
  592
  Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for moving it and raising this most important point.
  What has emerged during the course of this short debate is that there is a real problem which goes wider than the terms of the Amendment which the Committee has been asked to consider. The difficulty is that we seldom have Bills of this kind. It is clear that the Bill will make some fairly rapid progress. I realise all the difficulties, but I hope that there might be an opportunity for an Amendment to be incorporated even during the passage of the Bill through another place. I realise it will not be possible during the passage of the Bill through the House. However, I hope that it might be possible for an Amendment to be introduced on these lines, taking in the wider considerations, during the Bill's passage through the other place.
  Sir D. Glover: May I say to the Minister of State——
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I may be new here, but I think we ought to get one matter right. Let us stick to Under-Secretary of State for the moment.
  Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman has been so sympathetic that in our minds we have promoted him. I would issue one word of warning to him. He must be very careful that he does not get caught by his own Race Relations Bill in bringing forward his proposals to the House.
  Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his full and helpful reply. The difficulties concerning county council and urban and rural district councils will give us a starting point for further consultations with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the other interests involved which have been mentioned. It was purely shortage of time in drafting which prevented me from mentioning all the other religious minorities who might be affected. It would have been too much to try to ascertain what those religious minorities might be in the week we have had since Second Reading. That is why my Amendment was framed so narrowly. I accept the criticism which has been made.
  I would comment on one point in the hon. Gentleman's speech. If he could

  593
  persuade local authorities in areas where there were substantial minorities of Orthodox Jews not to hold their elections on a Saturday this might create difficulties for others. I have some experience. My constituency used to be an urban district, but now it is part of the London Borough of Bromley. When it was incorporated in the area of Greater London we found that the poll at local elections dropped substantially. I ascribe this to the fact that people find it easier to go to the poll when they are not at work during the daytime than when it has to be fitted in at the beginning or the end of the day when they may be away from home for as much as ten hours. If the hon. Gentleman was considering a general move away from Saturday for urban and rural district council elections a Id the county councils which are affected, this would require stringent consideration before any decision was made. It is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. After all, we have all agreed that the number of individuals who might be affected by tie Amendment is very small.
  With the assurance that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to listen to any representations that may be made to him between now and Report stage by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

  PREPARATION AND CORRECTION OF REGISTERS OF ELECTORS
  Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 3, at end insert:
  (3) Such corrections shall be published in a supplementary list as soon as may be after the publication of notice of election and before the last day for delivery of nomination papers.
  The Chairman: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 42, in Schedule 3, page 41, line 27, at end insert:
  38. In Schedule 4, in paragraph 3, there shall be inserted after the word 'register', the words 'and supplementary list',
  New Clause 5—"Registration of electors: further provisions" and the new Schedule—"Application to be entered on Register".
  Mr. Sharples: Clause 7(2) provides for the registration officer to carry out alterations to the published list where it does not carry out his intentions. The real purpose is to cover up printers errors and factual errors in the published list. The purpose of the Amendment is to make certain that, after those errors have been corrected, they shall be published. I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept this Amendment and Amendment No. 42 which goes with it. It is important that provision should be made for alterations to the register to be published in a supplementary list and a clear obligation should be laid upon the returning officer to see that this list is published.
  Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) for putting down this Amendment. It follows up a point that I made on Second Reading when I pointed out that it would be for the general convenience of political parties and others who need access to the registers if lists of corrections could be published after the registration officer has made his decision.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland, in his winding up speech, gave me the reply that
  ".. lists of corrections in these cases will be made available to the public and others who are interested."—[Official Report, 18th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1024.]
  I do not know whether this matter is better dealt with under the election rules or whether it should be incorporated in the Bill. I am glad of the opportunity to get this on record. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us whether in previous instances of matters like this it has been the custom to incorporate them in the Bill—did we provide for this in the 1949 Act—or whether it would be more usual to provide for them in the election rules, which would mean an alteration in the Statutory Instruments that were published after the 1949 Act. Providing we can get it on record that that is the Government's intention, it will be satisfactory.
  Mr. Frank Hooky: I beg to move new Clause 5——
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member's new Clause has not been put down for a Division. Therefore he is unable to move it. It has merely been selected for debate with Amendment No. 8.
  Mr. Hooley: I am obliged, Mr. Irving.
  The purpose of putting this new Clause on the Order Paper was to draw the attention of the Committee to a problem which I do not think has been sufficiently considered, namely, that immediately the register is published it is inaccurate. The Home Office has estimated that it has been inaccurate to the extent of 4 per cent. Now 4 per cent. may not sound very much, but in terms of the electorate it is a figure of between 1 million and 1½ million electors. Between 16th December of one year and 16th February of the next year but one, a period of 14 months, a person whose name is not so published has no right to vote and is as firmly disfranchised as if he had committed some crime or technical offence which disqualified him as a voter. It is intolerable that there should be no remedy in the hands of the voter who, because of some oversight, administrative mistake or fault in our system of registration, does not happen to have his name included on the list.
  It may be that the technique suggested in the new Clause of a statutory declaration before a magistrate designed to get his name so registered is not the best technique for the purpose. Administrative difficulties may be involved in operating this proposal, but I put it seriously to my hon. Friends that it is quite intolerable that a person should be deprived of his vote for 14 months with no appeal and no redress, when no technique exists for this unfortunate state of affairs to be put right.
  8.0 p.m.
  I want to emphasise the extent of this difficulty. We have been discussing a Clause designed to help a minority. I was wholly in sympathy with the general tenor of the debate. We are now concerned with another minority which is far more seriously penalised. A member of this minority has no way to exercise his lawful franchise once his name has been omitted from the register. Even if this means of remedying the situation is not acceptable to my hon. Friends I hope that they will come forward with a suggestion—short of the two-registers-a-year proposal, which I gather cannot be implemented—for remedying an intolerable state of affairs.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The purpose of the first Amendment is to include a provision
  596
  governing the time at which corrections made to the register of electors by the registration officer in exercise of the power given in subsection (2) should be published. The purpose of the second Amendment is to provide power for regullations to be made laying down a timetable for the preparation of supplementary lists showing the corrections. I shall deal with those two Amendments before turning to the new Clause referring to new methods of registration.
  I advise the Committee that both Amendments are unnecessary. The intention is that provisions for publishing the corrections will be included in amending Representation of the People Regulations following the enactment of the Bill. The powers given by paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949 are already sufficient for this purpose. It is envisaged that the Amendments to the Regulations will include provision for, first, notification of persons affected by the corrections, secondly, display of corrections in the same way as the register itself is displayed, as laid down in the 1950 Regulations and the Scottish Regulations, and, thirdly, copies of the corrections to be supplied in the same way as the register itself. Most hon. Members are aware of the way in which this is done. It is provided for in Regulation 17 of the 1950 Regulations.
  The second Amendment, relating to a time table for the preparation of a supplementary list of corrections is, in any event, not appropriate. While for the purposes of preparing the main register the Regulations properly provide a time table for the publication of electors' lists, for the submission of claims and objections, and for dealing with those claims, such a time table cannot be laid down, in the nature of things, for the supplementary list, which will be merely a list correcting the main register to bring it into line with the registration officer's earlier intentions.
  Since the purpose of such a supplementary list is to take account of corrections found to be necessary up to the date of notice of an election, no date can be laid down in regulations for its publication before the date on which notice of an election is given. It would, however, be reasonable for the supplementary list to be available before nomination day,

  597
  as the first Amendment suggests. This can be considered when amending regulations are being prepared under the powers given by the Representation of the People Act, 1949, in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 4. I hope that the hon. Member will accept my advice on those two Amendments.
  I am not sure of my ground in referring to the proposed new Clause 5, and Schedule, but I presume that I am in order in discussing points which arise from them, even though they have not been moved. It is intended to provide a means of keeping the electoral register always up to date by the preparation and issue of supplementary lists of electors. I know that my hon. Friend will not mind my saying—it is proper that my hon. Friend should raise this matter—that my noble friend Lord Stonham wrote to him recently in a certain amount of detail. He quite properly pointed out that one solution is to have two annual registers, and with two registers a year the fact that each register costs £3 million would raise a certain problem.
  Nevertheless, he revealed that he saw the point of the up-to-dateness of the register. In order to have registration in that way he suggests that an elector would have to make a declaration before a magistrate in the form set out in the proposed Schedule. Apparently this could be done at any time. A person moving into a new constituency could presumably get himself registered as an elector.
  This is a technical point. I do not deny that other problems may be involved, bat I must point out that there are no means by which the name of such an elector moving in and wanting to be paced on the new register could he removed from the register covering his previous address. The main objections to my hon. Friend's proposals are that supplementary registration by this means completely ignores the arrangements for objections and the consideration of objections to the registration of names following inclusion in the elector list. In other words, special registration would not be subject to the same test as registration by the usual means.
  This is one of the major reasons why, if my hon. Friend were to move the new Clause, I should have to resist it. This is one of the major weaknesses in the
  598
  idea that my hon. Friend put forward. Although I do not stand on this point, in view of discussions of that have taken place during the last 48 hours, I must point out that Mr. Speaker's Conference considered the question of a supplementary register each year and rejected it. There are difficulties involved in making a register up to date. A register becomes progressively out of date, and many problems arise in certain urban areas owing to clearance and similar matters.
  All I can offer my hon. Friend is the claim that we register a remarkably high proportion of those who should be registered. In some constituencies difficulties arise because of the social background of the people, who move rather quickly. In other constituencies people very slowly from one address to another, or out of the area. It is not simply a question of socio-economic class. In one London constituency which has a very high standard of living the mobility of the population is extraordinarily high.
  Given these problems of registration and the means for correction, we do an excellent job, with an average figure of 96 per cent. most registration officers get nearer 100 per cent. but the average is brought down because of the problems that arise in other areas
  I hope that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) will accept what I have said about the technicalities of the matter, and my assurance that the points will be met.
  Mr. Sharples: The Committee is grateful once again to the hon. Gentleman for his assurances and I am grateful to him for saying that the point will be covered in the election regulations. This is quite satisfactory to us and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 8, at end add:
  (4) Section 4(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 shall be amended by adding the words—
  Provided that where a person has more than one residence, he shall be entitled to register only in respect of the address which he expects to occupy for the longest period in the year for which the register concerned is in force; and in determining this question,

  599
  regard shall be had to the circumstances of that person's occupation service or employment: nothing in this proviso shall affect a person having a service qualification.
  We have had some discussion about socio-economic groups in earlier debates tonight, and we turn now to the top socio-economic group, of people who are fortunate enough to possess two residences. These people can treat one or other of these residences as their qualifying address at their own whim, and this has consequences to which I should like to draw attention. For instance, if one is resident in South Kensington but owns holidy cottage in Cornwall, one can decide to exercise one's Parliamentary vote in the latter part of the country and not where one normally lives, in South Kensington. This obviously has the effect that an elector who lives in an area which may be strongly Tory and does not need his vote will choose to exercise his privilege of registration in the other constituency.
  I do not know whether that is thought to be desirable or not. Certainly, one needs to draw attention to it so that we can question it and take whatever action is thought necessary, on this opportunity, which is the only one we will have probably for the next 15 years. It is a problem which may not have been very evident the last time that we discussed a Representation of the People Bill, because then even the very richest members of the community did not normally own two houses. But with the rising standard of living, the problem will increase, and we must decide where we stand.
  Is it thought to be fully democratic that a person who possesses two residences should decide where to exercise his vote, or should we—as our Amendment suggests—require him to be so registered only in the constituency where he normally lives for the greater part of the time? I would have thought that, in equity, he should be so restricted, and this is what the Amendment seeks to do.
  We are saying that, if he has more than one residence, he must choose the one at which he normally lives for the greater time, and we amplify that by saying that, in considering which residence he chooses, we should have regard to his occupation, service or employment, words which occur elsewhere in the 1949 Act. Thus, we say that, if a person lives and normally works
  600
  in London, he must register there and not in the area where he has his holiday cottage, somewhere on the South Coast.
  This may be thought a trivial matter, but when one remembers that some of the constituencies in rural areas have comparatively small numbers of electors—in many cases, especially in some parts of Wales and Scotland, fewer than 30,000—one realises that this could mean that those at the top end of the socio-economic scale are exercising an influence on the result of a General Election out of all proportion to anything which we would think equitable.
  I hope that at any rate some hon. Members opposite will agree with me that this is an evil which should be corrected. I do not expect much help from the Conservative Party, because they, of course, are the ones who stand to gain from the existing situation. But if one approaches this problem objectively, as we are trying to do—[An Hon. Member: "Do not be cynical."] Yes, I am cynical, but I know how Tories behave. I have a few of them even in my own constituency.
  We shall probably hear from the Tories tonight some arguments against this very sensible Amendment on grounds which have nothing to do with electoral advantage. They will say that they are not considering that, but only the merits of the issue. However, we will know what is in their minds, that their friends should go into these holiday constituencies and, by packing the register, exercise an influence out of all proportion to their numbers. So I hope that at least hon. Members opposite will give me some support in this, and that even the Under-Secretary will approve the Amendment.
  [Sir Harry Legge-Bourke in the Chair]
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I think that this Amendment is absolutely ridiculous. I represent a constituency which is a holiday area and which has an electorate not, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) suggested, of 30,000 but nearer 80,000. It is also an area where a number of people have weekend cottages; they are, therefore, entitled to a residential qualification which will enable them to be enfranchised. If, as the hon. Member

  601
  suggested, this enfranchisement had to be determined on the basis of whether or not they are likely to support a particular political party, this would run entirely counter to the whole concept of enfranchisement.
  The basis of enfranchisement in this country—one of its most important planks at any rate—is the residential qualification, and a person who has this qualification on 10th October of a given year is entitled, provided some other considerations are also observed, to exercise his vote in that constituency.
  The Amendment suggests that those people, because they move from one residence to another, will have to indicate at some time where they shall be allowed to vote. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if it were a question of my relying on those who live in weekend cottages in my constituency, I should net be here now——
  Mr. Lubbock: They will not indicate: it will be indicated to them, on the strength of which of their several residences they occupy for the greater part of the year.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: This indication, of course, is wholly illogical, because it will depend on their mode of life, and whether in one year they spent more time at their weekend cottages or whether they decided to make it their permanent home.
  The position is quite simple. The residential qualification is the basis of our while franchise. The Amendment cuts right across this. If people are fortunate enough, for business reasons or because they are members of Parliament—although the Amendment, I believe, would exempt them—or for other reasons, to have more than one residence, it is entirely up to them, I believe, to decide how they shall exercise that freedom to vote which is part of the whole concept of enfranchisement.
  For people to be dictated to as to how they shall vote—this is what it boils down to—and to be deprived of this basic freedom is quite contrary to our basic concept of enfranchisement. I sincerely hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): Mr. Pardoe.
  Mr. S.O. Davies Mr. S.O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil) rose——
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) had resumed his seat. I have called Mr. Pardoe.
  Mr. Davies: On a point of order. I happened to be on my feet before the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) had extricated himself from his seat. Now I will sit down.
  The Temporary Chairman: I understand the hon. Member's difficulty, but the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) had already caught my eye.
  Mr. John Pardoe: This Amendment, which I regard as of immense importance—the Under-Secretary, who is a frequent visitor to Padstow in my constituency will know why I do—affects very few constituencies, but it affects mine considerably. I calculate that there are about 600 of these "non-voters", the great majority of whom vote against me, or did last time. Since the majority in my constituency has been below 1,000 twice since the war, I am naturally sensitive to this. Thus, it is not inappropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who exports voters from his constituency—I import them into mine—should have moved the Amendment.
  The trouble is also that most of the people who are going to live or stay for a few weeks or a weekend every year in these cottages will be Tory voters. Mostly, they will go to Conservative constituencies, because most seaside constituencies are Conservative. It is, therefore, a limited operation which I am undertaking but, nevertheless, in my interests, an essential one.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does the hon. Member realise that one of the most lovely seaside constituencies in the whole of the British Isles is the Gower constituency, which until recently returned the Father of the House of Commons?
  Mr. Pardoe: I am not sure that that is relevant. I would be prepared to argue all night whether the beaches there are better than ours. You and I, Sir Harry, spent a long time in Committee discussing Cornish beaches.

  603
  We welcome people to Cornwall and I do not mind them coming to live there provided that they do so permanently and vote there. It might be thought that people coming from areas which have not had the benefit of Liberal influence for many years would tend to vote other than Liberal in Cornwall, but that does not happen. The Cornish air exercises a civilising influence on them and they tend to change. In my experience, those who settle there permanently are changed by the general political climate of the place.
  My complaint is against those people who come for, perhaps, a weekend or a few weekends in the years, perhaps three weeks in a August and by their voting habits they can change the whole political emphasis in a constituency. By my calculations, there are 600 voters in my constituency who do not live there. They live in South Kensington. For all I know, they may even live in Marylebone, but they escape—and I am glad for them to escape; it is necessary to escape from Marylebone very often—to Cornwall for the odd weekend and their summer holiday, the point being that these people often tend to live in constituencies where their own party's vote is completely secure. Even if they escape from South Kensington, the Conservatives there will still win. Their vote in Cornwall, however, is much more important to their party and, therefore, to their own prejudices. They therefore come down for a holiday for a few weeks or for a weekend in Cornwall and thereby they can influence the result in a marginal constituency. It is not only in Cornwall that this applies. The same can be said of many other constituencies.
  Why do I say that they should not be allowed to vote in Cornwall? First, they may not share the interests of the place. Their interests are very often different from the interests of the people living there. They may well wish to preserve Cornwall as a nice, cosy little museum which they can visit for the odd weekend and they do not want nasty, smelly industry there, which would spoil their weekend retreats, whereas local people want industry to come. These people who come may want to keep wages low so that they can have plenty of cheap seasonal domestic service, whereas I and the majority of people in my constituency
  604
  want to create conditions of full employment.
  Secondly, these people should not be allowed to vote in holiday retreat constituencies because they cannot be affected by the local political climate. I am prepared to convert those whom I can contact, but I cannot get at these people. I cannot offer them a service. I can rarely see them because they are hidden away in the depths of Marylebone or South Kensington. That is another reason why I oppose the principle of their being able to choose where they will vote.
  The hon. Member for the New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) made great play with the fact that people should be allowed to exercise their residential qualification, and I accept that, but "residence" has never been defined in the principal Statutes. Various constructions have been put upon it from time to time.
  We in Cornwall have a rather old-fashioned method of drawing up the electoral register whereby we still preserve our electoral courts. Once every year, my agent rushes though the constituency from town to town trying to drive these so-called Conservatives off the register by claiming. A year ago, he had to claim that they were absent from their residence for more than nine weeks.
  Suddenly, the court is liable to change its decision and its interpretation of the law and it says that the nine weeks' stipulation does not mean nine continuous weeks; it means any nine weeks. Therefore, if they are absent from their cottage for nine weeks in the whole year—two weeks here, three weeks there, and so on—there is the problem of whether they have let their cottage for nine weeks. I had always taken it, and until recently it was interpreted, that if they had let the property for nine weeks, it did not matter to whom it was let if the nine weeks was made up in parcels of two or three weeks. Now, however, it has been decided that the nine weeks must be to the same tenant. These interpretations change in different parts of the country. Even in Cornwall they change from one year to the next. I want to have the term "residence" defined.
  I accept the point made by the hon. Member for the New Forest that one

  605
  should have a residential qualification, but if he studies the statutes—and I have searched the Library from top to bottom—he will see that no one has been prepared to define "residence".
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: In my constituency, and, I think, the greater number of constituencies, residential qualification is given on the basis of completion of a form which is issued by the electoral registration officer. That form relates to occupation in residence on 10th October in a given year for inclusion in the register which is published on 16th February the following year. I understood that that arrangement was common to the whole of the British Isles.
  Mr. Pardoe: No, it is much more complicated. One does not have to be in residence on a particular date to qualify to get on an electoral register. One can be absent. I am frequently absent from my address in Cornwall on that day because the House is often sitting. If one looks at Schofield on "Parliamentary Elections" one sees that regard is to be paid to the purpose and other circumstances of a person's presence at or absence from the address in question.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I agree that actual physical presence on the day is not required on Form A, but when the form is signed by the occupier of the premises he has to list all those who are resident in the dwelling. It is conceivable that an individual could be away from the residence but, at the same time, enjoy a vote because when the form was completed he was, according to the person signing the form, resident at the establishment on 10th October.
  Mr. Pardoe: Two points arise. First, that is incorrect. Although consideration should be given to whether a man has left his wife or his chattels in the residence concerned, many of the houses in my constituency are closed on 10th October or whatever happens to be the qualifying date; and although the dwelling is still a furnished residence, there is no one in residence. It is quite legal to complete the form and get away with it. We can prove that people were not there, but this makes no difference within the terms of the law.
  All I am asking is that we should use this occasion to clear up this impor-
  606
  tant point, because temporary absence on account of any duty arising from a person's employment is not to be deemed an interruption if, for instance, he intends to return and resume residence within six months. As I have explained, conditions are not the same throughout the country and the matter is extremely complicated, for there is also the question of the person concerned intending to resume actual residence within nine weeks of giving it up and not being prevented from resuming residence as a result of any tenancy which he may have entered into. When I set out to examine the matter I discovered just how complicated it was.
  I hope that the wording of Household Registration Form A will be changed because it seems that a large number of people—I have talked to a lot of them; I also have a large file of correspondence—should have their position regularised. Many of those concerned have resented our trying to persuade them not to register in this way, and I feel that some of them do not realise what is at stake. They say, for example, "We want to exercise our vote in Cornwall", and they are perfectly entitled legally so to do. However, if it was stated on the form that they must state the residence at which they are normally resident for more than half of the year, a large part of this problem would be solved.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: From my recollection of the form, is it not a fact that it asks the householder to list those British subjects over 21 whom he anticipates will normally be resident at the address on 10th October? The fact that one of the people listed may be at a different address or abroad is not material. Only those whom the householder expects to be in residence are listed.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Pardoe: That is certainly what is stated on the form, but as I have explained there is a way in conscience, if not perhaps in law, around it. Indeed, it is difficult for the law to catch up with this. One is allowed to say that people are in residence even if they are temporarily absent because, for example, of employment.
  Many of these people are really business voters. They use this property for letting purposes and some of them may

  607
  not even be living there at all. They may use the property for only two or three weekends a year and perhaps a couple of weeks' holiday. For the rest of the time they reide elsewhere. They are deriving income from it, just as if they owned a shop.
  It seems wrong that these people should be able to pick and choose where they will have their residential qualification. By being able to choose in this way they can spread their votes much more proportionately than would otherwise be possible. No hon. Member will have missed the fact that I am arguing a special, if limited, point. However, if we are concerned to make elections fair, the Amendment should be adopted. While the Government may not like its wording, I trust that the Minister will carefully look into the matter and perhaps make a similar proposal which would be acceptable to the Government.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: The Liberal Amendment says, in effect, that if a person is ordinarily and regularly resident at a particular address, that is where he should be registered as a voter and not at any other address where he may happen to live for a smaller part of the year. On the basis of what I have heard, a reasonable case has been made. However, I direct the attention of the Committee to the implications of this in relation to a group of people which is far larger in number than the cases quoted so far. I refer to the population of students living away from home. Their number is likely to increase considerably when we give the vote to 18-year-olds.
  Mr. Lubbock: If a student is living in digs or at college, then that address would not constitute a residence.
  Mr. Rhodes: Four or five days before 10th October each year a flood of students comes into my constituency—they are mainly research students—and are put on the electoral register. They have no previous affinity with the area. Indeed, they have a much stronger affinity with the areas in which they normally reside. They stay on the register for the period during which that register is in force, but usually by May, June or July they have disappeared from my consti-
  608
  tuency. If an election takes place in the intervening period they are, of course, entitled to vote in my constituency.
  I cannot see how this is right. I am not making a political point, because a number of them are my supporters. I have close contact with them and I live opposite a hall of residence. I think that students should be registered to vote where they are ordinarily at home, and not in college, where they would normally move in for just a short period, or even in digs, where they are in residence for a relatively small part of the year—no more than six months of the year, at the very outside—and for a very short period of their lives.
  I pose this as a problem—I do not dogmatise. Although I sympathise with the Amendment, its implications must be fully thought out. I believe that there has been a successful challenge in court of students who registered, I believe, in Oxford, and it seems to me to be a matter that needs clarification.
  If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary expresses some sympathy with the Amendment, I should like him to tell us his reactions to the whole problem of the masses of people coming on the register now, many of whom will undoubtedly have two residences—one where they will be in college or digs in a town in which they do not normally live, and one in their home town where their parents or relatives normally reside.
  Mr. Lane: I should like to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) because it is relevant to the general problem which the Amendment raises, although it is a special aspect of it. Clarification of the two points I want to put is all the more important because the voting age is to be lowered to 18 years.
  The first side of the coin is rather different from what I think the hon. Member had in mind. Students, we assume, are registered at their normal homes away from the place where they are at university. One of the present grounds for claiming a postal vote is that people are to be away from their normal residence because of the general nature of their occupation, service or employment. Can the Under-Secretary absolutely confirm that this will assure a postal vote to all students away from home at university

  609
  at the time of a General Election or a by-election?
  The other side of the same coin was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) yesterday in columns 369 and 370 of the Official Report, but no comment was then made on it. I refer to the danger in several constituencies containing universities that the register will be flooded by a number of students who have no particular roots or contacts with the constituency. I have no fear at all in my own case, because I should certainly hope to win by an even greater majority next time if these temporary residents had the vote, but it would be quite wrong, and confusing to the situation in those constituencies, if that were to be the position.
  I understand that an important element in the qualification for residence, mentioned by earlier speakers, is that a person should not abandon the right to take up residence at any time in the course of the year. Plainly in most cases students do not have this right of continuous residence where they reside at university, whether it be in college, hostel or lodgings, and I believe that there are several court decisions confirming this. So I assume that the position is that a large majority of the students at universities cannot properly be included in the register for the university constituencies. However, as this is a matter which from now on will be of much greater importance in terms of numbers, I hope we can have absolute confirmation by the Under-Secretary that there is no danger at all of the residence qualification system being abused in this way.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I deal first with the Amendment as moved by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I noticed that his hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) who I am sure is aware that I know Pad-stow, rode a favourite hobby-horse when supporting the Amendment. He was speaking refreshingly in his own interests, but I found it odd that the Liberals, who over the years I have heard arguing on these matters, did not appear to know where the buck stops.
  Mr. Lubbock: This is in fact another indication of the need for a change to some other type of electoral area which we shall be discussing later.
  Mr. Rees: If it is of the type for which the hon. Member sometimes argues, it would concern a group of people.
  I have a certain sympathy with the objective the hon. Member has in mind, but not all who have holiday cottages in Padstow vote in the way in which the hon. Member appeared to think. Whether they vote the way in which we would like them to do is a rather different question. This proposal is quite impracticable. There are 630 Parliamentary constituencies and a separate register is prepared for each of them with no co-ordination or possibility for consultation beyond that incidentally afforded by the fact that some registration officers act in that respect for one or two neighbouring constituencies. There are 201 registration officers for 547 constituencies. Computer facilities are sometimes shared in the preparation of more than one electoral register.
  The hon. Member sought a legal definition to avoid the requirement that an elector should register once only but that is unenforceable.
  Mr. Pardoe: Surely the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the requirement that no one shall vote more than once in an election is unenforceable?
  Mr. Rees: I am arguing that a check on whether people are in fact registered in two constituencies in unenforceable. If it were imposed, the fact that an individual had contravened the requirement would come to light only by chance. The present law tacitly recognises the present situation in the proviso in Section 1(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which provides that a person shall not vote as an elector in more than one constituency. There is far more chance however, by the nature of the knowledge of people in an area. Where it is possible to enforce registration in respect of one address this is already done, for example, in the case of Service voters where a person can declare only one address. In the case of civilians it could hardly be made an offence for a householder to include a person's name on Form A when he was already included by another householder on Form A.
  There are difficulties here. There is the problem that the name "John Smith" might appear 20,000 times. The

  611
  problem of checking that kind of thing is extraordinarily difficult. I apologise again to the Committee for putting an argument based on technical difficulties. I wondered at one pitch whether there was anything in the definition at present and I looked at the definition in the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which lays down in certain subsections conditions about absence and lettings. Although it may give the hon. Member precious little satisfaction, I sympathise with his problem but it is extraordinarily difficult for the State to lay down that a person must decide on one residence or the other as the place in which he should be registered. I see the difficulties, but, for technical reasons, I can only advise the Committee to resist the Amendment.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: What about the point made from the Liberal bench that Form A should at least offer some guidance on this matter and that people should be encouraged to register where they normally are resident? Cannot we look at this again before Report stage?
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Rees: Certainly. My right hon. Friend will consider that in relation to the administration side. Perhaps something will come out of this. I will also look more carefully than I hastily had the chance to do at the legal meaning in the 1949 Act.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) gave me notice that he intended to raise his question about students, a question which was followed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes). I am advised that the qualifying date for registration is 10th October, during term. Are students entitled to be registered as resident at university or college whilst at home? This problem will have come the way of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), with his experience of Oxford, although that was some time ago now. It was in Oxford that the courts had to decide the question which arose in relation to students living at Ruskin. It is not surprising that it was at Ruskin, because in the days of votes over 21 this was far more likely to arise with older students.
  I understand that the courts have taken a view both ways. Registration officers
  612
  generally, and the various books of reference, hold that students in halls of residence should not be registered there but at home. Form A asks householders to include all persons resident at their address, including those temporarily absent. Specific examples are given of persons temporarily absent as students and people in hospital. That is as firm as I can be. This is the intention, but there is the question of legal interpretation. Problems must arise for a small majority of students who do not come into this general aspect of having a home or a residence in the sense in which I have defined it.
  Mr. Michael English: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are very few wardens of halls of residence and relatively few registrars of universities who understand the guidance which has just been given? Could not something be done, particularly in view of the lowering of the voting age, to make what is the understanding in this matter clearer to these people?
  Mr. Rees: I will certainly consider with the returning officers of the area concerned what rights my right hon. Friend has in this respect.
  If students are in lodgings, landladies might include their student lodgers as residents. Whether this would be acceptable is a question of fact in each case, because here it is someone who has moved out of a hall of residence and become a lodger. This has very respectable antecedents in the field of electoral law. Form A asks the householder to include all persons resident at the householder's address, and it gives the example of students.
  We would be on weaker ground here with regard to students in lodgings, even though since the war, particularly in many of the provincial universities, there is a smaller proportion of students living in hall. I believe that in the older universities there has been a movement out into lodgings of sorts since the war.
  The question already arises with students over 21 but appears to give rise to few difficulties. If the voting age comes down to 18, the overwhelming tendency is likely to result in students being registered in their areas. Students would

  613
  be entitled to postal votes in their home areas.
  I have dealt, perhaps not satisfactorily, with the point about which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North feels so strongly, but I will certainly look at the administration side. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East and the hon. Member for Cambridge are satisfied. What I have said is the most I can do to satisfy anybody on this point.
  Mr. Hogg: This has been an interesting debate and we have probably not heard the last of it. I am against the Amendment in its present form for broadly the same reasons the Under-Secretary gave, although he did not quite dispose of the problem. I must apologise to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for coming into the Chamber just after he had concluded his speech. It was not entirely my fault, and I was sorry to miss what he said.
  The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was evidently inspired by the praiseworthy motive of getting more Conservative voters to vote in St. Marylebone. This is the most extraordinary piece of altruism I have heard in the debate, and I can only applaud it, but I do not think that his simpliste view of the problem stands scrutiny.
  One and by far the most prominent of the difficulties in the way has been suggested by hon. Members representing university towns—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes). I too, have represented a university seat, as the Under-Secretary said, and in my present constituency I have some very large student hostels and a very large technical college with which my family has been connected for a long time. There is a very difficult problem, but now that we have enlarged the voting age, it is a problem the solution of which we cannot leave entirely to chance. The Government should give some advice either in the Bill, or on the form.
  The arguments about students tend in almost the opposite direction from that of the argument of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. We must now remember the great public schools. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman gave notice to the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and
  614
  Slough (Miss Lestor) about the sinister effects upon her chances of election in a highly marginal seat which his proposal would certainly have when votes at 18 are the rule and the entire sixth form at Eton votes against her—with one or two notable exceptions, no doubt the sons of Conservative Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the noble Lord, Lord Snow is sending his son to Eton?
  Mr. Hogg: Of course all Socialist Ministers send their sons to public schools and all sons of Conservative Members of Parliament have strong Socialist tendencies. Over a long period of time, they thus compare with each other, and no doubt each son marries a daughter of the opposite class.
  I therefore look at the words of the Amendment, which is not a bad thing to do when one is discussing it, and I emphasise the extraordinary difficulty. It involves entitlement to register. That is the first thing to realise about it. Entitlement to register is based on the first few Sections of the principal Act, but the basic Section is that which provides that those entitled to vote as electors should be those resident there on the qualifying date.
  One of the difficulties which the supporters of the Amendment have failed to realise is that the form is filled up by an informant who happens to be a householder while the person entitled to vote is not necessarily the same person, or even a member of his family. Let me illustrate that with a simple example from my own experience. For a long time, I was resident on the borders between the constituency of Hastings and the constituency of Eastbourne. According to boundary distributions, I was sometimes in one and sometimes in the other constituency. I employed a gardener and he was always put on my form, because he was ordinarily resident there. But he had a flat at Eastbourne where he was the informant himself. If the Amendment had been passed, I do not know how I could have filled up my Form A without knowing how he would fill up his Form A—that is, without incurring some kind of offence under the Perjury Act or whatever it is which sanctifies these forms. The Amendment includes the phrase
  "shall be entitled to register".

  615
  but it is not the voter who is entitled to register. The voter is entitled to vote but the registration is done partly by the returning officer who receives the forms and partly by the informant who fills them in.
  Let us proceed to the criterion which entitles the man to register. The first criterion is
  "only in respect of the address which he expects to occupy"
  —that is, the voter. How can the informant know what the voter expects? How can I be sure whether my gardener is about to give notice? I could ask him, of course, but he would not tell me unless he intended to give notice at that moment. I could not tell what he expects. What happens if he is genuinely wrong and if secretly I had decided to give him the sack? He may have expected to occupy my cottage for nine months in the year, but in fact he may have been going to occupy it for two weeks. I do not see how we can make this sense, far less enforce it.
  Next, the criterion is to be the longest period of the year, according to the Amendment, but is that the right criterion? The man may have his wife and children in a house in one area, but his occupation may take him miles away for most of the year. To move away from the examples of married men, the public school boy of 18, who was resident in his public school for nine months of the year, and who will now have a vote, would have to register as at Eton and Slough or Harrow-on-the-Hill or Winchester, for example. The university student, on the other hand, who is about six months of the year at home and six months at the university, would be in a pretty quandary, as would the warden of his hall of residence, for the warden of his hall of residence would not know whether he was expected to live at home for the rest of the year.
  If we proceed along these lines, we cannot use the criterion of the expectation of the person entitled to vote and we cannot make the criterion the longest period of year, because that does not put the weight where the proposers of the Amendment want to put it.
  Next we come to the mysterious phrase,
  "in determining this question regard shall be had to the circumstances of that person's occupation, service or employment".
  616
  Let us have regard to it, certainly, but how can that necessarily affect where he expects to live for the longest period of the year and why should that be the only factor mentioned specifically to which we should have regard?
  Mr. Lubbock: I do not blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this, but had he heard my speech he would have understood that the Amendment refers to the man who normally works, for example, in London, and whose occupation, service or employment is in London, but who possesses a holiday cottage on the south coast. We can easily determine, by asking him where his occupation, service or employment is carried on, that he should normally register in South Kensington.
  Mr. Hogg: I greatly deplore the fact that I did not hear the hon. Member's speech, but that is precisely what was said by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. But are they not considering the wrong criterion and generalising from too narrow a series of examples? I can quite understand, in the case which he mentioned, that many people would say that that was the right answer, but a man who is at his genuine home for only a short time in the year and whose normal employment takes him away for a long time—which is, after all, not so rare a situation that it can be ignored from the point of view of this kind of legislation—would come to exactly the opposite conclusion.
  I quite understand the hon. Member for Cornwall, North resenting the fact that a number of occupiers of holiday cottages voted against him at the General Election rather than vote for me. I can understand them preferring to vote against him than to vote for me. It is a perfectly intelligible choice, although I may regret it from many points of view. At the same time, he is just as badly off with retired people, who represent the same kind of interest. His great objection was that these country cottagers had a different view from his of the interests of his constituency, and, so he said, from that of the majority of his constituents. Suppose they have. He will be carried home by the triumphant majority.
  The hon. Gentleman presented an argument about the interest in keeping a place as a sort of cosy, country enclave

  617
  instead of having the constant employment that he may rightly want for his constituency. The difficulty is that the same kind of argument would apply to the retired people there. I fancy that all the holiday resorts, if the hon. Gentleman's is no exception, include a large number of retired people who, for reasons which may be adequate or totally perverse, genuinely pursue that kind of conservationist approach which is anathema to those who pursue the expansionist approach. This is part of what seaside politics are about. I do not say that one should be influenced, on what is basically an unintelligible Amendment, by the hon. Gentleman's choice of the expansionist approach to his constituency rather than the conservationist approach. I can see that he minds, but I cannot see that he minds it rationally.
  Therefore, I think that the hon. Member for Orpington has raised a genuine difficulty. The difficulty has become more acute with the lowering of the voting age, upon which the Committee decided last night, because for various reasons young people tend to concentrate between the ages of 18 and 21 in places at which most of us would think they would not ordinarily be resident. The Under-Secretary of State must return to this question if we reject the Amendment.
  The warden of one big residents' hostel in my present constituency told me only the other day that he had put everybody in the hostel into my register. I am sure that he was wrong, but he has done it, and they are there. Many of them made representations to him against it, because they were resident wholly outside this country and did not wish to play any part in British politics, for reasons which I thought were both honourable and intelligible. The wardens of hostels, the landladies of lodgings for students, the headmasters of public schools, and, for that matter, the returning officers of the hon. Gentleman's constituency must be given a little more guidance about the problem of residence, which has almost metaphysical connotations, as the Attorney-General would tell the Committee if he favoured it with his legal advice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well how "residence" occupies hundreds of pages of the Law Reports, like "domicile" and other metaphysical things like
  618
  "cause". The Government must do a little better than has been done in the past, though that is said without any reproach to them.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) for expanding on the problems. I told the Committee that my right hon. Friend would look at the matter in the light of the advice given by a variety of people on Form A. We shall look at it in the light of what has just been said and perhaps also in the light of the Regulations which the House will have to pass eventually.
  Valuable contributions have been made to the debate from both sides of the Committee, and the debate has illuminated a dark corner of the Bill for me. I shall most certainly give the assurances to both sides of the Committee.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Chapman: In subsection (1) the Clause continues the requirement of the 1949 Act that, in effect, there shall be one register per annum. It is this point that I wish to query.
  In the previous debate a number of points were made about the accuracy of the British register. I accept that entirely. We have a register which is very accurate. There is an amendment of the law in subsection (1) which will make it more accurate than ever. This is a point that I put to Mr. Speaker's Conference, and I was glad to see that it was accepted by the conference and am glad to see that it has now been accepted by the Government.
  Subsection (1) states that it shall now be a duty of the registration officer:
  "to take reasonable steps to obtain information required".
  In other words, there will be a greater onus now on the registration officer to go for accuracy and use all possible means of obtaining a thoroughly up-to-date and accurate register.
  Having said that, I am concerned about the possibility of continuing indefinitely with only one register per annum, as the Clause implies. Mr. Speaker's Conference, as the published report indicates, rejected the idea of two registers

  619
  per annum on Mr. Speaker's casting vote. Mr. Speaker gave his vote against two registers per annum on the ground, as explained in the Report, that he thought any change of the law should have a majority of those voting in favour of it. So the conference was equally divided on this, and there is, clearly, a strong case for moving away from one register per year.
  This is because of the continual process of inaccuracy creeping in as the year goes by under the Clause as drafted. The Social Survey undertook an inquiry into this in 1966–67 and found the position roughly as follows. On the qualifying date the register is about 96 per cent. accurate. By the time it is published in February it is 93 per cent. accurate. By the time one gets to August it is 89 per cent. accurate. By the time one gets to the following February it is only 85 per cent. accurate. In other words, we may start very nicely with only 4 per cent. inaccuracy, but by the time the year has gone through we have 15 per cent. inacuracy because of people moving house.
  Therefore, I plead with the UnderSecretary—I raised this point in an intervention on Second Reading—for an assurance that as soon as possible the provision will be altered, that as soon as possible we shall move to two registers per annum, and also that we shall try to afford the £3 million involved, which is really the point at issue.
  But there is a further point. Mr. Speaker's Conference looked at the possibility of keeping registers up to date by computer. We had a report about it, but I was not entirely convinced. The science of computers is advancing so rapidly that what we might not be able to do now by computer we shall certainly be able to do in five years' time. If we can at the same time get printing speeds tuned up to take account of computer speeds, we may be able to produce more than two registers a year without undue effort.
  I seek an assurance that the Home Office is very well aware of the disadvantage of having one register per year, which the Clause perpetuates, and of the growing inaccuracy of the register as the year wears on, and that as soon as possible amending legislation will be brought in to increase the number of
  620
  registers per annum. Whether it is by computers or manual methods is immaterial at this point.
  I did not put down an Amendment on this point because I was advised that it would have necessitated also putting down new qualifying dates for two registers a year and all sorts of other complications. I leave the matter at asking for an assurance that my hon. Friend accepts the principle. One political party put very strong evidence before Mr. Speaker's Conference pressing hard for two registers, and I believe that the other political party was also in sympathy. All that held us up was the cost of £3 million. I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that this situation will not last forever.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Changes have been made as a result of the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. Despite that, the Clause will not deal with the issue of having two registers a year. My hon. Friend got to the nub of the matter. The blunt answer lies in the cost of £3 million. But I can give him an assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend that, as soon as possible a change will be made. But it certainly will not be yet. However, there is no doubt, in the mind of my right hon. Friend, that the best way of ensuring an accurate register would be to have two registers per year. My hon. Friend has explained, by percentages, how the register gets out of date quickly and those hon. Members representing large urban areas where there are declining populations know what a problem this can be. It is incredible how inaccurate a register can get in a short time. I assure the Committee that we shall readily play our part in improving the situation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

  LIMIT ON, AND DECLARATION AND PUBLICATION OF, ELECTION EXPENSES
  Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 25, leave out 'six' and insert 'four'.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): With this Amendment it would be convenient to take Amendment

  621
  No. 66, in page 6, line 14, leave out '£750' and insert '£500'; No. 67, in line 15, leave out 'six' and insert 'four'; No. 68, in line 18, leave out 'six' and insert 'four'; No. 11, in line 28, leave out 'six' and insert 'four'; No. 12, in line 35, leave out 'six' and insert 'four'; No. 13, in line 37, leave out 'six' and insert 'four' and No. 14, in line 37, at end insert:
  (3) Notwithstanding the provision made in Clause 8(1)(b), for the Greater London Council elections held subsequent to the coming into force of the one member electoral areas the maximum amount of election expenses shall be £200 together with an additional 1s. 0d. for every four entries in the register of electors to be used in the election and for any less number of entries above a multiple of four.
  Mr. Sharples: I understand, Sir Harry, that Amendment No. 14 will be called for a separate Division if necessary.
  The Temporary Chairman: That is correct.
  Mr. Sharples: These Amendments deal with election expenses at local government elections. The last time the sum for election expenses was fixed was in the 1949 Act. Mr. Speaker's Conference took account of the increases in prices since then, particularly in such items as printing. It recommended increases in the rates of expenses for constituencies which would raise the rate, for example, for the average-sized constituency of 60,000 electors from £850 to £1,150, or by approximately 30 per cent.
  The question of local government election expenses was considered by the Home Office Advisory Committee. This was before that Committee had the advantage of knowing what the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference would be. I think that if it had had the advantage of knowing the considerations taken into account by Mr. Speaker's Conference it might have reached a different conclusion.
  9.15 p.m.
  There is no doubt about the need to increase the amount of election expenses allowed at local government elections. The purpose of these Amendments is to bring into line with the amounts allowed for Parliamentary elections the increase which is proposed for local government elections, taking into account increases in
  622
  costs which have arisen since they were fixed originally in 1949.
  It is proposed to alter from six to four the number of entries in the register of electors for which an additional shilling can be claimed. We accept the recommendation of the Home Office Advisory Committee that the basic amount should be increased to £30. However, the effect of the Government's proposal is to increase the amount only by something approaching £9, irrespective of the number of electors in any local government area.
  In the case of a very small local government unit, that may make sense. However, more thought should be given to the larger units, and perhaps I might give some figures of the differences between the present scale, that which the Government propose and the Amendment which we suggest. It will help the Committee to get these matters into perspective.
  In the case of a parish council with 150 electors, the present scale is £25. The Government propose to increase that to £31 5s. We suggest that it should be raised to £31 17s. 6d. In other words, we more or less agree with the Government's proposal for the smallest units, but we consider that, as the size increases, there should be a comparative increase in the rate of expenses allowed.
  Taking a local government unit with 5,000 electors, the present scale of expenses allowed is £62 10s. The Government propose to increase the rate to £71 13s. They make that proposal despite the fact that those who took part in Mr. Speaker's Conference agreed that costs had risen by about 55 per cent. Our proposal would be to raise the amount to £92 10s.
  In the case of a unit with 20,000 electors, the present rate is £187 10s. The Government propose to raise it to £196 13s. We suggest that it should be £280.
  I do not think that we are asking the Committee to accept excessive rates in local elections. However, the rates agreed in 1949 with the simple addition of £9 or thereabouts are quite unrealistic in modern conditions, taking into account, above all, current printing costs.

  623
  Amendment No. 14 makes special reference to Greater London. If the Government do not accept it, we propose to divide the Committee on it. In Greater London, we claim that the basic amount should be increased from £30 to £200, and that the same alteration should be made by reducing the number of electors for whom the shilling can be claimed from six to four.
  Greater London is on a much larger scale. Greater London Councillors, broadly speaking, represent the same number of electors as are represented by Members of Parliament in Greater London constituencies. The rate agreed by the Government—and agreed by Mr. Speaker's Conference—for a constituency represented by a Member of Parliament is £1,150. The rate proposed in the Bill for expenses for a Greater London councillor, representing approximately the same number of electors, is £446. I do not believe that this is realistic. Our proposal would increase the rate of expenses for a Greater London councillor to a maximum of £825.
  I believe that our proposals are realistic in the light of increases in expenses. The proposals are directly in line with the proposals for Parliamentary Elections recommended by Mr. Speaker's Conference, accepted by the Government, and included in the Bill. But, above all, I think all concerned with democratic government worry a great deal about the comparatively small turn-out at local government elections. We shall be considering later how a candidate at a local government election gets his name known to the electorate. No matter how hard a candidate may try, it is not possible to do this on the maximum scale of expenses proposed by the Government.
  We are not proposing anything extravagant or anything which will particularly benefit one party or the other. I do not believe that this enters into the figures we are proposing. In the light of an increase in expenses of about 53 per cent. since 1949, we are proposing something which is in line with the modern rate of expenses which a candidate has to bear to make it possible for him to put his views over to the electorate whom he will be asking to return him as their representative.
  [Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]
  Mr. James Allason: I understand, Mr. Gourlay, that you are also allowing discussion of Amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 68 standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and myself relating to a county constituency in a Parliamentary election, which is a little different from what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) has been discussing.
  The Clause increases to some extent the sums which may be spent in Parliamentary elections. I agree that there must be a severe restriction on expenditure. Nobody wants to see a tremendous increase in expenditure permitted in Parliamentary elections. At the same time, we must recognise that costs have gone up especially for large constituencies. The formula in the Clause produces an allowance of 8d. per voter in the case of a small constituency of 30,000, but only 4d. per voter in a larger constituency of 90,000—and 90,000 is by no means the largest. Large constituencies are a modern feature of the landscape.
  Much expenditure is directly related to the size of an electorate. A large item of expenditure is on envelopes and paper, before there is any printing. There is also the question of posters. With large constituencies the experience has been that election addresses get smaller and smaller and more and more meagre because it is impossible to run an election and produce a satisfactory election address.
  The Boundary Commission is now engaged on the task of producing an average-sized constituency of about 60,000, plus, presumably, 10,000 in respect of votes at 18, which will bring the average up to 66,000. That provision will not be enforced before the next election. We shall face the new election, therefore, with constituencies of between 90,000 and 120,000——
  Mr. Speed: In my case, if the election occurs at the beginning of 1971 my electorate will be between 150,000 and 160,000.
  Sir D. Glover: It should not go out from this Committee that a Conservative

  625
  Member says that we shall not get this change before the next election. I hope that my Front Bench will have a blazing row if we do not get it before the election.
  Mr. Allason: I was indicating the clearly expressed intention in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I agree that we skill have a blazing row about it, but we must face the fact that the Government will probably not do anything about it.
  The effect of the formula provided in the Clause will be to provide an allowance of £750 in a county constituency, plus 2d. per voter. The Amendment would substitute the figures of £500 and 3d. respectively, which gives exactly the same total for the average constituency of 60.000. The Amendment would attack small constituencies by reducing the sum which candidates were entitled to spend, but would allow large constituencies a fairer deal.
  With an electorate of 30,000 the allowance will be £1,000, which, if the Amendment were accepted, will be reduced to £875. Ai 90,000 the allowance is £1,500 under the Bill, which would be increased to £1,625 by the Amendment. With an electorate of 120,000 the figure under the Bill would be £1,750, which would be increased to £2,000 by the Amendment. I regret that I have not worked out the figures for an electorate of 150,000, but there would be an increase of about ½d. per elector in the case of my hon. Friend's constituency of Meriden.
  The Amendment would produce a more reasonable disparity between electorates of 30,000 and 90,000 respectively. Instead of the allowance being £1,000 for an electorate of 30,00 and only £1,500 for an electorate of 90,000, it would be £875 for the 30,000 and £1,625—nearly twice as much—for the 90,000. That is a much fairer way of dealing with the problem of large constituencies.
  The House must recognise the immense disparity in the size of constituencies. The Bill's formula is unfair on large constituencies and my Amendment, which is very modest, makes some improvement. I appeal to the Under-Secretary of State, who is a constituent of mine—he looks doubtful, but I thought that he was; perhaps he has a country cottage there—to let ma spend 4½d. on him at the next election rather than just 4d.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Hamling: The Opposition's Amendments are far too modest. There is no Amendment at all on the particular provision for borough constituencies in Parliamentary elections. I have discussed with my agent the limit which the Bill puts down for my constituency. We might be able to fight a General Election this year at this figure—this certainly will not arise; I must disappoint some hon. Gentlemen opposite—but I doubt whether we could afford to fight an election in five years or even two years on these figures.
  This puts an unfair burden on party agents. We ourselves never have to certify accounts or draw up the budgets for elections. Someone might say that we are not, either, expected to find the money——
  Sir D. Glover: You could not.
  Mr. Hamling: I could find the money in Woolwich, all right. My party is not a poor party. We could find the money to fight an election tomorrow in my borough.
  Sir D. Glover: If I'm called, I intend to say exactly the same thing, because I agree entirely with the hon. Member. But I did not mean that. I meant that he personally or the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) could not find the money. Of course the constituency parties could find the money.
  Mr. Hamling: It might be better if I made the hon. Member's speech and then we might be saved another one.
  We are not being realistic enough. My point about the imposition which we place on agents is very serious, because to keep within the limit they might resort to shifts, stratagems, devices, not to say fiddles. I will not say what fiddles an agent might use, since I do not want to put evil thoughts into the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—[An HON. MEMBER: "And on your side."] We are a decent lot over here. We should certainly consider this carefully. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell the Committee that, whatever his attitude to these Amendments, before we finish with the Bill, we will have a much more realistic approach to this problem.

  627
  It is reasonable to argue that there could not be excessive expenditure by constituency parties on either side, because the costs of printing and envelopes and the other costs of an election these days are such that few parties, with odd exceptions, could really afford to go in for the sort of expenditure which was indulged in in my home town in 1840, when a gentleman spent £20,000 on an election and then lost the election as well as the money. He went bankrupt. Those were the corrupt days of borough politics. We are not living in those times now. No party—actually, it was a Conservative—could afford to go in for that excessive expenditure today.
  I am always chary about controlling expenses because one can get into a very artificial situation. If there is one level of expenditure which is considerable, which ought to be looked at and controlled, it is precisely not mentioned in the Bill. I refer to national expenditure, expenditure on advertising. If there is any expenditure that should be controlled, it is this. Expenditure which involves candidates presenting themselves to their electors, however, is surely the one kind of expenditure which should not be looked at in this rather censorious manner.
  I have always felt that the control of expenditure was looked on with a rather censorious eye. But it is the impersonal, large-scale national propaganda, which is not related to particular constituencies, which is frequently of a rather crude and superficial character, which is allowed to proliferate. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that we should look at this national expenditure again.
  The other kind of expenditure which, I hope, my hon. Friend will reconsider is the expenditure by outside bodies, by vested interests. I do not know how we can control some of this, but there is a lot which comes flooding in at election times from different outside bodies, calculated to have an effect upon the result, from people who have no responsibility to the electorate. It is this sort of expenditure which, I hope, my right hon. and hon. Friends will look at again.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) in the second
  628
  set of Amendments which we are discussing with the principal one which has been moved from the Front Bench on this side of the Committee. I will make simply the modest comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) that it is an interesting commentary on the Government's economic policy that a highly intelligent supporter of the Government can calculate that while he might well be able to underwrite an election today on the figures given in the Bill, he could not do so in two years' time. This is one of the most damaging admissions of the present inflation that I have heard for a long time.
  Mr. Hamling: I can look at the sort of expenditure that was permissible when I first stood at an election, and I have been contesting elections for 20 years. I have been looking at the inflation in election costs which happened years ago. One does not need to make a petty party point on this.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I have got the hon. Member to his feet and succeeded in my object. I think that I have made my point.
  I support this series of Amendments because I represent, as do other hon. Members, a county constituency with, mercifully, a large majority, but also a large electorate. Indeed, if one counted one's majority at the present time, it would be positively vulgar. I represent 100,000 constituents. I am, therefore—to use the technical expression—"overweight". [Laughter.] I trust that no hon. Member will wish to comment on that. Hon. Members who represent very large numbers of people in their constituencies are directly affected by the Clause and, therefore, by the Amendments.
  Having listened to the remarks of the Home Secretary on this matter, I am convinced that amendments to boundaries will not take place before the next General Election. The proposal for my area would divide the constituency roughly in half—I must not go into that at this stage, because I would be out of order—and there would then be two Conservatives representing the area instead of one, and that is why amendments to boundaries will not take place. I am satisfied that a seat like mine will be

  629
  represented by one hon. Member after the next General Election, as it is today.
  We are, therefore, acutely interested in the, amount of money involved. I do not understand why the scale of what I shall call "fees" proposed in the Clause stops at an upper figure well below the electorate of a considerable number of constituents now represented in the House of Commons. Why does the scale stop at a certain figure when many of us demonstrably represent many more constituents than that? The Minister must meet this point head-on if he is to give an effective answer to the alternative scale contained in the three Amendments to which I am speaking.
  I agree that all sorts of expenses have gone up. I let hon. Members into a secret when I tell them that I fought the last two General Elections without issuing an election address. Why do hon. Members persist in having election addresses when they are things of the past? They are, however, represented as part of the Amendment because they come into the costs which we are discussing. However, they are basically a left-over from an era when communications were poor. At that time candidates had to circulate in full their views on each matter of the day. That is no longer applicable.
  Nevertheless, the electorate expects to hear something from candidates and, while the free post—which is available to all candidates—is of considerable help, the expenses involved in producing and circulating a massive electorate of the kind I represent are not properly reflected in the Clause. This problem will be accentuated—and I am glad of this—by our decision yesterday to add further to the electorate.
  The Government have not, in the Clause, made sufficient weighting for the size of a county constituency. This is a real problem for those of us who must fight such seats. We have not only substantial areas to cover—in my case I cannot complain about that—but substantial numbers of people to cover, large numbers of meeting to attend and a great many people to circulate through the various communications systems. This is one of the more expensive features of a General Election campaign. This must all be done within what the average man would regard as perfectly reasonable expenditure.
  630
  9.45 p.m.
  Since I made a reference, in quite a lighthearted way, to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, I end by saying that I think that he made a very real point when, at the very end of his speech, he spoke of the risk of making criminals of election agents. The Government must treat this point with care. The Committee must treat this matter with some delicacy— and we all understand why—but the point made by the hon. Gentleman struck home. Frankly, some of us know that our affairs are arranged with care, and I do not believe that it is conducive to a healthy democratic system.
  Very little extra would obviate all that. It would not get anywhere near approaching to the kind of luxuriant expenditure that neither side is prepared to contemplate. But it would remove the criminal or quasi-criminal nature of some of the arrangement of affairs that goes on in all parties on both sides of the Committee when we are faced with the predicament of getting a gallon into a pint pot. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will not feel that this is a frivolous exercise. It is put as a serious contribution, and it is particularly relevant to those who, like myself, represent very substantial electorates.
  Sir D. Glover: I give qualified support to the Amendment, but I warmly support the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). I will be quite honest with the Committee by saying that when this matter was discussed in Mr. Speaker's Conference—and I do not think that that hon. Member was a member at that time I expressed my hostility——
  Mr. Hamling: So did I.
  Sir D. Glover: I am very worried about this Clause. By the very nature of things, it will probably be another 10 or 15 years before Parliament debates another Representation of the People Bill, and the figures in the Clause are even today totally inadequate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), in a very charming speech, called attention to the difficulties of agents. Let us be quite blunt, and say that we are stretching the credibility of some of these election expense returns to the absolute snapping point. It is not right that the House should inflict this dangerous responsibility

  631
  on a lot of very hard-working, responsible and worthy citizens. It is not right that we should ask them to try to put a quart into a pint pot.
  What makes the position worse, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go back to the Home Secretary and tell him, is that we know that this is the position now. The increases in this Clause are totally inadequate even to take care of the inflation we have had since the last similar Bill was debated, but the figures in their purchasing power are still far less than the House of Commons thought adequate 20 years ago. Yet we are putting these figures solemnly into the Bill; accepting them as adequate for the 10 or 15 or 20 years before the House of Commons debates the subject again.
  The Home Secretary should take the whole Clause back, and return to us with a realistic assessment of the sort of expenses a Parliamentary candidate can incur at an election. If we do not do this, it is because—let us be blunt about it—we are frightened of creating an impression on any individual elector that we are spending too much money. We are not prepared as a responsible House of Commons to say that this is the sort of money it is reasonable to spend in Parliamentary elections.
  I therefore hope that the Committee will put real pressure on the Home Secretary to bring us, on Report or at some other stage, a completely new Clause on expenses, because everyone here, almost without exception, knows that we are not dealing with the realities of the situation. We are pretending that certain conditions exist that do not exist. We are pretending that the money is adequate when we know that it is not adequate. And we are doing so because we are frightened of appearing to be lush on the question of expenses.
  I can understand how this picture grew up. Quite candidly, it was because the party opposite at that time had more difficulty in raising money than had the party I represent. Therefore it was quite right to limit the amount of expenses. Today that situation does not apply to anything like the same extent.
  I believe that the party of hon. Members opposite now raises more money for political purposes than the party I repre-
  632
  sent. I am not speaking about the position nationally, but constituency-wise. Admittedly the Labour Party in my constituency does not raise as much as my party, but equally the Conservative Party in the constituency of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West does not raise as much as the Labour Party there. If we take like with like, there is not much difference.
  I plead with the Committee to take a realistic attitude to this problem. To put this provision in a Bill which has to last for 15 years or more would be completely dishonest in view of the problem that we know exists now and will exist in future. We should deal with it properly.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: I support the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) because of my experience. Before I became a Member of Parliament I had been chairman of my local party. I know the difficulties I had to square my conscience with the bills and so on put forward as election expenses five, six or seven years ago. At the last election, I am glad to say, I had nothing to do with putting forward bills for expenditure.
  I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) who said that election addresses are not needed. In my constituency, even under the new rule, we are not allowed to spend as much as £10 per polling district and there are 115 villages. We need election addresses, because people want to know about candidates' proposals. At a following election the voters will refer to an old election address and ask what has been done about carrying out pledges given in it. We have to spend adequate amounts of money putting forward a case which every voter in the constituency can understand.
  I do not entirely agree with the Amendments we are considering, because I think that a rural constituency with a fairly small number of constituents could be hit by these proposals. The whole Clause should be looked at again because we are not merely concerned with the next election, but with two or three elections ahead. The present suggestions are not adequate even for today, quite

  633
  apart from conditions as they will be in the future. Election agents have a terribly hard job to do. We do not want to lead them into doing something which we know they ought not to do.
  Mr. Speed: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), who made an admirable contribution to the debate. No one has yet spoken in favour of the Clause as it stands. Agents and voluntary workers have very important work to do. Professional people working for any party are grossly underpaid for their services. We are giving them an intolerable responsibility to have to manage their affairs carefully not only now, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr.van Straubenzee) said, even in four years' time.
  It is easier to arrange one's expenses if one is fighting an election in part of a city or in a borough where one can get together with other candidates and there can be joint advertising and the communications generally are very much cheaper, but in a large constituency there is a considerable problem.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West will excuse me for taking his point a stage further. We seem to be very concerned about the amount which can be specifically spent within a constituency—this should be looked at more realistically—yet no limitation is imposed on the extra-mural help which can come flooding in. This help can come from a group of industrialists supporting my party or from some millionaires helping the Labour Party. A considerable amount of propaganda is put out through the trade union and Cooperative movement, and not just through their political funds. Most of the trade union magazines are not paid for out of the political funds of the unions, but they carry a lot of propaganda for the Labour Party. I do not quarrel with that.
  On the other hand, we are making life much more difficult for party agents and whole hosts of voluntary workers. On the other, we seem not to worry about what happens, sometimes on a very large scale, by way of massive propaganda put out by extra-mural bodies.
  634
  I therefore echo what everyone else who has taken part has said and hope that the Government will agree to look again at the Clause. Otherwise, many dedicated people in all parties will be put in a quite intolerable position.
  Mr. W. Howie: I want to say practically nothing as briefly as possible. I add my small voice to the consensus which has enveloped the Chamber in the last twenty minutes and which was started by the admirable speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). A quick calculation, based on the figures given by the Government, leads me to believe that with an electorate of 60,000 the expenses allowed in my constituency will be about £1,125. As the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said, this does not seem to be the sort of sum which will finance elections in the next ten years or so.
  If we are to impose a limitation of this type now, we must impose a limitation which will last for a substantial number of years, because we do not want to be chopping and changing every other election or so. The Government should carefully consider the amount involved.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) made a valid point when he pointed to the difference between some county constituencies and others. We have heard of a county constituency which in a few years will have an electorate of 150,000. In the Highlands and Islands the electorates are small but the areas of constituencies are very large. In the Islands there is the additional problem of communications. The differential which is added to the basic £750, if it is based on the electorate, does not give such a constituency much of a chance.
  The hon. Gentleman drew attention, not only to the weakness in the Government's proposals, but also to the weakness in the Opposition's official Amendment and in their unofficial Amendment. A complete re-thinking is required of this whole question of the financing of elections.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the problem which faces the election agent in devising his return—I think that "devising" is the correct word—at the end of the election. It must not be forgotten

  635
  that, although if he has any sense a candidate does not look at this very closely——
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gouriay): The Prime Minister's Motion.
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Howie: That is the first time that I have been interrupted by the Prime Minister.
  I was saying that the candidate when dealing with the return of electoral expenses has to put his name to a bit of paper, and we are putting ourselves into a situation in which we tempt ourselves not to look at what we are signing.
  Mr. Hamling: No doubt my hon. Friend has seen the election addresses issued by parties and has seen on election returns the alleged cost of those election addresses. If he knows the printing industry, no doubt he can cost those election addresses.
  Mr. Howie: I am happy to say that I know nothing about the costs of the printing industry. I do not intend to be lured into that murky little channel into which my hon. Friend has invited me. I merely repeat that it is time for the Government to reconsider the whole nature of the proposition which they have put before us, not to think of the expenses at the next election or the election after that, but to devise a formula which will be appropriate for the next 10 or 15 years.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: I shall intervene only for a few moments. I should like to say first how much
  636
  I admired the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who, unfortunately, has left the Chamber. How wise he was to emphasise that the Socialist Party has no trouble about getting money, because it gets it already out of the co-ops, the trade unions and the compulsory political levy. Getting the money is not a problem for Socialists, but it is to the Opposition.
  I do not often disagree with my own side, but I did not altogether agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking when he said that election addresses were no longer necessary.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: My hon. and gallant Friend has left out the "ham"—Wokingham.
  Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: I apologise for my temporary lapse. But my hon. Friend said that election addresses were no longer necessary. I agree that they have never been necessary for hon. Members opposite, because in their case they contain only hate and lying promises. I do not say that an election address is necessary in my constituency, but election addresses are necessary in the majority of constituencies, for without them how could the electors know who is their candidate, what he looks like, and what is his policy? From that point of view, election addresses are essential.
  Mr. Buchan: I will not follow the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) on the general principle that it is impossible to do so, but I want to take up one or two basic points which have arisen in the debate.
  There has been one big omission from the discussions—the simple point that the figures in the Bill arose either out of Mr. Speaker's Conference or out of the local government conference. That must count for something. There appears to have been a general assumption that the figures are totally inadequate, but that assumption has been made without anyone asking what were the considerations which influenced Mr. Speaker's Conference and the local government conference. It has been argued that the figure of £30 in respect of local government expenses would have been altered if the local government conference had known what Mr. Speaker's Conference would recommend. It has been argued

  637
  that the figures put forward by Mr. Speaker's Conference, too, were too low. It is suggested that the local government conference would have chosen higher figures had they known what Mr. Speaker's Conference would recommend. In fact, they knew what Mr. Speaker's Conference had recommended, as the recommendations were known from the first interim Report of Mr. Speaker's Conference. The case has not been made on that aspect, therefore, although it is an aspect on which I had hoped to hear more views.
  Turning to the figures for Parliamentary elections, my hon. Friends the Members for Luton (Mr. Howie) and Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) said that they were not realistic figures. But the Amendment affects only county constituencies and does not affect my hon. Friends' constituencies. Secondly, having picked up the idea from hon. Members opposite, my hon. Friends expressed views about the problems of trying to keep their election expenses within the limits——
  Mr. Hamling: I have not studied this problem only in the last half-hour. I have studied it for years. The views which I put forward tonight were views which I put forward to Mr. Speaker's Conference. Unfortunately, the Conference was back in the coach-and-buggy stage.
  Mr. Buchan: That was not the point which I was making, and I will deal with that later. The argument is that in election after election the imposition of this figure has led to strains upon election agents who have to keep their expenses within these limits. It is said that more money would get rid of the strains, tensions and contrivances.
  But it would do nothing of the sort; it would raise the level at which those tensions and contrivances would begin again. If the amount were raised, those who could would still spend to the limit, and would still have the same kind of problem to face. I do not believe that there is any hon. Member who could not spend treble or 10 times as much as any figure that was set, and would want to do so. He must be confined to a stated amount. I could spend 10 times what I am allowed. I would write election addresses every day if I could. The purpose of the limitation on expenditure
  638
  is to bring equity into the situation. If we raised the figure there would still be the same kind of tensions and problems at that figure, but with the difference that those who could more easily afford it could spend it, and those who had less could not.
  Mr. Speed: The hon. Gentleman should realise, even if his advisers do not, that we must raise the money in our constituency before we spend it. In my party, and I am sure in his, there is a fixed limit on what a candidate can give towards his party for expenses. It is therefore nonsense to talk about 10 times as much. Most constituencies cannot raise that sort of money.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has not taken the point. I recognise how much the individual candidate is restricted. I appreciate that it is said that parties must strain to raise running expenses. But hon. Members must not strain my imagination too much. I could compare what would come in in some constituencies in Scotland with the amount that could be raised in a political campaign in better-off areas, or where there are better-off parties. I make no distinction between the two parties here. Hon. Members Opposite seem very sensitive on this point, but I make no suggestion as to which party might be the wealthier. This principle is introduced in order to bring in equity in political propaganda, publicity and expenditure. If we set too high a ceiling it would benefit the wealthier candidate, who would no doubt be representative of the wealthier party.
  We should look at the figure with more care. It came forward from Mr. Speaker's Conference. So far as I know, no one has argued against it, except to say that he would like more money. No one has stated the case against the figure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West spoke about the censorious nature of this, as regards local candidates. I accept that. It is designed to be censorius precisely in order to bring equity into the situation. My hon. Friend was correct to say that the really serious thing may be large expenditure on national advertising. Perhaps we should think about that, but we cannot do it under the Clause.

  639
  The Amendment affects only county constituencies; it would change the basis of calculating the permitted maximum of candidates' expenses in the county constituency. Let us take an electorate of 40,000. Under the 1949 Act, candidates can at present spend £783 in a constituency of 40,000. With the permitted maximum under the Bill they could spend £1,083. The permitted maximum under the Amendment would be £1,000. So for an electorate of 40,000 the figure would have dropped by £83. For a constituency of 60,000 the figure would be the same under the Bill as under the Amendment. At 80,000 the respective figures would be £1,416 under the Bill and £1,500 under the Amendment. So that is an increase of £84.
  10.15 p.m.
  What is the conclusion? The proposal is to allow a little less expenditure under the Bill in county constituencies with small electorates and a little more in county constituencies with large electorates. But none of this is related to the needs of the constituency. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) would drop considerably under this concept, but his area covers many thousands of square miles. Similarly, the production costs of so much material balances out in every constituency no matter the size. Rents for rooms are the same, and costs of blocks for photographs are the same. It averages out. One of the effects would be that a county constituency with a small electorate but a large area might find itself with much the same expenses but a smaller amount than another constituency So the Amendment will not do. It does not solve the problem which it sets out to deal with.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: Is it the hon. Gentleman's argument that there ought to be no differentiation between different types of constituencies?
  Mr. Buchan: Indeed, not. I agree that the best concept is a flat rate with amounts added on. We accept that there should be a flat amount first. That is accepted in the Bill and the Amendment. I accept that it should be related to the number of people in the constituency. The point is that when one alters the
  640
  balance in this way one may then begin to bring in strange results, like the one I gave. That is why it might be better to keep to the first proportion.
  Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman has given figures up to an 80,000 constituency. Does he realise that many constituencies are far in excess of that figure? What we object to is the fact that £1,000 is given for a 30,000 constituency, but for a 150,000 constituency—five times as big—only twice as much is given, £2,000.
  Mr. Buchan: If the Amendment had been a little more scientific and had tried to work out a balance between the flat amount and the multiplied amount, there might have been something in it, but the Amendment will not do it, and so I must ask the Committee to reject it.
  I am a little confused about Amendment No. 14, which has not been discussed. I wonder whether I am right in thinking that it is to be moved separately.
  Mr. Hogg: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It was discussed, and I believe it is to be separately divided upon.
  Mr. Buchan: While we have a good conceit of ourselves north of the Border, I think it might be more appropriate if I left it to a colleague of mine from the Home Office to discuss that point.
  Mr. Hogg: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I say that I am not happy about the speech to which we have just listened. I do not wish to put this forward from any party point of view.
  The two Amendments upon which it is proposed to divide relate to local government and not Parliamentary elections, although the Amendments for discussion have properly included, because of the selection of the Chair, Parliamentary elections and the discussion has very largely centred upon Parliamentary expenses rather than local government expenses. I think that this has been a convenient arrangement, but the debate came as something of a surprise to me. I think that it came also as something of a surprise to the hon. Gentleman. I think that the House has shown unmistakably greater wisdom about this than either of the two party machines, and for this reason I am unhappy about his reply.

  641
  The view of the Conservative Party machine was, in the main—and I say this frankly in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), who is a vice chairman of the party—that the Parliamentary election expenses were adequately allowed for by Mr. Speaker's Conference. I think that it has emerged quite unmistakably in the debate that, in that respect, the machine was probably making a mistake. It happened to coincide with the view of the Labour Party machine and with Mr. Speaker's Conference, but one cannot disregard the speeches in this debate, which have come from both sides of the Committee. They have come from the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and others, including some of my hon. Friends who have these vast swollen constituencies which, however, we hope will, in common decency, be reduced by redistribution before we go to the polls. We hope so, although we have some suspicion of the Government's intentions.
  But the speeches have not been confined to hon. Members representing swollen constituencies. There was, if I may say so, a very wise speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Clover) which supported what the hon. Member for Woolwich, West said. I have always been concerned about this aspect of the matter. The Under-Secretary of Sate, it seems to me, wholly misunderstood the purpose of our election law and its effect. It is not designed to save candidates or parties money. That is not its purpose. It is not its purpose to stop people from spending legitimate a mounts of money on communication.
  The purpose of the election law is twofold, and it is vital to the cleanliness of our elections. It is a law in favour of the purity and integrity of elections and not against extravagance. Two reasons underlie the law. Before it was passed in one form at the beginning of the century, for the first time, two evils occurred. The first was escalation of unnecessary expense and the other was cheating and bribery under cover of legitimate election expense.
  It is not so very long ago. I remember that when I was Member for Oxford a very old man came to me. He was in extreme old age. He said to me, "I am the man in the moon". I said, "What do
  642
  you mean?" It turned out that he was the man who in the last part of the nineteenth century paid the bribes which caused Oxford to be disfranchised for seven years as a result of corruption in that constituency. All this was carried on under cover of the election expenses. We must stick to our control of expenditure because we want to prevent corrupt practices and cheating under cover of legitimate expenses and to prevent escalation with that end in view.
  Mr. Buchan Mr. Buchan rose——
  Mr. Hogg: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get on for the moment. I must try to apprehend him of this matter because I hope to get him to take back to the Government a little of the wisdom which the House has shown.
  There is an equal and opposite danger. If we put the level too low we lead to twisted accounts. I got into great trouble in the House about a year ago because I suggested that this could be said of American presidential elections. There was trouble on points of order about whether I was attacking the head of a friendly country. Nevertheless, this is the trouble the Americans have fallen into. They have put the level so low that everyone knows that, except in the case of the Head of the American State, every other election expense is twisted from top to bottom. This cannot lead to an uncorrupt political life.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich, West said quite plainly that the figures for the maximum allowable expenses in Parliamentary elections, if they have not already reached that level, will before there is another Speaker's Conference. That is a very serious statement, and I think that the Under-Secretary has made too light of it.
  Mr. Hamling: I would be prepared to say now that an awful lot of expenses filed in the last five years have been "fiddled".
  Mr. Hogg: I am not disputing that. I am fortunate in representing a constituency with the relatively small electorate of about 50,000. Therefore, I am probably affected by it less than other hon. Members.
  We face this situation. When my father first went into public life, which is the

  643
  best part of 50 years ago, fighting a Parliamentary election cost something more or less than £1,000 That is about what it costs to this day as a maximum. That must indicate either that there has been a fundamental change in the needs of communication or that something is being hidden about the expenses incurred. That must follow, because we know that in my father's day the £ was worth two or three times what it is today. As the hon. Gentleman says, if it has not already happened, it is the case that it is about to become the truth. That is very serious, and I am glad that it has been said so frankly. But I think that the Under-Secretary has failed to cope with the seriousness of the case which has been made.
  Mr. Buchan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there were two basic reasons for it. One was unnecessary extravagance and the other was corruption. Unnecessary extravagance, I think, can be put on one side. In fighting an election, it may not be good for a candidate to spend too much money, but it is nothing to worry about too much. I accept his second reason about corruption. But is there not a third element in that an extension of democracy is involved, where a sum is laid down to provide equity of treatment for the poorer and the better-off sections of the community? If the figure is too high, it benefits the richer group. If it is within the means of all sections, there will be straining and tensions at that new level, whatever it is.
  Mr. Hogg: That is precisely the case that I am seeking to controvert. I do not misunderstand him. I do not agree with him. It is wrong historically. Historically, the expense of an election was greater than it has been in recent years. The Under-Secretary has wholly misunderstood the nature of contemporary elections in putting it forward now.
  I did not say that unnecessary extravagance was bad. I said that escalation was inevitable. The law is designed to prevent popular expenditures on items such as bands, where a situation may develop in which each candidate has to indulge in what is fundamentally a valueless expenditure from the point of view of communication. However, from the point
  644
  of view of democracy, to which the Under-Secretary appealed, I would come to the opposite conclusion to him.
  The great political parties—and in terms of what I am about to say the Liberal Party can also be described as a great political party in that it has considerable funds—we have access to radio, television and to various other means of mass communication. But a party or an individual who has not got these resources may wish, for that very reason, to spend money on communication. We have to cater for people of all kinds—new parties, new individuals. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West seemed to say, with great force, that even with all the advantages which a great national political party has, the agent is put in a position where he has to grapple with his conscience to put forward an adequate election expense.
  I think that the Under-Secretary's answer has been totally inadequate. He need not think that I am trying to take it out of him. I am trying to make him see what the Committee has been saying to him and to take it back to the Secretary of State and the Cabinet. We are not reproaching the Government for making a mistake. The two party machines have been agreed about it up to this point. The Cabinet only took over the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. We are not trying to lambaste them for doing it. We should only make ourselves ridiculous if we did. But when Parliament has said something significant in the course of a debate, it is up to the Government to recognise that something has happened, and I am not happy that the Under-Secretary has recognised what has happened.
  I will not go on with the subjects on which we will be dividing, which are to do with local elections, but I hope that this debate will serve a purpose much wider than the Amendments. I hope that by the time we get to Report Stage the Government will have looked into this and will give us their considered view on what has been said.
  Mr. Hamling: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been temperate—for him. But does he agree that in fact the votes we have tonight are purely academic in the context of the debate?
  Mr. Hogg: I do not think that they are purely academic. As I said on Second Reading, we take the view that the maxima allowed for local government are disproportionately small, even for parliamentary elections. But I accept from the hon. Gentleman, who has said that I am temperate, for me—he is complimentary, for him—that the issues raised in
  the debate are far more important than the questions we are about to divide upon, and I hope that the Government will take them seriously.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 122, Noes 163.

  Division No. 13.]

  AYES

  [10.33 p.m.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Pardoe, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Percival, Ian

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pounder, Rafton

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. Enoch

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hogg Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Pym, Francis

  Body, Richard

  Holland, Philip

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Braine, Bernard

  Hornby, Richard

  Royle, Anthony

  Brewis, John

  Hunt, John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. Sir Walter

  Hutchison Michael Clark

  Scott, Nicholas

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

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

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Sharples, Richard

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

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

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Silvester, Frederick

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Clegg, Walter

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Costain, A. P.

  Lane David

  Speed, Keith

  Crouch, David

  Loveys, W. H.

  Stainton, Keith

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Stodart, Anthony

  Dance, James

  McMaster, Stanley

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Maddan, Martin

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Marten, Neil

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maude, Angus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Eden, Sir John

  Mawby, Ray

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Waddington, David

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Eyre, Reginald

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Farr, John

  Monro, Hector

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Webster, David

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  More, Jasper

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gower, Raymond

  Murton, Oscar

  Wright, Esmond

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wylie, N. R.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Neave, Airey

  Gurden, Harold

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hamling, William

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Mr. Anthony Grant.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Bradley, Tom

  Dunnett, Jack

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Eadie, Alex

  Allen, Scholefield

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Ellis, John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Buchan, Norman

  Ennals, David

  Ashton, J. W.

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

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fernyhough, E.

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Chapman, Donald

  Finch, Harold

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Coe, Denis

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Barnett, Joel

  Coleman, Donald

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Baxter, William

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ford, Ben

  Beaney, Alan

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Forrester, John

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Binns, John

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Blackburn, F.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dempsey, James

  Gregory, Arnold

  Boardman H. (Leigh)

  Dewar, Donald

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Booth, Albert

  Dobson, Ray

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Doig, Peter

  Hannan, William

  Harper, Joseph

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Richard, Ivor

  Haseldine, Norman

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

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mapp, Charles

  Rose, Paul

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Homer, John

  Marquand, David

  Sheldon, Robert

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Mendelson, John

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Silverman, Julius

  Howie, W.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Small, William

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Snow, Julian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hynd, John

  Neal, Harold

  Swingler, Stephen

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

  Newens, Stan

  Thornton, Ernest

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Tinn, James

  Johnson, James (Kiston-on-Hull, W.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Urwin, T. W.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Varley, Eric G.

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

  Oram, Albert E.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Kenyon Clifford

  Orme, Stanley

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Lawson, George

  Oswald, Thomas

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon and Radnor)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Williams, Alan Lee (Homchurch)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Park, Trevor

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  McCann, John

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Pentland, Norman

  Woof, Robert

  Maclennan, Robert

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Mr. Walter Harrison and

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Probert, Arthur

  Mr. J. D. Concannon.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 6, line 37, at end insert:
  (3) Notwithstanding the provision made in Clause 8(1)(b), for the Greater London Council elections held subsequent to the coming into force of the one member electoral areas the maximum amount of election expenses shall be £200 together with an additional Is. Od. for every four entries in the register of electors
  to be used in the election and for any less number of entries above a multiple of four.—[Mr. Sharples.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 122, Noes 161.

  Division No. 14.]

  AYES

  [10.40p.m.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Marten, Neil

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maude, Angus

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

  Gower, Raymond

  Mawby, Ray

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Body, Richard

  Hamling, William

  Munro, Hector

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Braine, Bernard

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  More, Jasper

  Brewis, John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Heald, Rt. Ho. Sir Lionel

  Murton, Oscar

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Neave, Airey

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Holland, Philip

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clegg, Walter

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hornby, Richard

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Crouch, David

  Hunt, John

  Pardoe, John

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Percival, Ian

  Dance, James

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pym, Francis

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kitson, Timothy

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Drayson, G. B.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Eden, Sir John

  Lane, David

  Royle, Anthony

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Lubbock, Eric

  Scott, Nicholas

  Eyre, Reginald

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Farr, Jahn

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Sharples, Richard

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McMaster, Stanley

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

  Silvester, Frederick

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Speed, Keith

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Wright, Esmond

  Stainton, Keith

  Waddington, David

  Wylie, N. R.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Walters, Dennis

  Stodart, Anthony

  Ward, Dame Irene

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Webster, David

  Mr. Anthony Grant.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Forrester, John

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Freeson, Reginald

  Neal, Harold

  Allen, Scholefield

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Newens, Stan

  Anderson, Donald

  Garrett, W. E.

  Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Ashton, J. W.

  Gregory, Arnold

  O'Malley, Brian

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hannan, William

  Orme, Stanley

  Barnett Joel

  Harper, Joseph

  Oswald, Thomas

  Baxter, William

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Beaney, Alan

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Palmer, Arthur

  Benn, Rt. FM. Anthony Wedgwood

  Haseldine, Norman

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Park, Trevor

  Binns, John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Horner, John

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Blackburn, F.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pentland, Norman

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Booth, Albert

  Howie, W.

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Probert, Arthur

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hunter, Adam

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hynd, John

  Richard, Ivor

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

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

  Rose, Paul

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

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Buchan, Norman

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

  Sheldon, Robert

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

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

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

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Chapman, Donald

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Silverman, Julius

  Coe, Denis

  Lawson, George

  Small, William

  Coleman, Donald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Snow, Julian

  Conlan, Bernard

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Steele, Thomas Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Swingler, Stephen

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Tinn, James

  Delargy, Hugh

  Maclennan, Robert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Dempsey, James

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Dewar, Donald

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Dobson, Ray

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Doig, Peter

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Watkins, Tudor Brecon & Radnor)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Eadie, Alex

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

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mapp, Charles

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Ellis, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Ennals, David

  Marquand, David

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Woof, Robert

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mendelson, John

  Finch, Harold

  Mikardo, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Mr. John McCann and

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Mr. J. D. Concannon.

  Ford, Ben

  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am concerned about the method of calculating the total sum permissible as election expenses. Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended in Recommendation No. 33 that it should be made the duty of the returning officer to give public notice in each constituency of the legal maximum of the candidates' election expenses. However, in the Government White Paper that recommendation was rejected.
  In asking the Government to reconsider that rejection—or, at any rate, if they adhere to the rejection to meet the practical difficulty involved—I wonder whether it is reasonable to expect each election agent separately to calculate the total maximum sum permitted? Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended that the young voter who comes of voting age during the year should be able to vote on any polling day held on or after his—in this case eighteenth—birthday. It is clear that nobody can know the number of voters and calculate the sum, if it is to be based on those who are able to vote, merely from the names on the register. That sum cannot be calculated until polling day is known. If the matter is left to election agents, each one must plough through the register to discover the names of all the young persons, the Y voters, who will qualify on that day.
  There are various ways of getting round this difficulty. I beg the Government not to leave the responsibility for deciding this figure on individual election agents. Difficulty could arise if, having made these various calculations, the agents do not arrive at the same total. Can we have a simple means of finding the figure?
  Mr. Lane: I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill). This is a matter of great practical importance to agents. At present the wording of Clause 8 is ambiguous and open to either interpretation mentioned by my hon. Friend, whether it is the total on the original register or the necessarily smaller number of voters entitled to vote during the year.
  Mr. Hamling: I ask the Under-Secretary to recommend to his right hon. Friend to take the whole Clause back. The explanations we have had about it have been completely inadequate, not only about the expenses but on the failure of the Clause to deal with other forms of expenditure which are not controlled at all and have far less bearing on local democracy than expenses in a constituency. We should give more freedom to expression of democracy in the constituencies and control the large national expenditures which have no relation to the democratic ideas of the country.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: Before the hon. Member sits down—[Hon. Members: "He has sat down."]—will he explain what he means by other forms of expenditure? Does he allude to expenditure on television broadcasts? If so, how would he propose to regulate that? Does he intend that the television companies should restrict appearances by my hon. Friends and me on television broadcasts?
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Mr. Buchan.
  Sir G. Nabarro Sir G. Nabarro rose——
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. I called the Minister, Mr. Buchan. If the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) does not seek to answer the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South should not put the question again.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I wanted to ask the hon. Member to explain his comments because without such explanation they would be quite valueless in such general terms.
  Mr. Buchan: I should like to deal with the serious points which have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) made a valid point, although it does not altogether fall within this Clause, note will be taken of it. It is in fact covered because the calculation is done not on the electors but on the entries.
  This will lead to a slight discrepancy between the actual amount entered and the number who vote, but it will create

  653
  no difficulty for the returning officer. Each entry on the register, even though it may not entitle the person to a vote at the election because he is not yet of voting age, will be considered. The maximum of a candidate's expenses can be determined the moment the register is published. There would be serious disadvantages if the maximum fluctuated according to the number of electors.
  I hope that with this assurance we can have the Clause.
  Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. It is particularly agreeable because it will mean that there will be a slight marginal excess of expenditure permitted, which in a large rural area such as my constituency will be helpful. An American publicist said that he would not even advertise a new type of pet food for Parliamentary expenses.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Hogg: With your indulgence, Mr. Gourlay, and the permission of the Committee, may I ask the Government how far they intend to take our proceedings tonight?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: We have made reasonable progress during the day and there has been a debate in which all parts of the House have participated. I think that what we should aim to do, with the agreement of the Committee, is to consider Clause 9, on broadcasting, which is of great importance. Clause 10 is very small and discusion on Clause 11 would not take long. I suggest, if it is for the convenience of the Committee, that we should see what happens on Clause 9 and then perhaps we could come to a firmer decision.

Clause 9

  BROADCASTING DURING ELECTIONS
  11.0 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 7, line 36, leave out 'candidate' and insert 'person'.
  This is a drafting Amendment. The Clause is intended to regulate broadcasts in which candidates take part. The
  654
  restrictions of the Clause are stated to apply
  "before or during a parliamentary or local government election".
  So the restrictions are intended to cover persons who intend to seek election, even though the time has not been reached where a writ has been issued.
  Unfortunately, the use of "candidate" in line 36 on page 7 attracts the definition in Section 103 of the 1949 Act which, in the case of Parliamentary elections, distinguishes between successful candidates, who are treated as having been candidates at all times, and unsuccessful candidates, who are treated as candidates only from the moment when, after the dissolution or vacancy giving rise to the election, they declare themselves to be candidates or are nominated.
  It would seem to be clear that the restrictions of the Clause should apply equally to successful and unsuccessful candidates; and this can be achieved by the Amendment. Without the Amendment, it would not be possible to say whether there had been a breach of the requirement before the results of the election were made known.
  Mr. David Steel: How does the Attorney-General propose to define the period before the latest time for the delivery of nomination papers? How far in advance of an election does the right hon. and learned Gentleman visualise this operating?
  The Attorney-General: It would cover the whole period. This would last for the whole time, including prior to the election period itself.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
  I return to the point which I raised on Second Reading, when I received a profoundly unsatisfactory answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland, who told me that the subsection had been introduced as a result of a recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I could not recall such a recommendation at the time. Since Second Reading I

  655
  have refreshed my memory, and I can find no such recommendation.
  As regards the use of broadcasting at elections, Mr. Speaker's Conference said that broadcasting should be exempted from the provisions relating to election expenses in Section 63 of the 1949 Act. The words which the Secretary of State used about fairness in broadcasts which take place during an election do not appear anywhere in the Report of Mr. Speaker's Conference, nor, indeed, in that of the Home Office Advisory Committee. This provision has suddenly appeared from nowhere without any warning and, as far as I am aware, without any consultation with the broadcasting authorities.
  Did the Attorney-General consult the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority before this subsection was introduced into the Bill? My opinion is that it has been done in a stealthy and underhand manner without giving an opportunity for those who will be affected by the Clause to express their views.
  The Clause creates a new illegal practice which is very vaguely defined and which consists of favouring
  "any of the candidates taking part"
  in a broadcast. The illegal practice may be committed by
  "any person who in managing or taking part in the management of the item"
  does this act.
  This is extremely broad, and my next question to the Attorney-General is why it should be thought necessary to introduce this provision when both the B.B.C. Charter and the Television Act already require the observance of fair treatment of candidates in broadcasts at election times. We have had the B.B.C. Charter and Television Act for a number of years now, and no one has ever accused television interviewers or producers of unfairly discriminating against a candidate. I do not see why it is necesary to introduce this provision, unless the Attorney-General is following the example of the Prime Minister and pursuing a vendetta against the B.B.C.—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may groan, but why otherwise is this provision being introduced at this stage? [Interruption.] I prefer to hear the answer from the Attorney-General and not from the hon.
  656
  Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and other hon. Members below the Gang-way opposite.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Before the hon. Gentleman drags in silly allegations, he had better wait for the answer.
  Mr. Lubbock: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has got to talk about; so far as I am aware, he has not taken part in any of the debates this afternoon.
  Mr. Mendelson: I have been here all day.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman may have been here all day, but he has not taken part in any of the debates. An intervention like that is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman, and unless he intends to make a speech he would be better to keep quiet and let the Committee get on with its business.
  Mr. Mendelson: I am saying to the hon. Gentleman, and now I want to put it on record, that this is a serious debate about a serious matter. He was asking a serious question and I objected to his silly dragging-in of the Prime Minister in this serious debate.
  Mr. Lubbock: It was serious until the hon. Gentleman intervened. I was asking a straightforward question and I reiterate it. Has this provision anything to do with the dispute which is being pursued, as we all know, and it is useless for the hon. Gentleman to deny it, between the Prime Minister and the B.B.C.? [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman clucking like a disappointed hen in the background. I am putting a straight question to the Attorney-General. [Laughter.] I do not know what hon. Members opposite find so funny. I thought that the hon. Member for Penistone was asking me to treat the debate seriously. That is what I am trying to do, if the levity of hon. Members opposite can be suspended for a few moments.
  I hope that hon. Members will take a serious interest in the Amendment and the effect of the Clause on those who take part in broadcasts, or who are concerned with their management or production. Has the Attorney-General had any representations from the broadcasting authorities since the production of the Clause, or from those who might be

  657
  held to be guilty of an illegal practice if the Clause goes through in its present form? Those to whom I have spoken and from whom I have taken advice on this subject have expressed the gravest anxiety, and it has even been suggested to me by a person concerned with these broadcasts that, if the Clause goes on the Statute Book unamended, there will not be any election broadcasts at the next general election, because the interviewers who would otherwise have taken part in them will not dare to chance their arm in view of this extremely vaguely worded and broad Clause which could catch them as being guilty of an illegal practice purely because they had accidentally and with no ill intention favoured one candidate.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland said that clearly a matter of ten seconds more given to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) over others taking part in a broadcast with him would not constitute an offence. I am going to ask what would. Would it be twenty seconds or thirty? How will the courts interpret a provision as vaguely worded as this? It is, as I pointed out to the Secretary of State for Scotland on Second Reading, difficult when ore is on a programme with the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Ouintin Hogg) to get a word in edgeways, so it is likely that he may succeed in getting more of the attention of the interviewer than the Secretary of State for Scotland or me, if we were appearing. Then Robin Day, or whoever it was, would be guilty of an illegal practice under the Clause.
  I do not know what the penalty would be, because I have not seen under Clause 9 how provision is made for dealing with an offender under subsection (2). I would ask the Attorney-General where there is such provision. I beg the Attorney-General to appreciate that there is the greatest anxiety among those concerned with the conduct or management of television programmes. Perhaps there has not been an opportunity for them all——
  Sir G. Nabarro: Not only those concerned with the management or conduct, tut those unfortunate politicians who, as candidates, take part in elections and broadcasts. They are equally culpable if
  658
  offences are proved against them. It is offensive in that sense to many hon. Members who will be offering themselves, God willing, for re-election in the next election.
  Mr. Lubbock: He is perfectly safe, because it says
  "taking part in the management of the item".
  It does not say that the candidate would be guilty of an illegal practice if he is showing favour to somebody rather than to somebody else. It is accepted that the candidate shows favour to himself.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I do not. I am completely impartial.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member, we all know, is a shrinking violet who allows other people to have the lion's share of a television programme in which he appears. The hon. Member should not worry himself about the Clause. He should concern himself about the management and especially those conducting interviews. This Clause will place them in an impossible situation. I appeal to the Government to take this away and have proper consultations with the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television Authority and the programme companies and come back with something more precisely drafted, if what they require is to ensure fairness in these programmes.
  The B.B.C. Charter and the Television Act already carry out the intentions of Parliament in ensuring that favour is not shown to one candidate rather than another. I would rather trust the good sense and fairness of interviewers and television producers than put this on the Statute Book.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: I would reinforce the points made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and emphasize strongly to the Government that there is deep apprehension on the part of responsible and moderate non-political television producers as to the precise effect of Clause 9. Only last evening I had a long conversation with a gentleman who produced "Panorama" for BBC and "This Week" for ITV. He was expressing precisely the fears and apprehensions which have arisen. It is important that one

  659
  should look at the wording of this Clause and see whether it tackles the problem which has to be faced: the relationship of television and politics, not just at the next election, but perhaps for the next decade or two. The apprehensions felt by producers and those taking part in television programmes may or may not be justified. Perhaps on a strict legal interpretation of the whole Clause it might be possible to convince a lawyer that there would be no lack of impartiality and no favouritism if they produced a programme in the same way as they have in the past. Nevertheless, the fear exists and the Government should try to allay it before the next General Election.
  11.15 p.m.
  The background to the Clause is that both the television authorities—the I.T.A. and the B.B.C.—already have imposed on them obligations of impartiality and fairness. Over a fairly long period, there are ups and downs in the relation to each authority and in re-relation to each party from time to time, but on the whole they have maintained a fair standard of impartiality and fairness, at least in their domestic political coverage. I say nothing about the way in which they handle international events. But by and large over the years both parties have had a fair crack of the whip from the television authorities.
  Two matters particularly worry people in the business. The first, which concerns subsection (1) is whether an idiot candidate, a sham candidate who refused to take part in a television broadcast could not only shut out other candidates in his constituency, but, if he chose to stand in Bexley, Huyton or Devon, North might keep the leaders of the three main political parties totally off the air during a General Election campaign.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Worcestershire, South.
  Mr. Richard: I was not yet putting forward the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) as the leader of the Conservative Party. I am happy to say that I have taken no part in the leadership squabbles on the other side.
  The television authorities are seriously worried that if, for example, an English
  660
  Nationalist candidate stood in Huyton they would be prevented from showing the Prime Minister making speeches not only in Huyton but in London, Manchester, Birmingham and anywhere else. He would therefore be effectively shut out of the whole campaign. That is clearly not envisaged by the Clause, but the television authorities are worried about it, and the Government should consider the matter.
  The other main difficulty is posed by subsection (2), which the Amendment would delete. It imposes a new and additonal obligation on the television producers and those concerned in the management of programmes not to favour any of the candidates. Elections are touchy things, as all hon. Members will agree. They will also agree that those engaged in elections are liable to be extraordinarily touchy when considering whether they have received fair treatment at the hands of the media of mass communications. I can imagine nothing more encouraging to electoral neurosis than that everybody who appears on television in the course of the election campaign should be entitled to sit down at home to watch and weight up whether favour has or has not been shown to him.
  I should like to quote a paragraph from last weekend's Sunday Times, in which a lawyer was reported as saying:
  "In a climate like that,"—
  in an election campaign—
  "I don't think you could possibly produce a broadcast without one of the candidates complaining. How can you define' favouritism? Is it using one more light bulb to film one candidate; is it photographing one candidate kissing two babies and his rival kissing only one baby? The situation could become impossible for the producers."
  That is a real fear which the Government should consider again, and I appeal to them, moderately to do so.
  It is all very well for us, two or 2½ years from the next General Election campaign, to decide that taking favouritism out of it would be a good thing. It would be very difficult in the heat of an election battle to try to make the subsection, which I do not find very happily drafted, in any sense enforceable. Further, through this provision it is illegal for a candidate to agree to appear in a broadcast made before the latest time for the delivery of nomination papers. It

  661
  has even been suggested that if this is passed in this form not only would the other dangers arise but it might even shut out the television authorities from showing pictures of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition or any of the party leaders handing in their nomination papers. If this is a possible construction—I think it is not straining the rules of interpretation too much to get that position—it is something at which the Government must look again.
  Finally, this is a sort of Bill that Parliament does not consider very often. It has been said that we shall be lucky if we consider the representation of the people again for a decade or two decades. Television will, clearly, play an increasing, not diminishing, part in politics in the years to come. Whether one approves of it or disapproves is neither here nor there. It will play an increasing part. One has only to look at the way in the United States it is becoming increasingly intrusive into politics and a part of election campaigns, how the party leaders have to appear on television, and the way in which one's "image on the box" is becoming very important to candidates.
  Since television will play an increasing part, I wish the Government had thought about this a little more coolly and tried to grapple with the impact that it will have on politics in the next decade or so and regularise it sensibly.
  By and large, my approach is very similar to that of the hon. Member for Orpington. I would impose, if they are not imposed specifically already, obligations of impartiality and fairness on the television authorities. Having done that, I would let them alone to get on with the job of reporting domestic politics. Let us try to keep allegations of whether one or the other has been favoured out of this sort of thing.
  If I might make not too pointed an appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I hope the Government will look at the wording of the subsection again and also think seriously about the merits of the issue.
  Sir G. Nabarro: This is one of those rare occasions when I find myself substantially in agreement with the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and the Liberal Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).
  662
  [Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) wish to intervene at such an early stage in my speech? If so, will he rise and do so? No, the hon. Gentleman remains sedentary.
  The fact is that the provision in subsection (2) is utterly unenforceable and unprovable and, in my judgment, super-fluous. In any event, the Secretary of State for Scotland was wrong on Second Reading when he pronounced in relation to the valid and valuable point made by the hon. Member for Orpington:
  "On the point raised by the hon. Member for Orpington about how to adjudicate fairness in respect of a political broadcast during an election, we are trying to follow through a recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference that there should be fairness and that it should be seen to be fair. This obligation is laid on those conducting these broadcasts or television programmes. If they do not meet the obligation they might be guilty of an illegal practice under the Bill.—(Official Report. 18th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1027.]
  In fact, Mr. Speaker's Conference did nothing of the sort. What Mr. Speaker's Conference said, and I quote from paragraph 37 on page 7 of Cmnd. 3550, was:
  "Exemptions from provisions relating to election expenses
  35. Broadcasting should be exempted from the provisions relating to election expenses in section 63 of the Representation of the People Act 1949; but a programme covering an election in a particular constituency and including candidates in that constituency should not be broadcast unless all the candidates have agreed to take part personally and are given an equal opportunity to state their views."
  Mr. Hamling: That is rubbish.
  Sir G. Nabarro: In practice, that cannot be borne out. Take, for example, Independent Television in the Midlands and the General Election of 1966. Midlands Television covered a very large number of constituencies; about 100 constituencies were covered by this particular form of Independent Television.
  The Labour Party was asked to nominate their spokesman for a party political broadcast, and the Tories were asked to nominate their spokesman through the party machine. The Labour Party chose, not unnaturally, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), then Home Secretary and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Tory Party chose, not unnaturally, the candidate for Worcestershire, South.

  663
  I do not know why the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is jeering. My party did not choose me for fun. My party chose me because I clobber the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and indeed I did clobber him and silenced him in appropriate fashion.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Mr. Chairman, is the right hon. Gentleman now about to break——
  Hon. Members: Hon. Gentleman, never right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman now about to break into his commercial for natural gas?
  Sir G. Nabarro: That is characteristically flatulent. I am quoting an exact case of a television broadcast during an election a few days before polling day. Whatever were the reasons, and I do not attribute any valid reasons this evening for the particular choice by the political parties, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of today was the Labour Party candidate on this election broadcast and I was the Tory Party candidate, for reasons best known to the parties. I did not advocate my own participation in this broadcast.
  The selection of questions was very important. The Chancellor of the Exchequer happens to sit for the constituency in Britain which manufactures the largest number of commercial motor vehicles in any constituency in Britain. I happen to sit for a lush and productive agricultural and horticultural constituency.
  Now the questions on the television broadcast were beamed to industrial matters. There was not a single question on agricultural or horticulture. Thus I was placed at a disadvantage.
  Hon. Members: Never.
  Sir G. Nabaffo: I look after myself in General Elections, as always, but the fact is that the beaming of questions to industrial matters placed me at a disadvantage. Within the terms of this Clause, that might have been interpreted as bias against a particular candidate, because bias against a candidate does not consist of one matter alone. It can consist of the selection of questions. It
  664
  can consist of the selection of candidates if, for example, a weak Labour candidate is put up against a very strong Tory candidate. If a feeble and vapid Tory candidate were put against the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), he would savage him. Similarly, if a feeble and vapid Labour candidate were put against me, I would savage him.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Cad!
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am not a cad. These are methods of exercising television and broadcasting bias, and any hon. Member who sneers at me or mocks me for saying that has insufficient knowledge. The editing of television or broadcast programmes, the selection of material for them, the selection of candidates for them, are all means—and I make no accusations or insinuations or innuendos—of beaming propaganda against one candidate or the other but are largely unenforceable within the Statute and are unproveable. That is why the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) was correct in stating that this subsection is non-enforceable and why I am correct in saying that it is unproveable.
  I want to give a further example, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale will rise and support me on it, because it is one from his own personal experience as a West country man in origin. In the 1959 General Election I was called upon by my party to take part in a similar party political broadcast. I have quoted an example from the 1966 General Election which involved the Chancellor of the Exchequer; this is an example from the 1959 General Election when the "Any Questions?" programme on the B.B.C. was turned into a party political broadcast and was announced as such.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I thought it was that all the time.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I have been privileged on numerous occasions to take part in that programme against the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I reckon that we are equal weight.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: A bantam.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)

  665
  considers the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale a bantam. I do not. I consider him a he ivy weight. I never under-estimate my opponents. I like participating with the hon. Member because when the B.B.C. put us on together we have a very good time. We are equally matched. That is fair, and it is what the B.B.C. conscientiously tries to do. As the hon. Member for Barons Court observed, the B.B.C. acid the I.T.A. are scrupulous in their observance of the statutory requirements of impartiality in regard to television and broadcasting. There is no greater or better example, no finer epitome of that impartiality, than is manifest by having the hon. Members for Ebbw Vale and Worcestershire, South on the same programme.
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member mistakes me I did not accuse him of under-estimating his opponent's weight, but rather of over-estimating his own.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am sorry, but I have never felt at a disadvantage with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. He may have felt superiority.
  Mr. Michael Foot Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale) indicated dissent
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman indicates dissent.—[Interruption.] All this discourse has arisen from a ribald intervention by the hon. Member for Salford, West.
  I want to go back to the General Election of 1959, when the B.B.C. announced, quite properly, that the programme "Any Questions" would be converted into a party political broadcast. The Labour Party nominee on that occasion was the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). The Liberal Party nominee was Mr. Mark Bonham-Carter, then the Member of Parliament for the Torrington Division of Devon, who lost his seat in the election. I was the Tory nominee.
  In the course of the programme, because we had had several weeks of drought and the West of England was afflicted severely, a question arose about the responsibility of the Government for water supplies in Devonshire and Cornwall. The constituency most seriously affected was Torrington, where the Liberal candidate was defending his seat. He made a great brouhaha of the incom-
  666
  petence of the Government in not supplying water to Devonshire. In fact, it was an act of God, as I exclaimed at the time. It had not rained for weeks. I remember the General Election singularly well, because from beginning to end I drove an open motor car. I had a ruddy tan by the time polling day arrived.
  That question might have been interpreted as bias in favour of the Liberal candidate to cause farmers in the Torrington Division to pin the blame for the shortage of water on the inadequacies and deficiencies of a Tory Government—[Interruption.] In fact, the Liberals do not change their spots. We have six Mark Bonham-Carters sitting behind me.
  It was an act of God, but a malignant political mind might have said that it was devious management on the part of the B.B.C. to throw bias against one political party, the Tories, in favour of the Liberal Party.
  Subsection (2) is nonsense. It should be excluded from the Bill. It is unenforceable. It is superfluous. As they exist, the general statutory requirements, needing impartiality from both the B.B.C. and I.T.V., are adequate for all circumstances and for the protection of all party candidates. Those of us who are long in the tooth and experience——
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: Come on. Wrap up.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I propose to go on until I have finished. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) ought to be particularly quiescent.
  Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. The Tories chose culture in preference to agriculture.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has not a blade of grass in his constituency and does not know a farm from an oil refinery, but I am glad that he rises to support me. As he rightly says, I have made my point and, though this is not entirely a free vote, I would enjoin my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Liberal Party in this matter. This is largely non-political and, if the hon. Member for Orpington wishes to tell against the Government on this occasion, he may be the first Teller and my political mentor and leader. I shall follow dutifully behind him and support

  667
  what I regard as good common sense and opposition to what is a superfluous subsection.
  The Attorney-General: It may be convenient for the Committee if I indicate the Government's attitude to this Amendment and to the matters which have been raised in this vigorous discussion.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has done less than just justice to himself tonight. He has quite unjustly attributed bad motivation to the clause and quite gratuitously tried to drag in an allegation of some so-called vendetta. I am surprised that he should descend to such political vulgarity.—[An Hon. Member: "Disgraceful."] The fact is that Clause 9 as a whole derives from, and is inspired by, Recommendation 35 of Mr. Speaker's Conference. That has been read in ringing tones by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), but I remind the Committee of its terms:
  "Broadcasting should be exempted from the provisions relating to election expenses in Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949…".
  That is achieved in Clause 9(4). That is a very important measure, so far as the broadcasting authorities are concerned. It frees them of major restrictions which have hitherto hampered them from reporting on parliamentary and local elections. Therefore, so far from the Clause being directed against the broadcasting authorities, on the contrary it opens out new avenues of freedom for them to do their job of informing the electorate about the policies and personalities of election campaigns. Subsection (4) relieves the broadcasting authorities of a good deal of worry, because they were not exempted by the 1949 Act in the same way as newspapers and periodicals from consideration of election expenses.
  Furthermore, the Government have gone further than Mr. Speaker's Conference in proposing that some candidates should be able to take part in a broadcast about their own constituency even if not all the candidates take part, so long as none of them objects. Those measures of greater freedom from restriction for the broadcasting authorities are welcomed by them, but it is true that they are critical of some of the restric-
  668
  tions in the Clause fettering their freedom.
  The restrictions arise from the second part of Recommendation 35 of Mr. Speaker's Conference, which is in these terms:
  "…but a programme covering an election in a particular constituency and including candidates in that constituency should not be broadcast unless all the candidates have agreed to take part personally and are given an equal opportunity to state their views."
  Subsection (2) seeks to give legislative form to the principle which is embodied in the recommendation that all the candidates should be given an equal opportunity to state their views.
  Sir G. Nabarro Sir G. Nabarro rose——
  The Attorney-General: I will give way in a moment. That is the idea behind the subsection. There is nothing sinister about it. It seeks to meet that point of view.
  Sir G. Nabarro Sir G. Nabarro rose——
  The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman would bear with me, it may be that I shall say something to his satisfaction before long.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says with all the authority of a Law Officer. But what is the situation when 100 constituencies are covered by a television broadcast and there are three candidates in each constituency? All the constituencies are affected by what is shown and said, but we cannot have 300 candidates taking part.
  The Attorney-General: I do not think that anybody suggests anything of the kind, neither the Bill nor the broadcasting authorities. In considering the necessity of the provisions in subsection (2), I take note of the point that already the broadcasting authorities are required by law to be impartial. That is a point of importance and substance and it has certainly affected my view in looking at this subsection.
  11.45 p.m.
  Section 3(1)(e) of the Television Act, 1964, requires the Independent Television Authority to secure
  "that due impartiality is preserved on the part of the persons providing the programmes as

  669
  respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current policy. In applying paragraph (e) of this subsection, a series of programmes may be considered as a whole."
  The B.B.C. also is obliged by its Charter to observe its impartiality. The safeguards which already exist are sufficient to preserve impartiality between the parties.
  The question arises, however, whether these provisions are sufficient to prevent unfairness to an individual candidate in a particular constituency. That is the problem with which subsection (2) seeks to deal. It has been the Government's view that in order to be faithful to the approach of Mr. Speaker's Conference that there should be equal opportunity, if candidates are to be asked to take part in broadcasts they should have some sort of guarantee that if they agree to do so in relation to their own constituency matters rand their own electoral campaign no favouritism should be shown to one of their number in the broadcasts.
  That is the ideal that is sought to be achieved by the subsection, and the requirement it imposes is that those in charge of a broadcast shall not arrange things so as to favour any of the candidates. The subsection is not drafted in terms of the length of time allowed to each candidate. It does not require that each shall be asked the same questions. It does not state that all the interviewing must be equally friendly or equally hostile. I cannot conceive of proceedings being brought—certainly brought successfully—save on the rarest of occasions and in regard to the most flagrant breach if subsection (2) became part of the law.
  There is no implied criticism of the broadcasting authorities either intended by the provisions of the subsection or hidden within it.
  Mr. Orme: On the question of impartiality, cannot the Attorney-General reverse the position in which a candidate can refuse to take part, which is detrimental to the other candidates who wish to participate, so that the electorate can see and hear them? Why should they be prevented from doing this because one candidate censors the right of the others to appear?
  The Attorney-General: If a candidate refuses to take part the broadcast cannot take place.
  Mr. David Steel: On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I am anxious to discuss this matter, which is now being debated as a result of an intervention by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), which is not in order on this Amendment but would be in order in the debate on the Clause, since it refers to subsection (1), and has nothing to do with subsection (2). If you are going to allow it to be discussed on an Amendment to subsection (2), Mr. Irving, I would wish to intervene on this point.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Member is quite correct and I must not submit to the blandishments of my hon. Friend when he seeks to intervene——
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Would my right hon. and learned Friend explain why he wishes to attach this duty to the officers of the Corporation rather than to the Corporation itself? Does he wish to single out in the Clause the actual officers, producers and others, rather than rely on the general provision with regard to the Corporation as a whole?
  The Attorney-General: The Corporation itself would be caught by the language of the subsection. But before this matters extends further in debate, I must say that my view is that the necessity for the subsection needs to be reconsidered. Nevertheless, I urge upon the Committee the point that whereas it is, I think, reasonably clear that the requirements imposed upon the broadcasting authorities can be relied upon to preserve overall impartiality between the parties, there is a point of anxiety as to whether that might not be achieved at the risk of injustice to particular candidates in particular constituencies. However, I feel that this matter should be looked at again, and I accordingly give an undertaking to the Committee that that will be done between now and Report.
  Mr. Paul Bryan: We are certainly grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his last few sentences. The early part of his speech was little more than a legal tour around Clause 9, it brought us little comfort with regard to subsection (2). I am glad

  671
  to hear that he will have another look at the subsection. May I suggest the direction towards which he should look?
  I do not wish to raise the temperature of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), or to descend to vulgarities, but I must say that one is bound to see the shadow of the Prime Minister behind this Clause—[Interruption.]—for factual reasons. Before 1964. the Government depended in general for protection from bias upon the well-known duty laid on the broadcasting organisations in the Charter and the Television Act to maintain impartiality. For particular queries the Government depended on the recognised channels of communication. If the Prime Minister wished to complain, he complained to the Chairman of the Governors or the Director-General. If the Chief Whip wished to complain, he complained to someone at his own level, his opposite number, in either organisation.
  But, with the advent of the Labour Government, we had new practices—[An Hon. Member: "Come off it."] The Committee can judge whether these were better practices——
  The Attorney-General: On a point of order. I submit that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Amendment.
  The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he is coming to the Amendment.
  Mr. Bryan: My speech is about to be very relevant indeed. I will state facts as shortly as possible so as not to raise the temperature. For the first time, we had a Prime Minister dealing with the junior executives of the organisation, as opposed to dealing with those in charge of the organisation. This new attitude is faithfully reflected in the Clause. At the beginning of the Clause——
  Mr. Hamling: On a point of order. My hon. Friend was pulled up earlier for mentioning a matter better dealt with on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", when we are supposed to be dealing with the Amendment.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member must allow the Chair to listen to the debate and draw its conclusions about order.
  Mr. Bryan: I was about to quote the subsection with which the Amendment deals. It starts with the words:
  "Without prejudice to any general duty of the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Independent Television Authority to maintain impartiality…"
  They do not mean simply "without prejudice to any general duty". It means in addition to that duty. It then imposes other duties on other people. It states that the responsibility for the impartiality still rents with those in command of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., but henceforth it will also rest specifically on the shoulders of directors, producers and others. We have, therefore, a new level of executive with responsibility on their shoulders.
  That, however, is not what will happen. If we put the responsibility directly on the shoulders of juniors, as the Government are doing in subsection (2), we are automaticaly removing that responsibility from the shoulders of the seniors. Under present conditions, if the Director General of the B.B.C. is watching a programme and sees one of his interviewers behaving in a biased fashion, he feels, "I am responsible. I must take action. I have this duty to perform." Under the subsection, however, he could see the same programme and say, "We will see whether this man is sued or not." If the interviewer is not sued, the Director General can feel that perhaps it was not so bad after all. Therefore, not only is his judgment coloured at that point, but it is coloured on future occasions.
  The most important point of all is the shifting of responsibility which we see in subsection (2). I dislike the subsection for that reason. I prefer to leave the important responsibility on the shoulders of the heads of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. and not on those of the junior employees.
  I confirm the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that it is impossible to make the subjection effective. The duty, as now, of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., under the Charter and the Act, is a possibility, because they are enjoined to maintain impartiality over a series of programmes over a period. One can never obtain impartiality on each individual programme. That is what subsection (2) is trying to do. For all these reasons, I am glad to hear that the Attorney-General is having second thoughts about it.
  Mr. David Steel: I wish briefly to put one point to the Attorney-General since he was kind enough to say that he wants to reconsider the subsection. In so doing I ought, I suppose, to declare a passing interest in that for a short time before coming to the House of Commons I was a television interviewer, and in the event of any aberration of judgment on the part of the electorate of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles it is conceivable that I might at some future occasion also be involved on the other side of the fence.
  Mr. Lubbock: Never.
  Mr. Steel: I am certain that my hon. Friend is right, but I have to consider these possibilities.
  Since becoming a Member of the House I have continued to participate professionally on the other side of television interviewing in programmes which do not involve politics. I should like to relate to the Attorney-General an experience which is relevant. I remember taking part in a programme and waiting at one end of the studio to conduct the interview while an interview was going on for another part of the programme at the other end of the studio.
  During that other interview, it became clear that the person being interviewed was not doing justice to his case, nor was he contributing much to television entertainment or enlightenment. My colleague the other interviewer therefore cut short the interview contrary to the producer's prior instructions, and switched immediately to my interview. Therefore, his interview was one minute shorter and mine was one minute longer than had been arranged, but it was the kind of programme in which that did not matter.
  Suppose, however, that it had happened, as it might well have done, in a television production of an election programme. It might be said under the Clause as drafted that the interviewer had favoured one candidate by giving him longer screen time, when intentionally he was trying to protect the interests of the programme by cutting short one of the interviews.
  12 p.m.
  I will give another example, this time outside television. When I was fighting
  674
  the by-election in Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles a number of politicians suddenly took a great interest in the constituency and arrived to participate in the respective campaigns. Some of my Liberal hon. Friends were among them. They will not take it unkindly when I tell them that none of them made as substantial a contribution to my campaign as did the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) who came to speak ostensibly for my opponent.
  If the various speeches made on that occasion from platforms had been made on a television programme and if the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, and I had been participating in a programme not about, for example, floods in Devonshire but about a Border matter—and if he had been supplied with inaccurate statistics by the Conservative Central Office—great credit would have accrued to me through no effort of mine or my colleagues but because of the extraordinary observations of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. In that event the television programme would have favoured me, but it would have been no fault of the managers of the programme, as a result of no endeavour on my part but entirely as a result of the hon. Gentleman's performance. If the Attorney-General were introducing in the Bill a suggestion that there should be legislation to make it an offence to rig a programme in favour of a candidate, that would be correct and would have my support. But that is not what the Clause says. It simply says that
  "…any person who…favours any of the candidates…shall be guilty of an illegal practice."
  The phrase "whether or not intended" does not appear. I hope that, in reconsidering the drafting of the Clause, the Attorney-General will remember that such a penalty should apply only where somebody has wilfully distorted a programme.
  The Attorney-General: I assure the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that I will give attention, in my reconsideration of the drafting of the Clause, to the points he made. He accepts that there is the problem of avoiding unfair treatment being given to a candidate who might—to use the vivid expression of the hon. Member

  675
  for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—be massacred by some selective treatment of a broadcast of the kind we are discussing.
  Sir G. Nabarro: While rejecting absolutely the interpretation put on my visit to the Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles by-election on 9th March, 1965—when I spoke in the Borough of Innerleithen and contributed to the Tory vote on that occasion—I would be ungenerous indeed if I did not warmly thank the Attorney-General for his characteristically kind, objective and constructive interpretation of the few party political comments I addressed to him. I shall await, pregnant, the further stages of the Bill to see his promises translated into statutory effect.
  Mr. Lubbock: Anybody would think that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) had tabled the Amendment. Like my Liberal colleagues, I again thank him for the support which he gave to my party at the Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles by-election.
  Speeches from both sides of the Committee have pointed out the defects in the drafting of the Clause. The Attorney-General has been generous in recognising that the Government have made a mistake and, following his assurance that he will look into the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Bryan: I ask one question about the opening passages of the Clause. Will the Attorney-General explain why the operative time is the latest time for delivery of nomination papers? For most of us who fight elections the key moment is when we are adopted as candidates. From that moment the campaign is on and one would have thought that television programmes would operate from then. It would appear that it is impossible to have any television programme until about 10 days before polling day, yet most campaigns go on for about three weeks before that day.
  Mr. David Steel: I am sorry to speak again so soon, but I wish to pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). The wording of
  676
  Clause 9(1)(b) refers to constituency broadcasts not taking place when any particular candidate has declined to appear and to give consent to the programme going ahead. The Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the law at present is somewhat vague on this subject. A practice has developed whereby if a candidate decides not to take part in a programme, either that programme cannot take place or the programme authorities cover themselves by putting a photograph of that candidate on the screen and reading parts of his election address.
  This has been the case when the candidate is not a member of one of the three parties and the likelihood of prosecution has been remote. I remember a B.B.C. programme where the three party candidates appeared and the fourth candidate, standing as an independent, did not appear, but was merely filmed riding a motor scooter through the constituency. I do not know whether the B.B.C. invited him to appear.
  Apparently the Government have decided to codify the position and to make what is at present vague absolutely watertight. I have no objection to that, but I think they have made it watertight in the wrong direction. A candidate in a constituency should not be forced to appear on television if he does not wish to do so, but it is quite wrong that any candidate, a party candidate, an independent or someone seeking to get out of the Armed Forces, should by virtue of not giving consent to a programme actually veto a broadcast of constituency affairs. I hope that the Attorney-General, following his excellent precedent of a few moments ago will agree that this is a matter which should be examined more carefully. I should like to pursue it on Report if he does not feel that he has sufficient evidence to examine it now.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I support the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) because I too came to this House as the result of a by-election and exactly the same happened to me as he has described. Before this debate, I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), who had the same experience.

  677
  If subsection (1)(b) were rigidly interpreted, it would preclude many television broadcasts in by-elections. Many friends in television have told me that if a candidate refuses to appear on a programme it is the custom to show a photograph of him and to read from his election material for a corresponding time to that given to each other candidate. As a result of similar experience to that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and conversations with my hon. Friends, I urge that this subsection should be withdrawn. If it is rigidly interpreted it will preclude by-election coverage on television.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) asked for an explanation as to the selection in subsection (1)(b) of the latest time for the delivery of nomination papers. That will be the point of time at which the candidates will have been identified. As the provisions in paragraph (b) involve the participation of the candidates or their consent to the broadcast taking place without participation, that is the moment of time which is effective.
  I appreciate that it is a debatable point that the provisions of the Clause permit a veto for the single candidate. I can imagine situations where a proposed broadcast might be highly inconvenient. It might come at a moment which was entirely inconvenient for an individual candidate, and he might well feel entitled to object to the proposed broadcast taking place. Steps must be taken as best we can to preserve the rights and opportunities of each individual candidate in an election campaign. It is thought that the proposal in the Clause, which goes further than was suggested by Mr. Speaker's Conference, achieves about the right balance.
  Initially, the proposal of Mr. Speaker's Conference was that a broadcast should not take place unless all the candidates agreed to take part personally. At least the language of the Clause extends the possibility of a broadcast taking place by removing the requirement that all must agree to take part personally and leaving room for the situation in which a single candidate might say, "You can carry on with the broadcast. I do not want to. The best of luck". On the whole, the Clause achieves a fair balance to ensure
  678
  the protection of each individual candidate and equal opportunity for him.
  Mr. David Steel: I am very unhappy with that reply, and it would be wrong of me not to say so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation is unconvincing. We are making a fundamental change in the law. I do not think this fact has been fully appreciated. The Attorney-General rightly says that a programme might be arranged which did not suit the convenience of a candidate and his position must be protected. I agree. Under existing legislation, the practice has grown up—I have had experience of this—that when these programmes are arranged every effort is made to ensure that they suit the convenience of all the candidates. If a candidate objects that he cannot accept a suggested time, other times are negotiated and agreed. Eventually, in practice each candidate is persuaded to say whether in principle he agree to take part.
  At present, if a programme went ahead with candidates A and B but not candidate C, simply because it was inconvenient for candidate C, and if it were shown that the broadcasting authority arranging the programme had not adequately taken into account the inconvenience to candidate C, the broadcasting authority would be guilty of an offence.
  I am very concerned that this change is being made without adequate discussion. If Mr. Speaker's Conference meant literally what it said, I disagree with it, and I do not find it much cheer that the Attorney-General should think that he is moving in a somewhat more liberal direction. I am comparing what we are being asked to approve with the present state of the law. I think that that is the right comparison, and I am very unhappy about the change. If the Attorney-General maintains that it is the right change, I hope that he will at least give further thought to the matter as it has been raised by one or two hon. Members.
  12.15 a.m.
  The Attorney-General: I intended to give that assurance at any rate, but I cannot give any undertaking that there will be an Amendment. I will gladly look at it in the light of what has been said.
  Mr. Mendelson: I have only just decided briefly to intervene in the debate. I have sat through all the other debates

  679
  today without intervening, but I do so now because I do not want the record to show that all hon. Members who spoke on the Clause attacked it.
  The conclusion of Mr. Speaker's Conference was, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has quoted. I support that conclusion, as do many other hon. Members. If the Attorney-General is moving slightly away from that recommendation, I am prepared to accept it, but it should be on the record why the conference reached that conclusion and why I, for one, do not accept the account which has been given.
  An important principle is involved. Elections are a matter in the first place for the electorate and for candidates, and that must not be lost sight of. I agree with what has been said about the growing importance of broadcasting and television, but because their importance is growing does not mean that the essential purposes of an election, the decision of the electorate about how the House of Commons is to be composed and what party is to be elected, can be overlooked or become less important. To put it rather more crudely, we cannot hand over the essential purpose of an election to the reporting of an election, and many things have happened in election campaigns which give warning about that.
  It was that kind of reasoning which led Mr. Speaker's Conference to its conclusion. The invention of a new instrument of reporting, the introduction of a machine, however useful, into our electoral processes, must not be allowed to begin to dictate changes in those processes themselves, and that is what is involved. I am not putting this in any partisan spirit. This is a matter of opinion and of judgment, but it is of fundamental importance.
  I have taken part in four elections, including all of those since television has played a part. It is not as simple as has been represented. I have no personal bias in this matter, for my attitude is simple: whenever a television company asks me to take part in a broadcast, I automatically agree. But that does not give me the right to judge on behalf of all actual or potential candidates who may take part in a future election.
  680
  It is not so easy to get the time and date of a broadcast changed. What normally happens, in my experience, is that a candidate is campaigning in his constituency and finds on getting back to his headquarters that there is a scribbled message asking, "Will you please appear for three minutes on television in Manchester?" For me as for other candidates, this may mean three or four hours' travel, or, if the traffic is bad, five hours. The candidate may well have contracted three or four different engagements that afternoon, and one of them might be a big meeting called by the United Nations Association, for instance, at which all the candidates are supposed to appear. Perhaps there is a meeting of old age pensioners, or a meeting with a trade association, or an open air meeting.
  This Committee has a duty to safeguard the position of future candidates. If a candidate in such a situation says, "I cannot possibly take part", it should be left to him whether he wants the broadcast to preceed at that time—[Hon. Members: "Why?"]—because it would put him at a serious disadvantage compared with other candidates if they had no engagements that afternoon and he had three or four important ones.
  If he has that power in the Clause, it would be a powerful incentive for him to get the television authorities or television company to listen to him. He might say, "I am prepared to take part in principle, but that afternoon or evening is impossible for me, although it is easy for the others and it is unfair to impose it on me and I therefore say 'No' to this broadcast, but I am open to suggestions about others". Because that is the position, the Government should stick to this Clause.
  Mr. David Steel: If the hon. Member has had this experience, surely he agrees with me that, in the situation described, the broadcasting authorities do not arrange it so that it is inconvenient for one candidate, if he has agreed in principle. I can think of no case where that could happen under existing law.
  Mr. Mendelson: In the past, the practice which this Clause would change, has been different. The practice, with the major party candidates, has been that if a single candidate said "No", the broadcast could not take place; not that they

  681
  would try to find another time. This has been the case in by-elections and General Elections. The Government are moving slightly ahead of that. The hon. Member is urging a different and much more radical change which would not provide the safeguard. If he was trying to argue that the position should remain as at present, I would go with him. That is another story.
  Does he argue that it should remain the privilege of one candidate to make a broadcast possible? Is that his case? I did not understand it to be so. I think he was urging that the Government should move further from the present position. If the Government are prepared to accept the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference to maintain the present position, I will accept that. But if it is urged that they should move further so that individual candidates would not be safeguarded——
  Mr. David Steel: Before the hon. Member concludes his speech, can we clear this up? I am saying that the present position should be maintained in the absence of any improvement, but that the Government are creating a position where Screaming Lord Sutch could stand in a by-election which was highly marginal and of national interest as well as constituency interest, and under this Clause, Screaming Lord Sutch, who has been a candidate more than once, could say: "I do not agree to take part in a broadcast with these other three politicians and I do not give my consent". Therefore, it is not the present position. At present the broadcasting authorities would say, "We do not think your lack of desire of any great importance and we consider that it is in accordance with our duty of impartiality to go ahead and have the programme of discussion and show your photograph and say why you are standing". That would he impossible under this and that is why I am against it.
  Mr. Mendelson: That is a very useful explanation. If the hon. Gentleman is now urging that we should leave things as they are, which is my original position, I should accept that. If the Government were persuaded to return to it, I should be very happy.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: At this sedate but amiable moment, I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  PUBLIC BODIES (UNITED STATES MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
  12.25 a.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: It is a very pleasant surprise to see the right hon. Lady the Paymaster-General on the Front Bench opposite to answer this debate. I look forward to hearing what she has to say about the important subject of the employment of American management consultants by Government Departments and nationalised industries.
  I should like to begin by saying that I am not a chauvinist and do not insist that Government Departments and nationalised industries should always employ British consultants under every possible set of circumstances. If there is fair and open competition between the Americans and British firms, and the Americans can definitely show that they have more to offer, Government Departments are justified in employing them in preference to our own nationals. What I object to, and shall illustrate has happened in a number of instances, is those public bodies and Government Departments going to American consultants without giving British firms the opportunity to show what they can do, or even holding any discussions with them before the appointment is made.
  I should like to make one other general point before coming to the detail. I speak from a certain amount of knowledge, because I was a consultant for five years some time before I came to the House. When one employs a consultant one does not only look at the reputation of the firm concerned but the individuals who will be appointed to carry out the assignment. One cannot tell who those individuals will be unless one enters into discussions with the consultants who might be appointed. If one sticks to one

  683
  potential consultant one never knows what the other firms might have to offer. It is important to make that point clear at the beginning.
  The decision on which my speech will largely be based, that of the Bank of England to employ American management consultants, is the most recent of a number of similar instances where public bodies have given assignments to American consultants.
  It appears to those involved in the profession and to many of their clients that the Bank of England's decision stems from a serious lack of faith in British professional skills and ability by some of the most influential people in our society. That impression has been given, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will do what she can to dispel it tonight.
  As far as I am aware, there were no discussions between the Bank of England and British consultants who might have been able to take on this assignment if asked. Yet it is a fact that British firms in the management consultancy profession have carried out major assignments in the field of top management structure and organisation for some of the largest industrial, commercial and governmental bodies in many countries all over the world, and have done an extremely good job in competition with American consultants overseas.
  I shall mention one case later where a client of a British firm has asked, "Why should we employ you? We have given you the assignment now, but we have obviously made a mistake because the greatest bank in your country, the Bank of England, has decided to employ the Americans, and it must have chosen the best." That is the sort of impression which has been created abroad by the decision.
  The Bank of England says that it carefully considered the potential of British consultants. But what does that amount to? Did it simply get in touch with Government Departments and corporations which had used McKinsey in this country and overseas, including the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, which could hardly have been expected to recommend the appointment of British consultants, or did it extend its inquiries more widely to include other major governmental and
  684
  industrial users of British consulting services which might have a different opinion? One rather suspects the former. One would like to know how many meetings were held by the Bank of England to discuss the merits of various firms. I wonder whether the decision was not based purely on the result of the workings of the "old boy network", the Governor of the Bank of England going round to other people who had employed McKinsey asking what they thought and when told "It is a good firm. It has done a good assignment for us." taking that as good enough, so that he did not go through the list of British consultants which might have done the assignment.
  Another point of tremendous importance is the take-over of Inbucon by the American firm, the Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corporation. This is important in the context of these discussions, because if it goes through—and the closing date for the offer was this afternoon—there will be one fewer British consultant from which to choose. It would mean that the Americans had taken over the biggest British management consultant which could offer these services to Government Departments and nationalised bodies. I would deplore that. I think that those who are working in this organisation would leave in very large numbers. Moreover, it would mean not only that Leasco would have a foot in the British consultancy world, but that indirectly it would have access to the files of many of our top industrial enterprises which it could use for selling American computers, apart from the introduction of American methods into the management consultancy professsion. I mention that in passing because it illustrates another potential danger to which the Government should pay attention.
  I turn to the essence of my complaint. I have no objection in principle to the employment of overseas consultants by the Government and public bodies, but what is manifest not only in the case of the Bank of England but in the other assignments given to the Americans, such as the G.P.O. and the B.B.C., is the failure to give British firms an equal opportunity to submit proposals and say what they can do. Apart from the bodies that I have mentioned, there is the lesser

  685
  known case of the Gas Council, into which I will not go in detail because I think the right hon. Lady will already be aware of it, but this is yet another example of a public body which has employed American consultants. A further one, which was almost a case of an American getting the assignment, was the Metropolitan Police, but I am glad to say that in that case in fair and open competition a British consultant got the order.
  What is the damage that the action by the Bank of England has done to British consulting practice at home and overseas? I used rather strong language in my Question to the Prime Minister the other day, with careful consideration to the words that I chose. The overseas fee income of Management Consultants' Association firms in 1967 was no less than £3 million, which was 20 per cent. of their total turnover, and £¾ million of this was earned on assignments of the type now being undertaken by McKinsey in the field of top level reorganisation. It is ironic to see that British firms belonging to the M.C.A. have been doing McKinsey-type assignments for the Swiss Post Office and the New Zealand Broadcasting Commission at the same time as McKinsey has been chosen for their United Kingdom counterparts.
  The effect on the clients and potential clients, overseas particularly, of the continued and apparently automatic preference of Government and public bodies for these foreign consulting firms cannot be exaggerated. I quote from the European director of one of our biggest firms of management consultants who is based on Paris and has a major practice in this type of work. He says
  "I hope no one underestimates the damage that the Bank of England announcement has done to the reputation of British consulting firms trying to expand in Europe."
  I do not think Sir Leslie O'Brien has appreciated this argument even yet.
  These are some of the points which I think the right hon. Lady ought to take into account. I hope she will not say that the decision by the Bank of England was purely a matter for the Bank, because as she knows, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in the last resort the power to give directions to the Bank.
  I asked him to exercise them the other day. Probably one would not wish to
  686
  go as far as that, but it was a matter of getting the Question on the Order Paper so as to get public discussion of it.
  This matter has gone so far that the Government cannot just sit back and say that these are matters of day-to-day management for the bodies concerned. The damage done to British consultants is so great that the Government must intervene.
  Mr. John Smith: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), if only briefly, because I and all of us owe a great debt to his father. I know it is not very fashionable nowadays to have a father, and most of us try to keep it dark but I hope the hon. Member will not mind my alluding to this gentleman, because his father founded the first firm of British management consultants.
  Many years ago I asked if I might have some time off from my own work in order to go to work briefly with that firm and do a course with them. As a result, I have ever since been firmly converted to the merits of management consultancy, and very fundamental are the services which management consultants have rendered to the various companies with which I have been associated since.
  I am bound to say that on some occasions we have called in British firms, and on other occasions American firms. There is an advantage sometimes in having United States consultants, and that is the advantage of the shock which it delivers to public opinion.
  For example, some of us think that management consultants might usefully be employed in this building. How, for example, can we urge the employment of management consultants in Government Departments and other State activities when we do not have them here in a place which may be thought by some to be one of the more antiquated spots in the kingdom? In our case here, the fact that the consultants were American would certainly increase the impact of calling them in.
  I was interested by the hon. Member's reference to European firms calling in English consultants, while we call in Americans. I think sometimes there is an advantage in that, very much the

  687
  same as the advantage of calling in outside consultants and not using one's own internal people.
  But whether consultants are to be American or British is not nearly so important as that Government Departments and State bodies should go to consultants of some sort. The Government still seem to have a rather old-fashioned attitude to consultants. I have constantly asked, for example, that they should be appointed for the Customs and Excise Department, but without success. The Government's attitude is a little like that of the public attitude to psychiatrists in the 1920's—that it is not quite the thing, not quite respectable, to consult them. But far from a sign of weakness, to go to a consultant is a sign of a progressive outlook. Furthermore, to go once is not enough. Departments should go regularly, like servicing a motor car.
  Moreover, they should go to outside consultants. There were some very interesting strictures on the subject of internal consultants in the Fulton Report which I feel did not perhaps have the publicity they might have had.
  Therefore, while supporting the hon. Gentleman, I feel that although the nationality of the consultants is important, it is equally important that the Government should hoist in the idea that Government Departments and State bodies should go regularly to outside consultants of some sort.
  12.40 a.m.
  The Paymaster-General (Mrs. Judith Hart): I wish that we were debating the desirability of employing an American consultancy firm to advise on our conditions of work in the House of Commons, but I fear that this is not so, and if it were it would be beyond my responsibility.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for raising this very important subject. No one is more aware than the Government of the striking progress management consultancy in this country has made in recent years, and rightly so. Skilled and specialised work of this kind makes a valuable contribution to the achievement of greater management effectiveness and industrial efficiency and, therefore, to the
  688
  higher productivity we all want and need in order to be a more competitive industrial nation.
  Over the last five years, the annual growth in fee income has averaged about 12½ per cent. It is fair to say—and this is the answer to the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith)—that the Government have played a full part in this development. Apart from the use of consultants for Government Departments, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has introduced in Glasgow and Bristol a grant-aided pilot scheme for assisting small firms to employ consultants—small firms which might not, if left to themselves, be able to afford to do so. This has met with an encouraging response. The results are being considered with a view to possible extension nationally, although it will be some time before it could come into effect.
  We are particularly concerned tonight with the employment of American management consultants by Government Departments and public-owned enterprises. The Civil Service Department—before that, the Treasury—co-ordinates the use of management consultants by Departments. Its role is not to pre-empt Departmental decisions on the need to employ consultants or on the final choice of a particular consultant, but to provide central advice about consultancy firms and on the procedures which should be followed in commissioning and selecting consultants and liaison with them during the course of assignments. It also provides a number of selection boards.
  In addition, financial approval for the approval of consultants has to be given by the Civil Service Department or, in certain circumstances, by the Treasury. This is desirable not only in order to ensure that the cost is justified by savings or improvements in efficiency expected to result, but also to provide the opportunity to consider whether central management services resources could more appropriately be offered to the Department concerned. Unless there are exceptional reasons for an alternative procedure, the normal arrangements are to invite about three selected consultancy firms for initial interview. These often lead to their carrying out a preliminary survey without charge before they put forward proposals for carrying

  689
  out the assignment and indicate the cost involved.
  Normally, an approach would be confined to a single consultancy firm only where the assignment was in the nature of a follow-up to previous work undertaken by that firm in an area of activity with which it was particularly conversant or where specialist services were required which a single firm was best qualified to give.
  But the general procedure is to invite three selected firms for interview. The Civil Service Department maintains an index of consultancy firms and of the assignments undertaken in Departments. In advising Departments about the use of consultants for particular assignments, the Civil Service Department gives information on those it thinks suitable to undertake the task. In doing so, consideration is given to the range of services offered and the particular experience of the firms concerned.
  It is important to bear in mind the wide range of consultancy services available to the Government from internal resources. It does not follow from that that external consultants do not have a valuable part to play in supplementing the internal ones. It is our view that. in many cases, they can make a special contribution which cannot be made by internal resources alone.
  In this careful selection procedure, Departments are not told to exclude American firms from consideration. and I believe that it would be wrong to introduce an outright ban of that kind. The choice of consultant should rest mainly upon suitability for a given task not only of the consultancy firm but also of the individuals engaged on the assignment. Some British firms of management consultants, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have extensive overseas organisations. In 1967, about a fifth of the fee income of member firms of the Management Consultants' Association came from overseas business. A policy by Government Departments here of using only British firms might have unfortunate repercussions abroad. It is a fact, however, that British firms have certain built-in advantages. In general, they have much more experience of operating in this country, their fees are lower than those of the American companies operating
  690
  here, and their degree of skill is certainly as high. Those are factors which are taken into account in making a selection.
  What are the results of this policy? The records of the Civil Service Department show that Government Departments, excluding the Post Office, have engaged management consultants for some 160 assignments over the past 3½ years, of which just over half involved work within the Departments themselves. I think that that is the answer to the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who is anxious that the Government should appreciate the need to use consultancy services. The hon. Member for Orpington will be interested to know that, of those 160 assignments, American firms have been used for only seven. I think that that will be a sufficient indication for him of the degree of confidence which the Civil Service Department has in the capacity and skill of British consultancy firms.
  The arrangements which I have outlined apply only to the selection and use of management consultants by Government Departments. Decisions by publicly-owned enterprises to use consultants are matters for the management of the enterprise concerned, and I deal now with the question of the Bank of England. There are several sources of advice, including the joint B.I.M./C.B.I. advisory service, available to commerce and industry generally. While the Civil Service Department would give what advice it could if approached by a public corporation, its information is angled to suitability of consultants for work in the Civil Service.
  The tenor of what the hon. Gentleman said towards the end of his remarks was to suggest that the Government should set aside the principle of accountable management and direct publicly-owned enterprises on how they should set about selecting consultants. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government should have given a direction. To begin with, it is doubtful whether the Government have the right to do so. Taking the example of the Bank of England, its right to conduct its domestic affairs derives from the Bank of England Act and the Bank of England Charter, 1946, which provides:
  "The Court of Directors may and shall…generally in all matters do whatsoever they

  691
  may judge necessary for the well ordering and managing of the Bank of England and the affairs thereof."
  While the Treasury has power to make directions to the Bank, it is the clear intention of the Act that such directions should be used only for matters of major public importance. In fact, no directions have been made so far, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the matter under discussion, given that in no circumstances since the passing of the Act have directions been issued to the Bank of England, this could hardly be held to be one of such public importance that it should be the first example.
  Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Lady is implying that the power has lapsed because it has not been used since it was taken by the Government in the 1946 Act. But the very least that she could do would be to draw the attention of Sir Leslie O'Brien to the admirable methods for the selection of consultants adopted by Government Departments. If in all cases three different firms were invited to carry out preliminary assignments, I would be satisfied.
  Mrs. Hart: I am sure that what is said in the House this evening will be read with interest by a number of people, possibly including Sir Leslie O'Brien.
  I should like to add something to the legal position. The legal position is one thing. but there are other aspects to it. It would be wholly inconsistent with the Government's relationship with publicly-owned enterprises to intervene in decisions of this character which are intrinsic to the efficient operation of the enterprise concerned. Public corporations and nationalised industries have, for the most part, acquired a good deal of experience of using British firms of consultants. The Bank of England, for example, has used British consultants on more than one occasion on particular aspects of its work. So it could not be said that it had any resistance to the employment of British firms of consultants. It clearly made its latest selection in the light of this experience as well as its knowledge of the services available and the need for confidentiality.
  I referred earlier to the very remarkable progress which has been made by management consultancy in this country.
  692
  This has been matched by increasing professionalism among consultancy firms. It has been the aim of most of the leading figures in management consultancy that their calling should be accepted as a profession alongside the traditional professions like law and accountancy. This is clearly right, and I do not hesitate to say so. What I do not quite understand is how this acceptance of the professionalism of consultancy, with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, can be reconciled with the point of view that he has put tonight; in other words, his disapproval of the decision of the Bank of England to employ McKinsey and Co. I can well understand that this was a disappointment to United Kingdom firms of consultants, but I hope that they will not take it as in any way a criticism of the level of their own performance. What I have said about the use by the Civil Service of British firms, and the figures that I have given, should be an indication of the confidence that is felt in them. However, McKinsey has practised here for some years now and, through its specialisation in top management problems and the experience and reputation that it has gained, it has been engaged by a number of our leading firms for top organisational and management assignments. It is not surprising, in these circumstances, that the leaders of some of our major public corporations should wish to employ it for similar work. I do not think that that need necessarily be regarded as being in any way a reflection on British consultancy firms.
  After the Bank's decision to employ McKinsey, the Governor of the Bank met the Chairman of the Management Consultants' Association and the President of the Institute of Management Consultants and expressed the Bank's general confidence in British management consultants. That confidence is certainly shared by the Civil Service Department. I think that the British profession of management consultancy can look forward to an extremely bright future in which it can feel that it has the confidence of those in this country who are concerned with the profession of management consultants.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.

TECHNOLOGY
  Industrial Development, Millom
  Industrial Development, Millom
  Shipping (Credit Facilities)
  Shipping (Credit Facilities)
  Metric System
  Metric System
  Scientists, Engineers and Technologists
  Scientists, Engineers and Technologists
  European Space Conference
  European Space Conference
  Shipbuilding Industry Board
  Shipbuilding Industry Board
  Departmental Co-operation
  Departmental Co-operation
  Nuclear Energy Industry
  Nuclear Energy Industry
  Research (Industrial Application)
  Research (Industrial Application)
  Electrical Products (Export-Import Substitution)
  Electrical Products (Export-Import Substitution)
  Nuclear Reactor Programme (Report)
  Nuclear Reactor Programme (Report)
  Parachutes
  Parachutes
  Shipbuilding Industry (Amalgamations)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Amalgamations)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Staff
  Staff
  Civil Service College
  Civil Service College
  Unified Grading
  Unified Grading
  Departmental Letters to Members
  Departmental Letters to Members
  Scottish Civil Servants (Transfers)
  Scottish Civil Servants (Transfers)
  "On Her Majesty's Service" Mail
  "On Her Majesty's Service" Mail
  Ministers' Personal Advisers
  Ministers' Personal Advisers
  Fulton Committee Recommendations
  Fulton Committee Recommendations
  Pensions Increase Bill
  Pensions Increase Bill
  Government Buildings (Fire Procedure)
  Government Buildings (Fire Procedure)
  Pension Rights
  Pension Rights
  Departments and Agencies (Management and Control Techniques)
  Departments and Agencies (Management and Control Techniques)
  DECENTRALISATION, DEVOLUTION AND PARTICIPATION
  DECENTRALISATION, DEVOLUTION AND PARTICIPATION
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INFORMATION MEDIA)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INFORMATION MEDIA)
SCOTLAND
  Commercial Premises (Rates)
  Commercial Premises (Rates)
  Feu System
  Feu System
  Economy (Minister's Discussion with Trades Union Congress)
  Economy (Minister's Discussion with Trades Union Congress)
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Housing Completions
  Housing Completions
  Tourism, South-West Scotland
  Tourism, South-West Scotland
  Water Rates
  Water Rates
  High Blocks of Flats (Wind Loading)
  High Blocks of Flats (Wind Loading)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  School Teachers (Registration)
  School Teachers (Registration)
  Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968 (Section 15)
  Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968 (Section 15)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Disabled Drivers (Car Parking)
  Disabled Drivers (Car Parking)
  Corrupt Practices, Glasgow
  Corrupt Practices, Glasgow
  Water Boards (Headquarters Premises)
  Water Boards (Headquarters Premises)
  Buildings, Livingston (Wind Loadings)
  Buildings, Livingston (Wind Loadings)
  A94 Road, Perth—Stonehaven (Traffic Census)
  A94 Road, Perth—Stonehaven (Traffic Census)
  Scottish Economic Planning Council
  Scottish Economic Planning Council
  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Secondary School Building
  Secondary School Building
  Technical Teachers (Recruitment and Training)
  Technical Teachers (Recruitment and Training)
  Highland Development (Minister's Visit)
  Highland Development (Minister's Visit)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Distributive Firms (Development Areas)
  Distributive Firms (Development Areas)
  Research Stations (Qualified Scientists)
  Research Stations (Qualified Scientists)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Latin America
  Latin America
  Jute Industry
  Jute Industry
  Statutory Appointments
  Statutory Appointments
  Frozen Fish Fillets (Imports)
  Frozen Fish Fillets (Imports)
  Imports (Increased Consumption)
  Imports (Increased Consumption)
  Ethiopia (British Contracts)
  Ethiopia (British Contracts)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pasteurised Milk (Catering Premises)
  Pasteurised Milk (Catering Premises)
  Livestock (Welfare Regulations)
  Livestock (Welfare Regulations)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Fishing Industry (Exports)
  Fishing Industry (Exports)
RAILWAYS
  Advanced Passenger Train Project
  Advanced Passenger Train Project
  Aberdeen-Ballater Branch Line
  Aberdeen-Ballater Branch Line
TRANSPORT
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  RECOVERY OF CIVIL DEBTS (COMMITTEE REPORT)
  RECOVERY OF CIVIL DEBTS (COMMITTEE REPORT)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Drill Hall, Rutherglen
  Drill Hall, Rutherglen
  Linesman System
  Linesman System
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Remploy (Management Training)
  Remploy (Management Training)
  Domestic Heating, Scotland (Expenditure)
  Domestic Heating, Scotland (Expenditure)
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Research (Departmental Expenditure)
  Research (Departmental Expenditure)
  Educationally Sub-Normal Children (Special Schools)
  Educationally Sub-Normal Children (Special Schools)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drug Offences (Convictions)
  Drug Offences (Convictions)
  Carlisle State Public Houses (Barmaids' Pay Award)
  Carlisle State Public Houses (Barmaids' Pay Award)
HOUSING
  Starts and Completions
  Starts and Completions
  Building Contracts
  Building Contracts
  Rents
  Rents
  Rate and Rent Rebates
  Rate and Rent Rebates
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Small Shopkeepers (Compensation)
  Small Shopkeepers (Compensation)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Session
  Parliamentary Session
  Amenities for Members
  Amenities for Members
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ethiopian Government (Loan)
  Ethiopian Government (Loan)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Fuel and Steel Industries, South Wales (Minister's Visit)
  Fuel and Steel Industries, South Wales (Minister's Visit)
  Oil and Gas Rigs, North Sea (Safety Provisions)
  Oil and Gas Rigs, North Sea (Safety Provisions)
  Spray Steel Making
  Spray Steel Making
HOSPITALS
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board (Membership)
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board (Membership)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Leprosy
  Leprosy
  DEMONSTRATION, CENTRAL LONDON
  DEMONSTRATION, CENTRAL LONDON
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Disabled Drivers (Petrol Tax)
  Disabled Drivers (Petrol Tax)
  Special Charge
  Special Charge
  Schedule D Assessments
  Schedule D Assessments

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

THE HANRATTY CASE
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 Home Department will now institute a public inquiry in view of the new evidence regarding the innocence of James Hanratty who was hanged following the A.6 murder in 1961.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has carefully considered the representations that have been made to him in respect of this case, but he can find in them no grounds for any further action on his part.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I just warn my noble friend the Leader of the House that he may have to pay attention to whether I go out of order, as I feel so deeply on this issue?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I think I can say to my noble friend that I always have him in mind in that respect.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate that reply. May I ask my noble friend Lord Stonham whether he is aware that there is grave disquiet in a sphere of wide public opinion about this matter; whether he has seen the editorials in The Times and in other responsible papers; and whether he is aware that recent witnesses from Rhyl state that they saw the executed man there on the night of the murder when he was alleged to be at the spot on the A.6 where this tragedy occurred?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am aware of the grave anxiety which some people have about this case and, of course, of the deep distress of the parents, for whom the Home Secretary has the very greatest sympathy. I am also aware that one Sunday newspaper continues to publish articles on this matter. But I am not aware of any general public disquiet about it.
We have considered very carefully indeed the statements of eleven persons, the majority of whom either gave evidence at the trial or whose evidence was available to the defence; and we have considered statements made, both before and after the investigation by Chief Detective Superintendent Nimmo, by these persons who claim or imply that they saw James Hanratty in Rhyl on the night of the murder or on the following day. The Home Secretary is satisfied that these statements do not constitute a confirmation of the Rhyl alibi put forward by Hanratty at his trial. All the statements are at variance with Hanratty's own account of his visit to Rhyl or irreconcilable with other statements by the same persons, or are, in some instances, irrelevant.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while accepting completely the sincerity of the inquiries which the Home Office have made, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that I have gone into this matter in very great detail because it concerned my old constituency of Slough? Does he think it right that the only inquiry should have been made by the police, who were very intimately involved in the prosecution? Does he not think that it would have been better if some impartial investigation had been made of all these facts?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am fully aware of my noble friend's deep concern about this matter. He is not alone in being concerned; but we have our duty to perform. He has great knowledge of this case, and so has my right honourable friend. The last file on the pile, which I examined to-day, was numbered "198"; and I myself have spent not hours but days and weeks thinking over these matters. But, my Lords, a police inquiry—and we have had two—is made for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there exist grounds

1203
for a more general inquiry, and my right honourable friend and his predecessor came to the conclusion that there were no such grounds.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that some consideration ought to be given to the feelings of the girl who suffered, and is still suffering, in connection with this case; and that the more this question is ventilated along the lines upon which it has been ventilated to-day, probably the more suffering it will cause to that girl?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my noble friend has underlined the fact that other people have suffered (and, in the case of the girl, are still suffering) because of this case, but that would not absolve my right honourable friend from the duty of investigating further if new evidence came to light. What his duty calls for is for him to investigate thoroughly, and then to decide according to the results of that investigation.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I just say—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD BROCKWAY: May I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that this woman was a constituent of mine; that I have the deepest sympathy for the paralysis of her body which has occurred from this case; and that it is not out of any lack of sympathy for her that I put these questions?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am aware that my noble friend raises this matter with the highest motives, as is always the case with anything he does.

POSTAGE STAMPS ADHESIVE
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now take steps to ensure that there is enough gum on our fivepenny stamps to make them stick.]
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I understand from the inquiries I have made that the Post Office maintains continuous checks on the amount and quality of the gum used on stamps to ensure that it is adequate for its purpose. So my answer to the noble Lord is that it really all depends on the strength of your lick.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her reply, may I ask her to bear in mind that according to my mail it is not only the 5d. stamps but all the others to which this applies? It is not the strength of my lick but the strength of the gum that matters. Would the noble Baroness also bear in mind that while it is hard enough to put stamps on, it is heartrending when they blow away.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that this applies also to the 4d. stamps and that it does not in the least matter how strong your lick is if you find absolutely no gum—as I found on three stamps this morning?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, applied to all stamps and not only to 5d. stamps. It may be that people are somewhat misled by the fact that the gum at present used is clearer in appearance than the gum used at one time. I can assure the noble Baroness that regular checks are taken. Samples are sent to the Government chemists every week and they always come up to standard. If the noble Baroness has a particular complaint I am sure that my right honourable friend will be only too glad to examine it.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I must ask the noble Baroness whether she does not realise that it is not clear gum that we want; it is sticky gum.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, is it not better to lick the envelope and then put the stamp on?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, it is a matter of taste.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that I have tried both this morning, and that neither avails?

GOVERNMENT AID TO AIR CORPORATIONS
2.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the amount of financial assistance made respectively to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. under the terms of the Civil Aviation Act 1946; by way of writing-off of debt; by way of the adjustment of capital; and by way of payment for the operation of certain aircraft.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, grants under the Civil Aviation Act 1946 amounted to £32 million to B.O.A.C. and £16 million to B.E.A., B.O.A.C. were permitted under the Air Corporations Act 1966 to reduce their permanent capital by £110 million which enabled them to write off an accumulated deficit of £82½ million and to set up a reserve of £27½ million.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. If I have the figures correct, he said that in addition to the £32 million that B.O.A.C. has received up to 1956 under the Civil Aviation Act, it has received since 1966 a further £110 million. Is the noble Lord aware that Flight magazine, which is normally a reliable source of information, gives a figure of £140 million? Can the noble Lord give any explanation of this difference? Secondly, would he agree that those who, like Mr. Clive Jenkins, have publicly criticised the independent companies for being less generous to their employees than the State airlines ought to bear in mind that the air corporations have been able to maintain their high standard of reward only because of the generous public subsidies which have just been mentioned? Would he not agree that such accusations and attacks are both unwarranted and to be deplored?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I accept what the noble Earl has said about the usual reliability of Flight magazine. It would seem that their figure of £140 million included £30 million which they had
1206
taken from B.O.A.C.'s accounts, and which is in fact included in the figure of £110 million that I have just given, and that therefore the figures I have given ought to be accepted. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Earl that these are very substantial sums, and although one should bear in mind that the corporations have had a responsibility to the British aircraft industry which has sometimes cost them money, it remains the fact that there are many independents which would have been equally generous to their employees if they had had this kind of subvention.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, are the bank overdrafts of these corporations to be treated in the same way as the overdrafts of other large industrial concerns?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, can he say whether the £16 million that he mentioned as having been given to B.E.A. included a subsidy for the operation of the Trident III which they are now to acquire?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I am afraid that his supplementary question was too esoteric for me to follow. In reply the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, the £16 million was paid out before 1956, which of course was before the time of the Trident. The £16 million does not refer to the Trident; but there was an additional amount promised to B.E.A. which extra to the figures that I have given.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to put a second supplementary question. Can he now say how much B.E.A. will be granted for the operation of the Trident III aircraft? Does the noble Lord realise that this is in fact a very important matter, and that this particular figure has been awaited with some anticipation by the industry?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the others sums that the noble Lord has in mind are really to compensate not for any inferiority of the Trident aircraft but for the difference in the phasing of the aircraft into the Corporation's services.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am aware of that. Can the noble Lord say how much that figure is?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I speak without the figures before me but I think

1207
B.E.A. has been promised assistance to enable it to reduce its permanent capital by £25 million with the possibility of another £12½ million in the future. I will confirm these figures for the noble Lord.
My Lords, may I say now that my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be making a statement on the Ratification of the Non-Proliferation Treaty at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the late Lord Wise.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ECONOMIC PLANNING FOR THE NORTH WEST
2.50 p.m.
LORD RHODES LORD RHODES rose to call attention to the Report of the North West Economic Planning Council, Strategy II—The North West of the 1970s; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I should like to thank those responsible for allowing it to happen. This is my first speech from the Cross-Benches and I humbly hope that it will prove more successful than a previous first speech that I made in the market place at Ashton under Lyne. There I was holding forth, when a tramcar went round the square and I could not hear myself speak. I had no more sense than to shout out, "I can't hear myself speak", and a wag at the back of the crowd said, "Well, tha' art missing nothing!" I hope that during the time at my disposal I shall not speak with the same result.
My Lords, we are discussing Strategy II—The North West of the 1970s, a publication issued by the North West Economic Planning Council. It is a very good and a very human document which is well reasoned out and presented in under-
1208
standable form. It is about an area that embraces Lancashire, Cheshire and part of Derbyshire. Geographically it occupies one twenty-fifth of the British Isles. It has the largest population of all the Regions except London and the South East; that is to say, a population of nearly 7 million people. These hardworking people produce one-fifth of the total exports of the British Isles. It is a considerable area, of considerable importance. Despite what may be in people's minds about Government expenditure, the need to cut back and the rest of it, I put it to your Lordships this afternoon that the consideration of an area like this and the economic implications that go with it are very important, not only for this decade but for the next generation.
This area produces a larger tonnage of exports than any other Region in the British Isles and one which, by value, is exceeded only by London and the South East Region. I put it to the House that it is to this area, coupled with the Yorkshire conurbation and that massive stretch of industrialisation which stretches up to the Tees, that in the 1970s this country will be looking for the expansion to pay for the imports and for the services that everybody in the country desires. Parts of this Region form what are known as development areas—Merseyside and the Furness. The difficulties and the contrasts that exist between development areas and those contiguous to them are well known to your Lordships, but I would mention briefly the situation in towns like Wigan, which are near development areas. A considerable proportion of the population there have to travel, and those towns have a unique kind of unemployment figure because they are dependent on employment in other parts of the county. The North West has been successful; but because development status has been linked only with unemployment, we in the North West, despite our great need, have not received the vast benefits that the status of a development area confers—with the exception, as I said, of Merseyside and Barrow; but they represent only 20 per cent. of our Region.
I make no complaint about Government. I am not standing here to criticise this Government or any other. All I want to do is to state a plain case for this area. It is a relatively prosperous

1209
area, despite the enormous run-down of the cotton and coal industries. Unemployment has been well contained because of the self-help that has been put into the area by those who dedicated their lives to its well-being and success. Our unemployment figures have never been above the national average. When you compare this with the heavy unemployment figures in regions like the North East, Scotland and Wales, where there has been no greater run-down of industry than in the North West, your Lordships will be able to think out for yourselves the amount of self-help which has gone into this Region.
The dedicated work has been going on over a long number of years by organisations like the Lancashire and Merseyside Industrial Development Association and people who have been dedicated to the job of bringing in new industries and trying to improve the environment, such as the Lancashire County Council; and now we have the North West Economic Planning Council whose Report we are considering. This self-help covers an enormous amount of ground. Scouts have been sent out to bring new industry into empty mills. These mills were deserted because of the run-down in the cotton industry and many hundreds of them have been closed in recent years. In many ways they are a handicap, because it means that we are bringing in industry to old buildings which were designed for another purpose, and very few new buildings are going up. My Lords, if the unemployment figures are the criterion for the establishment of development areas, some of us contend that they can be a wrong basis. In my opinion it is time that there was a review of what constitutes the criterion for unemployment. I am of the opinion that a large proportion of those on the unemployment register cannot work and never will work. They should be placed on another register altogether of a more humane character. The sooner that is done the better. Then the unemployment situation may be dealt with in realistic terms.
My Lords, this area has 10,000 acres of derelict land arising from the history of the shock tactics of the Victorian age. I am offering no criticism; it could have happened anywhere to anybody; but, my Lords, you will see that these people were pulled together as by a magnet at that
1210
time, in order that the money could be made. Communities were created round the mills. In those days no legislation existed for the control of the amenities and the environment which is so important to our life blood. People were allowed to pour into the rivers the effluents which have been so damaging to health over the years. We are still only beginning to understand this problem. It is surely a salutary thought that while the country spends £1,000 million on research—most of it on defence and that kind of thing—we are not yet able to cope with the effluent coming from the paper mills which are such a blot on the urban landscape of Lancashire. It would be better for the money to be applied to some useful enterprise, instead of allowing these conditions to continue, with the disfigurement they entail. Modern industry does not come to an area unless the ground is prepared and the services are in it. When I talk about infrastructure (and I use this term for want of a better one), I am also talking about its attendant ills.
I come now to the question of smoke. We are behind in our programme for a cleaner atmosphere. Every noble Lord who was present at the debate initiated some weeks ago knows about this problem from A to Z and I need not go into details. Suffice it to say that the North West area is behind other regions in dealing with this matter and it is time that it was dealt with. I would ask the Minister whether he will pass on to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security our appeal for more mandatory action so that this matter can be dealt with. I am sure that any observant person who goes to Manchester or to any of its satellite towns or surrounding villages knows full well what this smoke problem is like.
In this century we cannot afford these handicaps. It might have been possible to afford them at the time when we had an Empire, but to-day we cannot afford slums, industrial or otherwise. Unless every single bit of effort, of keenness and of enthusiasm is released in our people, we cannot hope to succeed, whether we are in the Common Market or not. And if one-fifth of the total exports of this country come from the North West, think what the North West could do if it was

1211
released from all the handicaps that are holding the people back. A modest application of funds could do the job. There is no doubt that this region has received less than 20 per cent. of the average for the regions throughout the whole country. It reminds me of the little boy who came home for his Sunday dinner and said to his mother, "Why is our John having more meat nor me?" His mother replied, "Eh, lad, our John is a bigger lad than thee." So the little chap looked at his mother and said, "And he always will be bigger nor me if he has more meat."
A word on communications, which are vital if we are going to do anything to open up this area. Has anybody noticed the revolution that has come over our railway system in the last few years? My goodness! we used to hear people groaning and moaning about the British railways. People used to grumble at the five-hour journey it used to take to go from Euston to Manchester in the old days. Now they are saying, "Oh, but these trains are going too fast." But if we do not hear praise from our own people, we hear nothing but praise from the Americans, who sit with stopwatches out, saying, "Isn't this comfortable. Better trains than ever we had." And they ask, "Why can't we do this?" The same applies to Continentals, who are also appreciative. We now have electrified lines from London to Birmingham and from Manchester to London, but a question which is exercising the minds of those in the North West who are thinking about the beneficial effects of the transport system throughout the area is: Why not continue the electrification to Glasgow? Then we shall have something which is a communication system of a really grand order.
On the question of roads, we know that there is need for the A.59 to Liverpool, a road linking Aintree to the M.6, linkage of the new towns like Skelmersdale to the M.6, and a new road in North Lancashire linking Burnley, Colne and other towns with West Yorkshire. But it is on the M.62 that I want to say a word. This is the most graphic and dramatic enterprise that any roadmakers in this country have ever attempted. If one goes on that road and stands on the magnificent viaduct at Drake Wood and
1212
sees the potential of what is happening in the way of communications with Yorkshire, thickly populated and highly industrialised, one can understand that it is going to revolutionise the whole economic situation in the North West. But there is one worrying facet. Here we are spending millions of pounds on a road which is going to link one conurbation with another, a wonderful job which is going to make history, yet we are withholding the starting date for the South West link of the motorway from Manchester to Liverpool. All the details are fixed. Everything is arranged. Please, could we have a starting date for that road? Then we shall have rapid transport right to Liverpool.
We are spending millions and millions of pounds on roads of this sort, which are desperately and urgently needed, but may I ask what we are doing about the human element in this? If somebody could be moved emotionally by the prospect of a road of this sort, surely we could get a better understanding with the people who are concerned with the effects of this road. I am told—I do not know whether it is true or not—that Liverpool is losing its freight container traffic. Yet when the M.6 was debated in this House—I have looked up the Reports of the debates in this House and in another place—it was said that this road would benefit Liverpool by the container traffic that would be going there. If a graphic and dramatic effort like this could be linked with the understanding of the people who are concerned with the handling of the goods at the other end, then it could be something which would go a long way towards relieving a situation which sometimes looks as though it is chronic.
Just a word on housing. Do your Lordships know that in the North West we have one quarter of the slums of the British Isles? We cannot help it. We have grown up with it, principally in Liverpool, Salford and Manchester. Anybody who travels the hundreds of miles that I do through Lancashire at the present time cannot fail to be moved. You cannot pull down old property and move people around like chattels. Wherever the community has existed, whether it has been poor or not, if you move it you need vast sums of money for the provision of amenities. If you

1213
neglect this, you do so at your peril. Whatever you do in the way of providing clinical surroundings, you cannot altogether replace the real community life that these people had before.
By simply putting people in better premises you do not provide the friendliness of the street where they were born—the ability to borrow a pinch of salt or a quarter pound of sugar, or to leave Johnnie for half-an-hour with your next-door neighbour. Any parson or social worker knows this. That is why the situation demands extra attention on the part of the Government, to support those authorities who are trying to improve these things. This is not merely a matter of bulldozing down houses; something human is desperately needed. We need 740,000 houses in the North West before 1981. In the years 1964 to 1967 190,000 houses were built. But what a long way we have to go! How can we catch up without massive assistance? I do not think we can. There is a great need here, and I ask for special areas in the North West to be treated as development areas.
I have not time to deal with the implication of the New Town—I will leave that to others—but I want to say a word or two about the waste of money that can go on in connection with house rehabilitation. I remember that when I first put up for Ashton under Lyne there was a small town adjacent where before the war it had been advertised in national newspapers that labour was available at rates of pay little more than the dole. The housing was dreadful. I well remember, in my ignorance, standing in a street of that little town, and I started blathering about having to go all round the houses to the toilets at the back. A woman came to the door of the house and looked at me and said: "Eh, lad, give over. You don't think we should be living here if we could go somewhere else. It will take thee and tha' Party a long time to get what we all want." Well, I packed up my traps and went, and I never spoke again in that particular context.
The White Paper which was published, Houses Into New Homes, has a special application in the North West. There is an acute housing need there and a great stock of sound but decaying houses which could be restored. The whole area could be rehabilitated to contemporary
1214
standards at a fraction of the cost of building new houses. Yet we are bulldozing a lot of those old houses down simply because we have made a kind of dogmatic plan. I know that the proposed improvement grants should assist local authorities; and they are keen to undertake area improvement without recourse to compulsory powers and to encourage owners of property to improve their houses. I ask that the Government should contribute three-quarters of the cost to rehabilitate houses between 30 and 60 years old (I will leave it at that), because in that group there is a massive number that could be repaired at small cost.
I would say, in conclusion, that there is no need for this country to dream of fancy schemes for increasing exports in the 'seventies when it has right under its nose the possibility of increasing its economic wealth by improving an area like the North West. We have the biggest potential in the North West to effect these increases. Any Government who fail to accelerate the renewal of environment areas like the North West will be guilty of dereliction of duty not only co this decade but to the next. These are massive tasks: revolution in change of job; revolution in change of houses; counteraction to run things down a little; coping with a derelict environment—all conspiring to make matters more difficult and more costly for an old-established area containing all these problems. I contend that the country cannot afford to let this area, with such vast potential, just wait for things to evolve at the present speed.
To sum up, I would say this. TO deal with the need for massive restoration of derelict environment we need an 85 per cent. grant. We have 12 per cent. of the population, and we get only 10 per cent. of the money spent. Because of the amount that has been put into self-help, we have done badly out of Government expenditure and have received 20 per cent. less than other regions. We need to improve our environment, and we need the same financial benefits as development areas receive. We lay great stress on transport opening up the area, and to this end we want a starting date to the South Lancashire Waterway and the electrification of the main line to Glasgow. We must have also one or two sites for

1215
New Towns, and the Economic Planning Council policy seems to point to the Preston-Chorley-Leyland area. I do not want to comment further on that.
All I wish to do is to leave these points with your Lordships. You will notice that I have made no criticism of this Government or the last Government; but I hope that some of the points that I have put forward from observation, through being a Member of Parliament in this Region for 19 years and being closely connected with it for many more years, will have some effect on the minds of your Lordships and in the Ministries which have to do with these matters. I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House would like me, first of all, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for causing this debate to take place, and, secondly, to offer him our congratulations on the reason for his having moved from the Benches of his Party opposite to the Cross-Benches. I am sure that Lancashire is fortunate in having him as the new appointee of Her Majesty the Queen, and from what he has said to-day, in the striking speech he has made, he will undoubtedly be a worthy representative of Lancashire in all the corridors of power in Whitehall and elsewhere. I noticed that he was particularly careful at the end of his speech to say that he was criticising neither the past Government nor the present Government. That is indeed the role that we can expect of him, because he can no longer be the political animal that we knew so well in another place and also in your Lordships' House until a few weeks ago.
Before coming to the Motion itself, I would apologise personally to your Lordships. Many weeks ago I contracted an important speaking engagement early this evening, and so I shall not be able to stay to the end of the debate. I should very much like to do so, but I crave your indulgence if I slip away, as I must, before the debate is over.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, has invited us to take note of this very striking Report, Strategy II—The North West of the 1970s. I should like to say that
1216
those who composed the Report, as well as those who did the work of its compilation behind the scenes, have done a very fine job for the North West. It is a clear, fine, well-reasoned document, and we should all do well to pay close regard to its recommendations. One or two of these are of particular importance and I should like to mention them to your Lordships. The first and, I think, most important recommendation, with a healthy breath of realism to it, is that industry in the Region should be based where it can operate most efficiently. That surely bears out what the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, had to say about the importance of the Region in the export field, because unless industry is located in the most efficient way it cannot make its proper contribution to exports.
It is true that the Region has suffered from very substantial structural changes. The noble Lord referred to the decline in the cotton textile industry. One noble Lord who is to make his maiden speech to-day has had a long association with that industry, so we shall doubtless hear some more about it. Of course the North West has suffered a great contraction of the coal-mining industry, and this, together with the decline in the cotton textile industry, might have been enough to drive the North West into the club of "belly-achers" who think that the Government must do everything possible to help them. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, has pointed out, Lancashire, and for that matter Cheshire, too, and the rest of the area, believe in self-help in getting on with the job. I think it is one of the most striking features of those parts of the British Isles constituting the North West that they have so staunchly believed in self-help and in getting on with the job for themselves. So if I make any plea to-day for extra assistance from the centre for the North West, it is because Lancashire, Cheshire and the High Peak districts of Derbyshire richly deserve to be helped because they have helped themselves so magnificently.
I received only this morning the Annual Report of the Burnley Chamber of Commerce. Burnley, as noble Lords will know, is in the North East of Lancashire and is one of those towns which might have good reason to complain about having been by-passed in the last

1217
few years. But what is said on the opening page of this Report? It refers to the
"stability of industry in this district from strong and virile companies who have made the area their home, and there are numerous other companies here that have survived two world wars and have moved from small beginnings to prosperous industrial concerns through first-class management and industrial relations. … Most of this progress has been achieved without D area [Development Area] status; the transition from textiles to engineering has been a near miracle and it appears to me"—
that is, the author of the Report—
"that the 'help ourselves' policy has paid off and can still continue to do so".
There is no sign of pessimism in Burnley, but if there is any help going they would like to have their fair share.
Another feature of the Report on the North West which I think is of great importance is the stress laid on the point that Lancashire, and indeed the area, should have its fair share of what is going. There is a good deal of evidence to show that new public investment in construction per head of population, for example, and other development work have proceeded at a greater pace in other parts of the country—and not just in development areas—than in Lancashire and Cheshire. The North West appears to have had a pretty poor bargain in the last few years.
The Report is practical in stressing that of course there is not an unlimited measure of public expenditure which can be made available. But it suggests that, within the total of resources available to the country, perhaps a slightly larger share should go to the North West. I would commend this point of view to your Lordships, because I am sure that in present circumstances it is right. Here again I think that the priorities put forward by the Planning Council are right. They think that the need to improve transport and other public investment should be put first; secondly, there should be improvements in the housing programme, and, thirdly, improvements in school buildings. The second and the third can be of little value unless the first is achieved.
The Report urges that transport should be planned for the Region as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, referred to some of the major transport improvements which are required, and the Report
1218
itself lists (very tactfully, I thought) not in alphabetical order but in order from North to South, the road improvements which they think should take place. I might perhaps be allowed to pick out my favourite, which is item 6(d):
"early completion of road improvements in progress and planning between North East Lancashire and Manchester".
Although that may not be a spectacular motorway, it is I believe the road improvement which is most urgently required if Nelson and Colne, Burnley and adjacent towns are to have rapid and smooth access to the great commercial and industrial centre of Manchester itself. The Report, I must admit, rather stresses the need for more Government money to go into the area: all too many of its recommendations stress the need for more money. I would only underline what I would suggest: that more money should be made available for Lancashire and Cheshire and perhaps a little less for elsewhere.
It has been customary to refer to new towns all over Great Britain, but I see that this Report urges that further detailed consideration be given to the development of a city in South Cheshire. Also, it gives firm support to the early development of a central Lancashire new city. So we are going from new towns to new cities. I query whether this is wise. In view of the already very dense population of the area, I query to what extent we should try to create in this area new cities, when at the same time the Report is recommending not only the overhaul but also the expansion of the Region's older towns and cities. Obviously, there is not time for me to elaborate this point in detail, but I thought I would just draw the attention of noble Lords to this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, referred to the Lancashire and Merseyside Industrial Development Association. I should like to pay my tribute to the excellent work they have done over the years in drawing the attention of Whitehall and of Ministers, whichever Government has been in power, to the needs of Lancashire, and to their very practical and far-sighted views. Although faced with the problems of contraction of some industries, they are equally concerned to ensure the expansion of existing industries and the development of new ones.

1219
At the present time I feel that some of the problems arise through the present Government's policy in regard to development areas. I may remind noble Lords that the policy of the Conservative Administration was to have what were called development districts. These districts were relatively small, but into those districts went all the Government funds that were available in order to reduce unemployment. In that way Government funds were concentrated on the localities of greatest need. Then, when the needs had been fulfilled, the area would lose development district status and the funds would be directed elsewhere to other districts. The policy of the present Government has been to create very large development areas and to provide additional funds, not only over a much wider area but also to many companies which do not in fact require the money and for which the receipt of funds, in the form of regional employment premiums, greater investment grants and so on, was granted whether the companies needed them or not and whether they were going to increase employment in the areas or not.
Lancashire, containing as it does a development area around Merseyside and bounded by development areas to the North, finds that because the vast majority of its area is not development area it is apt to lose industry and population and personnel to the neighbouring development areas with their very considerable and attractive financial inducements provided by the Government. In what are colloquially called the "grey" areas in North East Lancashire and one or two other places it should be possible for the Government to arrange a kind of "halfway house", to offer financial assistance, perhaps by being a little less generous to the development areas, now that they have had all these benefits for four years, and to recognise that there are some areas, such as even Bolton and Wigan, which need an injection of Government finance to get them on their way, and not let it all go exclusively to the parts which are within the boundaries defined in the Industrial Development Act 1966. In this way some of the industrial problems of the North West could be overcome.
1220
I do not want to give the impression that this is a depressed or down-in-the-mouth area; it includes the prosperous and go-ahead County of Cheshire. I was fortunate enough only last week to visit Wilmslow and Stockport, where existing and new industries are going ahead well and vigorously, and where housing programmes by local authorities are visible to all. That is true of the whole of the area covered by the Report—North Lancashire, Cheshire and the High Peak of Derbyshire. They are determined to succeed, and they are sure they will. What they want is a fair deal, and I hope noble Lords will help to ensure that they get it.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: NONPROLIFERATION TREATY
3.32 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, with permission I will now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State. It is as follows:
"As the House knows Her Majesty's Government consider it vitally important to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by bringing the non-proliferation treaty into force at an early date. As foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech, and in order to give renewed impetus to the treaty, we are to-day depositing our instruments of ratification. We hope that other States will follow our example as soon as possible."
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated that Statement in your Lordships' House. May I ask him how the ratification of this treaty will, generally speaking, affect our relations with NATO? Can he also say what the attitudes of the Governments of the United States of America and Germany are to this? Have they ratified, or do they intend to ratify? I understand that certain people in the United States of America and in Germany may think that in view of the crisis this summer the time is not right for ratification. Also, could the noble Lord say whether the Government feel that the inspection

1221
arrangements are satisfactory and that in the case of the new European Nuclear Fuel Consortium the proposals which have been made for the production of cheaper enriched uranium for electric power will not be abused?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I likewise wish to associate myself with the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in thanking the Government for the Statement; and I am sure we must all hope that our example will now be followed by other States. I should like to hear from the Minister what prospect there is of early ratifications (apart from signatures), and I should also like to know whether he does not think that the recent conference at The Hague between ourselves and the Germans and the Dutch showed that the production of enriched uranium is now going to be made much cheaper than it was. Is not this therefore an additional reason for pressing for ratification by all concerned of the nonproliferation treaty?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, to this Statement. In reply to the first question put by the noble Earl in regard to NATO, my right honourable friend reaffirmed our continuing and wholehearted commitment to the collective security arrangements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in another place on July 8. He also made clear that the treaty would not prohibit North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear consultation and planning, bilateral arrangements for the deployment of nuclear weapons within allied territory, or the succession of a federated State to the former nuclear status of one of its components.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is right in thinking that there are a number of countries which so far have not felt able to sign the treaty. Germany, of course, is one, and we fully understand the particular concern of Germany in this matter. In the case of the United States of America the Senate has now gone into what I think is called "recess". It has not been able to give its advice and consent in regard to this treaty, but the noble Earl will know that the Foreign Relations Committee gave strong support, with a good majority, for the recommended ratification of the treaty, and we
1222
hope that shortly the United States Senate will be able to give its approval.
In the matter of inspection, clearly there are difficulties, but we believe that the arrangements which have been made, particularly for the International Atomic Energy Agency, should prove satisfactory. In regard to the question of the production of enriched uranium and the recent conference at The Hague, I understand that there is no inherent incompatibility, and it has been agreed with those countries with whom we are considering the possibilities of establishing collaborative arrangements that any such arrangement will have to be consistent with the policies of the three Governments in relation to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The essential requirement is that uranium enriched by this method should not be used by non-nuclear weapon States for nuclear weapon purposes. We think that this arrangement will suffice, but clearly it will be a matter for continued observation.
My Lords, I think that answers all the questions that were put to me.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask an additional question? I understand we have made it clear that in our view if there is ever a united Europe the provisions of this treaty will not necessarily apply to that. In other words, one could have a nuclear Europe provided only that it was united. Am I right in thinking that the other prospective signatories all share that view?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, to be quite honest I should not like to answer that question without notice. But it is clear that while we maintain responsibility for these weapons under the treaty we must see that they are not passed to other non-nuclear countries.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may ask whether, in the light of the discussions at The Hague, it is not all the more urgent that we do in fact press for a non-proliferation treaty, because, as I understand it, the discussions, however they are safeguarded in the arrangements made yesterday, have in fact made a cut-price bargain if ever there was one.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has referred

1223
to that, because there have been long negotiations over many years in order to obtain this particular treaty, and this is only one stage in what I believe everyone hopes will be a wider field of disarmament, and the control of that disarmament.

ECONOMIC PLANNING FOR THE NORTH WEST
3.40 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, may I perhaps now remind you again of the problems of the North West of England to which our attention has been drawn this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, who is the first Yorkshireman ever to become Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire, thereby finishing for all time any trace of bitterness over the Wars of the Roses.
I feel that the problems with which we are concerned this afternoon have a great significance, not only for the North West itself but, by implication, for the rest of the country. Let us remind ourselves yet again of the area with which we are dealing. It has a larger population than Scotland; it has a population about twice as great as Wales. It has in its time done some of the most remarkable things which Englishmen have ever done. Let us not hesitate for a moment, perhaps in nostalgia, to remind ourselves of the situation sixty or seventy years ago when Lancashire bestrode the world like a Colossus. In 1913 it made 80 per cent. of all the textiles in the world, 7,000 million yards of cloth. It was the most extraordinary concentration of industry at that time the world had ever seen, and it was the profits it made which helped us to pay for such things as the Argentine railways and accumulate the overseas investments which paid for the First World War and in large measure paid for the second.
The North West has done a tremendous amount for this country and in the process it has, I think, acquired a hold on the generosity of its fellow countrymen which I think it is right to voice because it paid a most bitter and desperate price for some of its achievements, and it is they, these relics of a bygone age, to
1224
which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention.
Many of them have already been mentioned to your Lordships by the Lord Lieutenant and the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale. It is still one of the most heavily industrialised areas in the world. It is still the area whose exports are essential to the welfare of the community at large, and it has shown a quite extraordinary measure of self-help, as the two noble Lords have told us to-day, in re-equipping itself, revitalising its industries and changing over the whole of its working force from a total reliance on two basic industries to the enormous diversification we see to-day. There can never have been in the industry of this country so dramatic a change in an industrial pattern, so remarkable a change in the whole employment of a vast number of skilled workers, which has been carried through almost entirely by the efforts of the people themselves. No one in Lancashire feels either that he needs pity or that he needs help in doing the jobs he can do himself. But there are whole areas of human activity beyond the powers of individual areas such as the North West; and the real problem with which we are struggling is the decay of the total infrastructure of the community, and for this reason I think it is perfectly sensible that we should expect the central Government to take a greater initiative than they have vet done in helping us.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, has already mentioned the fact that we have more than 10,000 acres of derelict land. It is an enormous amount of country, some of it hideous, derelict and disfigured almost beyond imagination, vast areas of slag heaps, vast areas of old disused coal tips, vast areas of derelict buildings, inadequately lit houses, badly built mills, all falling into decay. It is a total problem quite beyond the powers of any individual district to solve on its own. Let us remember that it is from this area that the wealth of the country derived in the last century to an extraordinary degree.
The curious situation which the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, mentioned briefly is that in certain areas, which are specially defined, the Government make a grant of 85 per cent. towards the clearance of the general squalor, but this grant is cut to less than 50 per cent. over the greater part

1225
of the area of the North West where the need is in fact greatest. This is an extraordinary administrative anomaly. It could be removed by a stroke of the pen. Were it so removed, the initiative of the populace would, I think, dramatically surge forward and insist that these huge areas, some of the most hideous now on the face of the whole earth, would be cleared up and made fit for ordinary use again and able to house some of the cities which have already been mentioned as necessary, cities which otherwise it might be impossible to accommodate.
So I plead with the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government that some reconsideration should be given to this very curious anomaly which deprives large parts of the North West of the help which, were it not for what seems to be a curious administrative process, would already be at its disposal. Were this possible, I can assure your Lordships that it would have a dramatic effect on a very large part of the whole district.
The two noble Lords who have spoken both referred to the inadequacy of communications. This is quite extraordinary. Remember that it was 150 or so years ago that Liverpool and Manchester began the railway age by constructing the first railway in the world, and now communications between them are deplorably inadequate because there is no decent road between the two. The East Lancashire road, built thirty to forty years ago, is wholly inadequate to carry the traffic which tries to get through it to-day.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I would point out that the first passenger-carrying railway was built in the North East and not the North West, between Stockton and Darlington, and I have interests there as well as in the North West.
LORD BOWDEN: Well, my Lords, the Lancashire railway was one of the first, and it was, so far as I know, the first on which a Minister of the Crown was killed on the opening day. But it is deplorable that, having created one of the first railways in the country, certainly the first and still the only major inland waterway, we should find these two great cities severed by an inadequate road system. I would add my plea to those already voiced to the Minister that he should try to advance the date for the starting of
1226
the work and give some idea when we can expect a reasonable answer.
The basic problems with which we are wrestling seem to me to be common to the problems of all regions. They are fundamentally the extreme difficulty of maintaining a sensible dialogue between communities such as the North West and the central Government in Whitehall. There are at this minute in the region 180 local authorities, and 24 of them are planning authorities. Each of them is concerned with the extremely complex problems of a small district and each of them has to maintain negotiation; with anything up to half a dozen separate Ministries in Whitehall. Negotiation between Ministries concerned with similar problems in a large number of districts on the one hand, and individual districts each concerned with a large number of problems which involve half a dozen Ministries on the other hand is extremely and frustratingly difficult.
Noble Lords have referred to a new central Lancashire city. This is not only the most important single recommendation which emerges from this very splendid plan to which our attention is drawn this afternoon, but it impinges on every single part of the work of the region: smoke clearance, new roads, new sewers, new industrial deployment. Every single part of the work of the district is in some way at stake in this, and half a dozen Ministries have to be coordinated if a solution is to be found. Another very good example is the Morecambe Bay barrage. It has been bandied about for years. If it is to be built, it will be because it will provide water, perhap; for the North West, perhaps for the whole of the Midlands, maybe even half the country. It would make a dramatic difference to the water supply of a very large part of the total area of Great Britain. It would, furthermore, provide a road which would make it possible to open up the whole of Barrow and the derelict area around it. It would provide, probably, new agricultural land which might reclaimed as a result of draining part of the lake which would be created by the barrage. It might provide cooling water for half a dozen nuclear power stations. It might provide a quite dramatic and effective amenity for holidaymakers in the area. It might well, therefore, be the concern of the Ministry of Agriculture and

1227
Fisheries as well because of the changes it may make in, let us say, the sands which flow into Liverpool Bay.
Hitherto it has proved quite impossible to discover any mechanism by which the totality of the plan can be considered and its economic benefit assessed in the whole. There are Ministries which will answer any one individual part of the problem, saying, "So far as we are concerned, it would not pay". But there is nobody who can decide how all these things can be combined and the total benefit assessed.
I have a similar problem in my own university. Obviously, it is on a much smaller scale, but the problem which we have to wrestle with is made greater for the same administrative reason. I would remind your Lordships that the University of Manchester is now the largest in the country after London, which may perhaps be regarded as a special case. It is one of the three universities in the district which has grown dramatically, and between them they have accepted an extraordinarily large part of the growing undergraduate population. In fact, their contribution to education has been numerically much more significant than that of most of the small new universities which have had a greater amount of publicity.
But the problem with which we in the City of Manchester are struggling is this: we are trying to combine the growth of the university with the process of urban renewal. When we began the clearance of some of the slums we had to demolish houses which had been built in the early part of the 19th century. They had been condemned as uninhabitable nearly 100 years after they were built, but were still in use when we came to inspect them thirty or forty years later. They were places in which the infantile mortality rate was nearly three times as great as the national average. They were in-sanitary, foul and filthy and we were able to get them condemned. This was part of one of the largest slum clearance schemes in Europe, and so the first problem we had was with the Ministry of Health.
We are now trying to create in one and the same area a combination of the teaching hospitals, which are the concern of the Ministry of Health; a series of ordinary faculties of the University, the concern of the Department of Education as
1228
well as the particular U.G.C.; a series of teaching colleges such as, for instance, the North West College of Music, which is the responsibility of half a dozen local authorities as well as the Department of Education and with the B.B.C., whose administerial connections are a little obscure to me. We are now negotiating with the City of Manchester in its capacity both as a planning agent and also as an organisation needing more colleges of various kinds.
The whole complex of ideas has been described by the planning architects as the most remarkable piece of town planning now under way anywhere in Europe. But it is made vexatiously complicated because nowhere in London is there any single authority through whom we can negotiate. One finds this particular problem in all individual areas in almost everything that they do. A series of Ministries in London, each with vast experience in a limited field and responsible for the same problems wherever they arise anywhere in the country, are trying to negotiate with individual groups of people in the regions each of them concerned with a totality of twenty different kinds of problems. I feel that many of these administrative problems are at the source of much of the unrest and the sense of dissatisfaction in the country at large which has led at least in part to the movement for Scottish Nationalism and the move to separatism in Wales.
I doubt whether it is going to be sufficient dissatisfaction to move the people of Lancashire to separate themselves from the rest of England. But certainly there is a grave disquiet in all regions about the extraordinary complexity and difficulty and frustration and ineffectiveness of negotiations between the regions and the central Government in Whitehall. We await with some impatience the reforms which will be initiated in local government in the country as a whole. We feel, furthermore, that we have to await some reorganisation of the central Government to make regional planning more efficient than it can be at the moment.
As I have said, our basic problems are those of an old, run-down area, an area which in its day was wealthy and made an immense contribution to the wealth and the amenities of the country at large.

1229
As noble Lords have said, we are suffering now from the fact that we are getting much less than our fair share of Government investment—20 per cent. less than the average over the country at large. Were we to get 20 per cent. more, I do not think it would be more than our reasonable due. There are some things, indeed, in which the disparity is even greater than 20 per cent., and this is peculiarly in relation to the problem of the arts. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is to speak later to-day. I wonder whether perhaps he can tell us if there is any prospect that the Arts Council will take seriously, more seriously than it has done, the relative starvation of the arts in the Provinces.
The Region has two of the best orchestras in the world. It has, on the other hand, a quite inadequate subvention from the Arts Council. The disparity is so startling as to be almost unbelievable. The museums of the district have to struggle with all the museums in the rest of the Provinces, for their share of about £100,000, which is the total allowance made for museums in the country at large. The museums of London alone get the better part of £3 million among them. I have never been satisfied with arguments which suggest that the arts, music, the museums, and so on, are necessary in London on such an enormously greater scale than they can possibly be made available in the North West. The noble Lord, the Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire, has himself made a great contribution towards the development of the arts in the villages and towns near which he lives. There is no doubt at all of the interest of people in this kind of activity, and I would plead with the Minister who is to reply, and other people who have influence with the Arts Council, that we should get not only our fair share of the roads, the railways, clearance schemes for tips and so on, but a reasonable share, too, of the contribution which the central Government is now making towards the development of the arts and of culture in general.
Lancashire is an extraordinary place, my Lords, and I sometimes wonder why any man living, as some of them do, within sight of a coal pit, knowing that the local roads are poor and potholed, that his prospects of a job are not too good and that the pay he earns is several per
1230
cent. less than the national average, that the district is squalid, should stay there and make the goods which we have to export in order to live. It is a difficult question. There is no doubt in my mind that it is the air of squalor and neglect that is driving people away from Lancashire, and depriving one of the potentially most useful parts of the whole of England of its most valuable raw resources, those young able enterprising people who would stay were there any prospect that the amenities to which other people have become accustomed could be provided for them.
4.0 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for having introduced this subject in such an eloquent arid forthright speech. I also add my congratulations to him personally. When I am next on the borders of the River Mersey—for practical purposes not at Birkenhead but perhaps at Stockton Heath—I shall call across to my friends in Lancashire and tell them how fortunate they are in Her Majesty's representative in their county.
I should also like to thank those who have produced this remarkable document Strategy II. It is not a blueprint for the future of this area, a complicated document with a great deal of detail and of technical jargon, but it is, as we are reminded in paragraph 8, "a collective hunch …" on the part of "a nonprofessional but reasonably well-informed group of people—". Therefore, it is a document which is eminently easy to understand, and, for that reason, all the more valuable for those of us who live in this area and all those who want to see it advancing in the future.
It is, I think, natural that most attention should be concentrated on the central and the northern part of the North West area which is under consideration by us to-day. It is that area which contains the great conurbations of Liverpool and Manchester; it is that area which is having to wrestle with the problems of the shrinking of its two main industries, coal and cotton; it is that area which is having to deal with the tremendous problem of the slums within its borders. This debate has illustrated the way in which our thoughts naturally go to that area, for the noble

1231
Lord who has just spoken made the generalisation that we are talking about an area which is derelict. But, with great respect to him, I say we are not talking about an area that is completely derelict, because we are also talking about the southern part of the North West area, and that is not in any way an area that is derelict. It is an area that is prosperous, that is very busy; and it is important that if we are to think of the North West area we should think of every part of it lest, in our planning for the future, we allow the assets to be whittled away piecemeal rather than introduced to the totality and to the benefit of all.
My Lords, I am not here to deliver a eulogy of the County of Cheshire, which constitutes the main part of the southern area of the North West complex. I should very readily have done so with any encouragement. But I think it is important that we should understand the facts about the southern part of the North West area so that we can relate them to the whole problem about which we are thinking. The first thing to remember is that the River Mersey is an extraordinarily strong division, and Cheshire people are very different from Lancashire people. They speak differently, they behave differently. The County of Cheshire has its own very marked characteristics, its own great history and its own very proper pride as a County Palatine.
Moreover, it has many assets of which it is very conscious. It has not had to deal with the tensions which have come so forcibly upon the central and northern part of the area. It has been extremely well governed and it has great natural assets. The minerals under its soil have been the foundation of the fortunes built upon the initiative of Brunner Mond; its splendid pasture land has been the basis of its great agriculture. It has many old industries that are still thriving: the building of locomotives at Crewe; the building of ships at Birkenhead; the manufacture of silk at Macclesfield—indeed, the felt hats that your Lordships wear were almost certainly made in Stockport, or somewhere near to it.
Moreover, it has had a flood of great new industries in recent years. It is
1232
some years since the first Lord Lever had the imaginative insight to build that model village, so many years before its time, at Port Sunlight, the foundation of the work of Unilever. We have in very considerable strength in the county; we have many oil industries based upon Ellesmere Port and Bromborough. We have Petro-chemicals; Vauxhall now employ 10,000 people at Ellesmere Port; Rolls Royce at Crewe; Bowaters, Chester Barrie, the distinguished clothing manufacturers in Crewe; Cerebos Salt; Fodens Motor Works and Simon Engineering. There are very few counties in this kingdom which have so many great companies in their rateable value. Together with this, we have our great agricultural areas, and we have thriving residential areas. This is a formidable totality, and it must not be disrupted by unplanned development which may be prompted just by expediency.
From the point of view of the southern part of this North West area I would make some brief comments upon three of the matters that are raised in the Report. First of all, in the general development Cheshire must play its part, and I am sure is ready and willing to do so; but it is not prepared to do that at the price of its great assets, and especially at the price of its agricultural assets. Indeed, I think it can well be claimed that Cheshire has already played a very considerable part in the development of the area. It has received a quarter of a million people into its boundaries during the last ten years. The big new housing estate at Hattersley in the North, the building of the Runcorn New Town, the developments at Ellesmere Port and Winsford in the middle of the county have all made provision and done much, I hope, to help the centre and the North of the area to solve their housing problems.
It is quite clear, as the Report points out, that there are other places that should be developed. There are Congleton and Macclesfield, although I hope that it will be remembered that nearby there is one of our great national assets, the Radio Telescope at Jodrell Bank, which, if it is to do its work, must be protected from electrical interference which might come if houses were built too close to it. Crewe is especially suited for development by reason of its many industries—light

1233
industries as well as the railway works—and its excellent communications. No doubt your Lordships saw that yesterday Her Majesty the Queen Mother opened a College of Further Education, which has cost £600,000 and which will be offering a great variety of commercial subjects. British Railways have, I believe, installed a computer there. These are all signs of the kind of development which Crewe is capable of receiving. At a longer distance there is the project of building what I think is called a linear city, Weaver City, between Winsford and Crewe. That perhaps may not be within the lives of noble Lords who are present here, but is a feasible proposition if it is necessary to find accommodation, since I believe it would receive as many as 250,000 people.
May I turn to the problems of communication? This is a matter with which we in the County of Cheshire are very familiar, because ours is a county through which so much heavy and light traffic is constantly passing. Of course, we have been relieved a great deal by the building of the M6 and indeed the Ml. I reckon that in the last 14 years the journey from Chester to London by road has been reduced by as much as two hours, and we look forward with great hopefulness to the time when the M6 and the M1 have been joined together. But that road runs along the East side of the county and there are still very great difficulties with which we have to contend. Very heavy traffic travels South on roads which are totally incapable of carrying it, and the situation is extremely dangerous.
If your Lordships will look at Plate 2 in the Report, you will see in the background of the picture showing the railway train the beautiful new Widnes Bridge. I rather wish that the old transporter bridge, which the new bridge has replaced, could have been kept as a museum-piece, along with the Anderton Canal lift, as a great monument to the Victorian engineering skill of our forefathers. A great volume of traffic crosses that beautiful new bridge and decants itself on to very narrow roads in Cheshire which simply cannot carry it. Something will be done to ease the situation when the East/West Cheshire road has been built, and I must stake a claim for a priority for that road, as well as for the
1234
East/West road that is claimed further North in Lancashire.
I must also say something about the problem of the City of Chester itself. Noble Lords will see from the first map in the Report that the City of Chester is a bottleneck. Not only does traffic travel from North to South, but if the whole of the North of England wants to get into Wales it somehow has to get round or through Chester. Plate 7 of the Report, showing Eastgate and Foregate Street in Chester, is extremely optimistic; for it is many a long year since I was able to look down Foregate from West to the East and see the road as clear as it is shown there. We have an excellent inner ring road, but it is a vital necessity that the outer ring road should be completed. I am sorry to see in the Report that this is given a low priority, with the hope that it may be "completed fairly soon".
I should like to make a plea also for the ancillary communications of the southern part of the area about which we are talking. We have splendid trains running from London, through Crewe, to Manchester and Liverpool, but they are not much use for those of us who live on the eastern side of the county—and there are a great many people who do—and in North Wales, if we cannot get to those trains. I therefore hope that British Railways will always remember the need for providing an ancillary service so that we can take advantage of the new communications now working so efficiently.
I wish now to say something about the question of culture, leisure and recreation, which is so intimately related to the other problems of health, dirt and dereliction. So long as Cheshire is not spoilt in the future, it has a great deal to offer by way of recreation for the vast numbers of people who live in the North West. We have the foothills of the Peaks, we have very lovely countryside and we have many great houses which have been used to provide recreation, such as Tatton Park, Lyme Hall and Walton Hall on the outskirts of Warrington. It is notable that the County of Cheshire is, I believe, the first to have set up a Countryside Committee with a countryside officer to see that these facilities are put to the best possible use.

1235
We have not a great deal of dereliction in the County of Cheshire except in so far as we are concerned with our canals. The County of Cheshire is laced by canals which again are a monument to the engineering genius of our forefathers. They are still used quite considerably for commercial purposes, but are a great source of joy and pleasure in recreation and leisure time. Yet it is here that dereliction is most marked. I think, for instance, of the remarkable complex of locks and pools on the outskirts of Ellesmere Port, whereby barges, and nowadays pleasure boats, can be lifted from the Manchester Ship Canal up to the canal which runs into the City of Chester. At present it is almost unnavigable. It is clogged with old motor car tyres, old bedsteads, old bicycles and weeds. Yet the buildings of Ellesmere Port are a great example of the genius of Telford. It would be a thousand pities if the canal were not restored so as to become a great asset to the area and to those who want to use it.
We in the southern part of the County of Cheshire are not free of the problem of dirt. I live in the City of Chester, which your Lordships might think is a quiet, peaceable, cathedral city, free from these things. But during my married life I have lived in Portsmouth and London, and my wife tells me that Chester is far and away the dirtiest place where we have ever lived and where she has ever had to try to keep a house clean. The reason is that there is no wind that blows from any quarter which does not come from a dirty area. Therefore, I would make a strong plea that the policy of clean air should be prosecuted with great energy, because dirt must have its effect not only on the patience and temper of people but also upon their health.
Finally, I wholeheartedly support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, for a fuller understanding of the cultural possibilities of the North West and for the encouragement which it needs. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who is to speak later in the debate, for it is only in the last few days that he has said, on behalf of the Arts Council, that he believes it would be very valuable that there should be a wider spread of the assets which the Arts Council gives out to parts other than London
1236
and the South East. The North West has a very marked culture of its own and is not being given full opportunity to express it.
Perhaps this indifference is most clearly marked by the kind of problems with which some of us have had to deal over broadcasting. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and I sat for many years on the Northern Advisory Council of the B.B.C., and throughout the whole of our period of service we were conscious of the constant battle to try to get the B.B.C. to recognise what the North West had to offer and to give it the proper facilities for doing so.
The B.B.C. in the North serves the largest number of people in any of the B.B.C. areas. It serves 15 million people, whereas the Midlands, I think, serves only 7 million. I suppose, therefore, that the North is the largest source of income for the B.B.C. Yet over the last 15 years there has been a constant battle on behalf of those in the North to get greater resources, so that the B.B.C. can give expression to the cultural life of the North West—better studios, more film units and more outside broadcast units. One of the improvements to which we looked forward, and were constantly being frustrated about, was the provision of a proper B.B.C. centre in Manchester, for the B.B.C. there has been doing its work with quite ludicrously inadequate facilities. I am sure it will be a great disappointment to those in the North to read that the money available for the new radio centre has been slashed by £1,500,000. One can only hope that this will not lead to a great diminution of what the B.B.C. can do. This is only one illustration of the ways in which those who want to give full opportunity to the cultural achievements and potentiality of the North are constantly being frustrated.
In closing, I return to the more limited perspective which I have purposely sought to present to your Lordships. The South of this area—namely, the County of Cheshire—forms a very fortunate and prosperous part of the North West. It ought, and I am sure it will, to take its part in bearing the burden and in solving the problems which must be overcome, if we are to bring prosperity and happiness to the people of the North West. But Cheshire will not be able to do so if

1237
it is thought of merely as an appendage to the great built-up areas; as a reception area for overspill. Cheshire can, I am sure, best make its contribution by being itself, by drawing upon its heritage and its resources, and by developing them to the full for the benefit of the whole area. It can do this by careful planning in such a way that its great assets are not dissipated or destroyed.
4.23 p.m.
LORD WRIGHT OF ASHTON UNDER LYNE: My Lords, last week in this House and in another place so much was said about the prospects for regional Peers that I thought perhaps this afternoon I could reasonably take time by the forelock and speak as a regional Peer from the North West, and particularly from Lancashire, from whence I come.
A report published last year by the Lancashire and Merseyside Industrial Development Association drew attention to the drastic loss of employment in the coal and cotton industries of Lancashire—a contraction of unparalleled magnitude in the industrial history of this country. There have been 200,000 jobs lost in cotton over the past fifteen years, and some 30,000 in coalmining. Even over the past four years 131 cotton mills have closed down; and the trend is likely to continue into 1969. The contraction of the mining industry has led the Government to apply special measures to aid colliery towns in development areas, but the Lancashire coalfields have been ignored. In Lancashire there have been two industries geographically side by side—coal and cotton—and both have suffered severe contraction. The impact upon these areas, and upon the people who live in them has been traumatic, yet it has not been considered worth while to schedule them as development areas.
I suppose your Lordships will have surmised that, coming from Lancashire, I should probably want to say something about the textile industry—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, forecast that I should. It would seem that in the minds of most the textile industry has long ago been written off as of little account and as contributing little—if not indeed being a liability—to the economy of the country. In fact, if one includes everything from fibre production to clothing the British textile industry is the
1238
fourth largest industry in the country: it employs one million people and has an annual turnover of over £2,000 million. The Lancashire textile industry is part of this great enterprise, and its sections are becoming increasingly interdependent.
Lancashire, for example, has been processing man-made fibres for more than forty years, and is in the forefront of development in the textile growth areas, such as tufted carpets, warp knitting, fabric laminating and fibre bonding. In these days it is not merely a cotton industry; it is a textile industry, an industry which has led the way in many directions, since followed by many other industries. It was, for instance, one of the first industries to establish its own research station in 1919. It was the first industry to set up its own productivity centre, and was a pioneer in the field of management training, productivity and inter-firm comparisons. In fact, productivity in the industry has shown a 30 per cent. increase since 1959, and many expect it to be doubled by 1970. It was also the first industry to set up its own design and colour centre in 1940, which had much to do with the setting up of the Council of Industrial Design in London some years later.
Another important point to remember about Lancashire, and particularly about the textile industry, is that industrial relations, at least in the part of Lancashire from which I come, are excellent. There have been no major strikes for over forty years and the number of days lost per year through stoppages has been, and still is, remarkably low compared with almost any other industry in the country.
Again, since the reorganisation schemes of 1959, more than £200 million has been invested in new plant and machinery and in new techniques, and recent schemes of further development will account for another £50 million. Your Lordships may be interested to know that some 70 per cent. of the textile industry is at present operating on two-shift or three-shift systems, and a recent agreement within the industry provides, under certain conditions, for round-the-clock working of seven days a week.
Why, then, one may ask, with a record of pioneer work and initiative which compares so favourably with most other British industries, should the Lancashire textile industry have suffered such severe

1239
contraction? Whatever weighting may be given to other factors, it is inescapable that cotton textiles stand out like a sore thumb in the tariff structure of this country; and, indeed, in the international tariff structure. More than one-third of the textile requirements of this country are imported tax-free, and this year imports look like being higher than in the record year of 1964, then they reached 748 million square yards. I will not quote a list of other industries in the country that have been quite heavily protected from the onslaught of overseas competitors, but I would point out that the exclusion of the textile industry from this list of protected industries was an accident of history, as a result of the Ottawa Agreement of 1932. The textile industry has suffered severely ever since that accident. Indeed, what has happened since was once described by someone as "watching a motor accident in slow motion", and this is the way it has gone.
But what worries those many people in the textile industry who are indeed trying to pull themselves up by their own bootlaces is that by 1970 the global quota arrangements introduced by this Government—for which we were most grateful——will have run out, and no one knows whether the industry is then going to be subject to competition from the four corners of the earth. If it is, then the industry will most certainly be killed. No other nation in the world would permit its textile industry to be killed off in this way; and the industry, understandably, is anxious to know what is going to happen in 1970. Indeed, it is one of the oddities of our industry that while people are wondering whether the flooding of this country by foreign imports of textiles is likely to continue they still have the nerve and the courage to invest in new machinery, new plant, in the hope, at least, that the worst may not happen and that the doors of these Islands will not be flung open to every type of textile from wherever it may come. Given parity of treatment with other industries, the textile industry can improve its value to the community. In the first nine months of this year, exports of cotton and man-made fibres, woven cloth and knitted fabrics, totalled £86 million in this narrow part of the Lancashire textile industry, compared with £74 million in the corresponding period last
1240
year. This represents an increase of 16 per cent., and it needs to be encouraged.
But, my Lords, the problems of the coal and cotton towns of the North West have been largely ignored by successive Governments. Through the industrial development certificate control and financial inducements in development areas the Government have steered new industrial development away from the old industrial towns and out of Lancashire, and many firms have been exhorted to divert their expansion to a development area rather than to expand in their own locality. During his speech the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, mentioned Bolton. It is not more than a month or two ago that a firm employing 600 workers in Bolton—an old textile and mining community—contemplated moving out of that town, which could ill-afford to do without such a firm, because of the advantages and financial inducements offered if they were to leave the town where they were needed and move off into a development area. Fortunately, the Bolton local authorities were able to persuade this particular firm (perhaps out of a sense of duty, but how it was done I do not know) to stay; and so those 600 jobs were saved.
Another curious phenomenon arising from the development area principle is the Gilbertian situation that because textile mills have been closing by the hundred (or, if one takes it further back, by the thousand) and new textile factories have been leaving the traditional Lancashire weaving belt and going to the development areas, textile operatives in the Lancashire towns are losing their jobs and are having to be trained for new jobs, whereas in the development areas people who have jobs are being seduced out of them and are being trained to be textile operatives. What a waste of skills, it seems to me, occurs in such a situation!
Now the main purpose of the industrial development certificates was to steer industry from the swiftly expanding areas such as the South East towards areas where more industry was needed, and one might have thought that the old coal and cotton towns, which have had such drastic reductions in the number of jobs available in them, needed more industry. But instead of steering industry into those towns, these certificates are more likely to steer it out.

1241
Towns in the North are likely to find themselves taking in each other's washing. The South East is still expanding. The figures of unemployed are not much more than accounting for the normal labour turnover through the changing of jobs; and there is not much evidence of a huge shift of industry, or even a small one, from the South East to the North. The movement of industry, it seems to me, is likely to be between development areas and the "grey" areas—a new version of, "It's the poor what helps the poor." My Lords, the traditional coal and textile areas of Lancashire should be granted full development area status, and it is to be hoped that the Hunt Committee will at least reach the conclusion that inducements should not be offered to firms in the "grey" areas to move out to development areas, for this can surely serve only to turn the "grey" areas a deep black.
There is one other point that I should like to mention. The work of the Lancashire and Merseyside Development Association has been very successful in persuading a number of firms to come to Lancashire, but, paradoxically enough, their success has largely served only to change the figures on the unemployment register, and has not served to create a reasonably paid, happy labour force. Because, my Lords, employment is not the whole answer. It is the quality of employment that matters, as much as anything. And the quality of employment in the old coal and cotton towns is becoming lower year by year. Companies which come to Lancashire more often than not establish a project of less technical quality because they are taking advantage of cheap buildings in areas where derelict cotton mills remain. They tend to reserve the more sophisticated techniques for the areas for which they receive such substantial grants—and who shall blame them?
So, my Lords, what is happening under development area legislation is that, while jobs may be coming into Lancashire, they are poorly paid and not the sort of jobs that will attract people from the South to come to that part of the country. They are using ex-cotton mills for warehouses, for stores and for the sort of industry that pays very badly indeed. But, I repeat, the more sophisticated industries are inevitably drawn away from
1242
areas such as Lancashire because, while the money is available for the setting up of these sophisticated industries, it is not available in areas like Lancashire which need them so much. The result—and it is a queer result of the development area policy—is that the older Lancashire areas which so very badly need refurbishing (in their infrastructure as well as industrially) are doomed to become the Cinderellas of the industrial world, a role they are going to be compelled to play for a second time in a generation. Whatever may be the findings of the Hunt Committee, I trust that the Government will not be content to let a proud and resilient people die of shame but will remember that Britain is one country and that Lancashire is part of it.
My Lords, this is the end of my self-projection as a regional Peer; but if this show of Chauvinism helps at all—and Chauvinism seems to be a popular philosophy these days—and if it serves to bring to the attention of your Lordships the very real and painful problem of the old cotton and coal towns in Lancashire then it may yet be proved to have been worth while.
4.42 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, as a fellow trade unionist it is a pleasure for me to congratulate my noble friend on his maiden speech. I made my maiden speech to your Lordships in 1945 and I know the ordeal that one has in facing the House. As a trade unionist, my noble friend has a wonderful knowledge of working class life and of our economic and political affairs, and he knows Lancashire's problems. He was chairman of the T.U.C. and has to-day expressed his views with clarity and knowledge of the issues involved. I therefore compliment him. With his wisdom and knowledge and his power to impart that knowledge to the House, I hope to hear him again on many future occasions. I think he came through to-day in splendid style.
My Lords, I speak in this debate with some temerity because I speak as a Tynesider; but do so because I recognise that the problems of the North West are similar to ours in the North East. Therefore in the course of my remarks I shall have to relate the plans for the worth East as a development area to the Strategy II plan for the North West. In

1243
support of my noble friend Lord Rhodes and the excellent case that he put for Lancashire, I shall deal particularly with the rapid closure of coal mines and its effects on the unemployment situation in areas where this problem is acute. I say to my own Front Bench that this hasty policy of colliery closures with contraction taking place with such momentum means that the areas involved suffer an unwelcome loss or stagnation of job opportunities. Fewer new jobs have been introduced than have been lost in the declining industries and we find difficulties particularly in Lancashire and in the North West where the momentum of the closures has affected both cotton and my particular industry, coal.
The level of unemployment in the development areas—and for this region to be classified as a development area is all that my noble friend Lord Rhodes is asking for—is particularly high; and it would be higher both in Lancashire and the North East if people in the mines had not given up work at 55 years of age and therefore had not registered for employment, and if many had not left the area to seek jobs elsewhere. From my area alone 10,000 men each year have left to seek more secure employment elsewhere. In areas like Lancashire and the North East the situation is bad because an unrequited loss of employment opportunity in an area means economic decline unless jobs are found which are within reasonable travel distance.
At the root of the Lancashire problem is the coalmining and cotton rundown; while we in the North East face a coalmining run-down and a decline in ship-repairing. Since December, 1965, the number of coal-mining wage-earners in the North has dropped from 87,000 to 60,000, while further closures which are to take place next year will reduce the coalmining wage-earners much further. We are now facing what Lancashire has faced over the last 15 years. The number of coalmining wage-earners in 1960 was 126,000 and this figure had dropped to 90,000 by 1965—
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I am not quite clear whether
1244
the figures he is quoting refer to the North West or to the North East or nationally.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I am referring to the North East at the present time. Afterwards I will go on to the North West. I am giving the similarities between the two districts.
The number of Lancashire coalmining wage-earners fell from 44,218 in 1959 to about 21,000 in 1968, a drop of 50 per cent. Areas like the North and the North West are dependent upon a few basic industries which are sensitive to the general economic climate and particularly susceptible to technological change. From all this arises the question of social consequences and the diversified economic base which is necessary for Lancashire and for ourselves. It is not my intention to deal with the fuel and power policy from which, both in Lancashire and elsewhere, these difficulties arise. I have often in this House expressed my disagreement with it; for what has arisen from this policy in Lancashire and elsewhere is that there is now no confidence in the industry. When week after week parents hear about the decline in mining; when the threat of closure hovers over the collieries that are working, and when people read that there are 30 million tons of coal lying on the ground which cannot be sold, it is no wonder that young people coming out of school will not choose mining as a career.
Then again, when you close a colliery in present circumstances what does the redundancy scheme provide? No man over 55 years of age is needed. There is not much chance of his being trained under an industrial training scheme. He would be paid 90 per cent. of his wages for three years, and as he would then be 58 it would not be much use training him, at that expense, for the remaining seven years of his working life. As a result of all this I predict that in a few years' time in Lancashire and elsewhere the manpower problem will have turned full circle and there will not be sufficient men in the mines to get the coal that the nation needs.
My Lords, the awful effect of this policy, in Lancashire as elsewhere, is evidenced by the existence of villages near pits which have been closed. All I the young men have left those villages

1245
and only the elderly remain. These are "twilight villages" which I hope the Government will do all they can to help. It is only by planning ahead and by the provision of plans like the one we are discussing that this state of affairs can be avoided; and that is why I speak to-day in support of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes.
I pose the problem to the Government: can our present development plans for areas like Lancashire and elsewhere keep pace with the numbers of miners and cotton workers made redundant? Are the Government's regional policy and fuel policy getting badly out of step? How can we meet the rising unemployment in the areas which will be affected in Lancashire and the North East? Will the recent statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the new squeeze increase our already large figure of unemployed; and will his squeeze affect not only the regional strategy and policies in my own area but the plan put forward for Lancashire? My area is a development area—and to be declared a development area is all that Lancashire is asking for—but to-day we have 65,000 unemployed, of whom 53,000 are men. The problem in Lancashire is not as great as ours. Therefore, regardless of what the Government have done—and they have done wonderful things in the North East—the problem there is getting larger. Like Oliver Twist, we must ask for more.
I appreciate and commend the Government for what they have done in the North East. But although I want to see a development plan for Lancashire as well, it must be recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and those who speak for Lancashire that if a development area is made there, it will not solve all the problems; because our problem is getting worse every day. Speaking as an ex-miner, I would say that we are terribly worried about the policy which has created redundancies and where job availability is not meeting the situation. I ask the Minister to support the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and to think of the tragedies lying behind these unemployment figures. I hope that the Government will give the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, that for which he asks, remember what he has said, and watch closely the question of colliery closures.
4.55 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALL: My Lords, I, too, offer my very warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Ashton under Lyne, upon a notable and very clear maiden speech. It is valuable to this House to have a voice from Lancashire and from the textile industry. I join with others in expressing the hope that we shall hear him again at frequent intervals.
I was Member of Parliament for some twenty years for a constituency called Morecambe and Lonsdale, which is in the most northerly part of Lancashire and therefore in the North West. It is to say a few brief words about the people who live there, who are still my friends, that I have intervened in this debate. The man who took my place there as the Member of Parliament is Mr. Alfred Hall-Davis, a very good local Member of Parliament and a good Parliamentarian at Westminster. I do not believe that anything I shall say will be inconsistent with anything that he would wish to say, though I have not exchanged notes with him. He and I think alike; but just in case there is any possibility of misunderstanding I should like to say that for anything which I do say I, alone, am responsible.
My Lords, I will not repeat what has been said by so many in praise of Lancashire except to recall that it way the pioneer of and at one time the heart of England's exports, and that a great deal of the latent inherent wealth of this country and the inventions which made this country famous came out of Lancashire. It is remarkable that Lancashire has withstood for so long the depletion of its resources by fierce competition from overseas, especially in the textile industry. Much has been said lately in criticism of the use of the prerogative, or of patronage. I much prefer the word "appointment" because there is no implication in it. But an example of patronage, if you like, or of appointment, is the appointment of the noble Lard, Lord Rhodes (I much prefer to call him "my honourable friend", which he was for so long in another place) as Lord Lieutenant. I think that was an imaginative appointment and, as we have heard to-day, Lancashire could not have a more agreeable and eloquent spokesman.

1247
I want to say a word about agriculture, which in Lancashire is an industry not to be ignored. It is the primary industry in the Lonsdale Division in the most northern part of the county. Here, too, the people have been able to help themselves—along with the help which successive Governments have given them—in farming. In recent years there has been a considerable accretion to the extent of automation on farms; automatic methods of feeding cows in byres; automatic milking methods and modern developments of that kind. A great deal of capital has gone into the business and Lancashire as a whole, and Lonsdale in particular, with its rich and beautiful valleys, makes a rich contribution to the feeding of our people. But here, as in the country generally, much more could be grown if the opportunity were afforded, and the certainty of a reasonable market for years to come were provided. Nothing can make a more certain contribution to our balance of payments than that we should grow another 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of our own food.
Just as the plea for some protection for the textile industry, which was so correctly made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Ashton under Lyne, should be listened to, so I think the plea for some kind of protection (I do not use the word in the old connotation) for horticulture and for certain aspects of agriculture would most surely pay us in dealing with our balance-of-payments problem. I can go into a restaurant in London or in Lancashire and eat any one of half a dozen French and Danish cheeses at a price which is competitive—and I am sorry that this is so. I think that it would be much better if we were to eat 10 or 20 per cent. more of our own cheeses and make those who insist on Camembert and Bel Paese, and the like, paying an extra 10 or 20 per cent. for them. It would not do them any harm at all and it would do the cheese people much good. I commend that thought to the Government.
The second most important activity in Morecambe and Lonsdale is the tourist industry, especially in Morecambe. The Labour Party has some knowledge of Morecambe, because it has held conferences there from time to time, and I commend the town to anyone who wants to organise a conference. It is a welcoming and warm-hearted place. The Gov-
1248
ernment have declared in the Queen's Speech that they will do something for the tourist industry because of the valuable contribution which dollars and other hard currencies that come here with the tourists make to our balance of payments. Well and good. I do not know what they are going to do because they have not told us, but the intention is one to be praised. One thing they should do is to reduce or modify or take off the selective employment tax from the hotel industry, especially from the smaller hotels in rural or seaside districts, such as the ones I am talking about. That would help the hotel industry in the most convenient and economic way, and it would also help the small shopkeeper and landlady.
Next door to Morecambe and Lonsdale is Barrow-in-Furness. Unemployment there is a point or two higher than the national average, and at this moment it is twice the average, aggravated by a demarcation dispute, of all the crazy things. Some plumbers—two, I think—who used to undertake certain work were put off the work for some time because it was more convenient to use the members of another union, the fitters, for a particular activity in a particular yard. Then, more recently, it was found convenient for two plumbers to come and put two pipes in two places. Now 2,000 men are on strike and have been on strike for three months. This is about as crazy as the much-criticised job reservation in South Africa, and is as little to be commended on the grounds of equity or good sense.
Many thousands of my old constituents work in Barrow, and unemployment there, together with that in Millom, across Duddon Valley, and a little arising from the shutting down of small industries, is a great grief; and it is well that Barrow-in-Furness is a development area. I would make a plea that where nationalised industries are knocking the small men out of business, they should see to it, quality for quality and price for price, that they still continue to pass some orders to the small industries that have been left, so that they may stay in being, because they make a real contribution to the variety and life of the countryside. It is not a good thing that all industries should be aggregated in one place, unless that is compulsory. There are small industries which can make steel ingots and

1249
iron moulds, and so on, competitively; and if only they could get some orders, instead of the big firms being quite so greedy in this respect, they could manage to carry on.
Turning from Barrow, I should like to say a word or two about water. During the time of a previous Government this House was very much concerned with the Water Resources Act. I remember taking part in the discussions when I sat on the other side of the House, on the Government Benches. We—the Conservatives—who might have been expected to oppose the nationalisation of water resources, were the Government who brought it in, following the Jellicoe Committee's Report. I thought it right and supported it, though in Committee I spoke on many clauses. I think it is right that water, so scarce a commodity in our country, and one which knows nothing of county or regional boundaries but is concerned only with geography and geology, should be properly coordinated and properly husbanded. A duty was placed on the authorities concerned to preserve rural amenities, and much was said about the Lake District. This North West, or at least my own part of Morecambe and Lonsdale, is at the southern end of the Lake District and contains the famous lakes of Windermere and Coniston Water, both in Lancashire.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? Windermere is wholly in Westmorland.
LORD FRASER of LONSDALE: My Lords, that is perhaps true, de jure, but de facto it is in Lancashire; and three-quarters of the people who live round the edge of it voted for me. So I think it is fifty-fifty. These beautiful areas in the Lake District are already being threatened, and I would make a plea to this Government and to any future Government to try to see how they can get the water for the nation without robbing these lakes of water, especially at a time when the water level is low. Let them take it from the bottom of the river, even if it costs them a little more, because if they take it from the bottom of the river it does not harm the lake and it does not harm the river. Therefore, it is manifestly the right thing to do. When I say "from the bottom of the river", my Lords, I do not mean the bottom
1250
three feet down, but the bottom 3f the river where it goes into the sea.
I should like to say something else about water. Some authorities are charging a high price for water. That can be justified where it is being used for certain purposes, but where it is being used for the purpose of making electricity and then the water goes back into the river from which it was taken, the river has lost nothing at all, nor has the natural resource been wasted in any way. There ought therefore to be a modest charge, even a token charge, for the use of such water. But if you go on charging this high price for water used so economically and effectively, you will drive out of business another manufacture; namely, the manufacture of small water turbines, which is quite a valuable export trade.
Water leads me down to the famous Morecambe Sands, where the shrimps come from, and the proposed Barrage. This was referred to most sensibly, if I may say so with respect, by the Vice-Chancellor of Manchester University, Lord Bowden. He pointed out that there was no single authority in London which could look to all the advantages and disadvantages of this Barrage (I think there are many advantages) and bring the matter to a head. This is very true. There is at present a Feasibility Study progressing, and this will take account of many aspects of the matter, but not all the wider aspects of local amenity, transportation and other factors. It is such an important project that it seems to me that it ought to receive high priority, and it should be the aim of the Government to try to bring this enormous benefit to the area, and to England, into being with the least possible delay. This enormous area of 400 to 500 square miles could become a beautiful lake, and could supply water not merely to the North West and to Manchester, but possibly also to large parts of England. Incidentally, it could be used in connection with electricity, too, as long as we do not drive the makers of turbines out of business.
I wonder, my Lords, what the people in Lancashire are thinking about to day. I suppose they are thinking about the squeezes, to which we have become accustomed (three this year, and too many in the last twenty or thirty years),

1251
and especially the Chancellor's grave statement last Friday, which seeks to take another £250 million out of the private pocket by taxation. I am particularly sorry for the pensioners and war pensioners, for the old people and retired people who live on fixed incomes. It is not within their capacity now, in their older age, to replace the money or to add to their incomes; they just have to put up with it and "lump it" until, late in the day—and it nearly always is late in the day—some amendment is made by one Parliament or another. They cannot go on strike; they cannot demand even restricted rises in wages, and they suffer. Their buying power not being so great, I suppose that many of them have to manage with less this next few weeks, but it seems to me that the people as a whole will not spend less. In fact, I confidently believe the people will go on spending just as much; and if they cannot find it in the wage packet they will take it out of savings. So I do not think the Chancellor will succeed in reducing consumption—though I hope he will get his £250 million, which will at least be some benefit to the Treasury. I cannot help thinking that my friends in Lancashire, and all over the land, must be feeling that a change of method and a change of means, if not a change of ends, and perhaps a change of Government, is desirable.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement has been vigorously criticised in the other place, and by the newspapers, collecting opinions from trade associations, trade unions and so on, but I have seen it stated by a Labour speaker elsewhere that, while criticisms were made of the Chancellor, nobody has made any constructive suggestions. Let me, therefore, end up with four briefly stated suggestions. First of all, let us remember that for more than half of the last hundred years we have had free exchanges as between the pound, franc, mark and dollar. It is only in the last thirty or forty years, and particularly since the Bretton Woods Agreement, that we have had fixed exchange rates, and it is only since then that these crises have occurred, under all Governments but notably under this one. If the price of gold was freed, if the exchanges were freed, I have not the slightest doubt that we
1252
should be rid of these recurrent crises for good and all. There will be other troubles besetting all Chancellors and Governments, but that one, at least, will be out of the way. There, then, my Lords, is a constructive suggestion.
My next note, made before this morning's newspapers were published, was that the Government should take a leaf out of the Conservative Party's suggestion about savings and give people an incentive to save. Until this morning there was no incentive to save, because every pound put away lost its value from the moment it was put in the bank. Now an incentive scheme has come out, but as it was put forward only to-day I have not had time to study it fully. That note, therefore, is one of thanks to the Government, rather than a constructive suggestion. Thirdly, as to incentive, not merely is there no incentive to save, but there is no incentive to earn the little extra, because you are not allowed to keep the larger part of it yourself. So there is much gloom and depression in the country.
My last word, my Lords, is to say that however we may disagree about ways and means and policies, however much the great majority of the people may wish for a change of Government and leadership, we have to live with this Government for another year or two. It would therefore be as well if Britain were to pull up her socks, lift up her heart, and not be so gloomy. We are a people with a great history, and a great capacity, if need be, to stand alone; and we have been very successful in finding our way out of difficulties. Let us try to remember, notwithstanding our political differences, a line from an old, favourite hymn of mine:
"We are not divided, all one body we."
Let us hope that Britain will have as happy a Christmas as may be possible in all the circumstances, and very much better luck in the coming year.
5.20 p.m.
LORD PILKINGTON: My Lords, it is indeed a privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Ashton under Lyne, on a very striking maiden speech and one full of information, particularly about the other part of Lancashire. It is a special pleasure for me, since for alphabetical reasons I just

1253
managed to scrape into your Lordships' House five minutes ahead of him. So I can feel a suitable sense of superiority. Moreover, since then I have had the great honour of conferring upon him a well-earned degree of Doctor of Technology. I have long thought of him as a friend, have long known him as an indefatigable worker and a statesman of the trade union movement. His wisdom can, I think, be of great service to your Lordships' House, and I venture to hope that now he may feel himself free enough of other entanglements (and that will not he easy) to become a regular attender and a frequent contributor here.
I want also to join in the generally expressed thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for initiating this very interesting debate on a most important subject, about the most important of the Regions of this country, and to congratulate him on becoming Lord Lieutenant of our County. I know that that appointment gave pleasure at the lime it was announced, and that the pleasure has since been greatly increased by the vigour that he has already shown.
This is an interesting and important Report that has been produced—Strategy II—and I do not think that too high praise can possibly be showered upon it. It is a very wise Report and also a moderate one. It is moderate, as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, said, by an indication that ours is still the county or Region that wishes to help itself, much more than it wishes to go to anybody else for help. I am quite sure that Lancashire still is enterprising and pioneering. I speak perhaps with a certain special place here so far, because I think I am the first of those who have spoken to-day who actually lives and works in a development area in Lancashire. After some of the things that have been said about development areas, I want to say that they are certainly not necessarily run-down areas, but opportunities are given to them to attract new industry and to progress as they are intended to do.
I want first to make a general point. Regional planning councils take a lot of the time of many very busy and public-spirited people. They make many recommendations, and obviously not all can he adopted at once. But if such bodies are to continue to serve the community with enthusiasm and to carry confidence
1254
even among themselves, then some action must quickly follow their reports. And if there is any one matter to which they attach real priority, it would seem to me that any Government owes them action on that one matter. In this case we are given a priority. Paragraph 19 of the Report (if I were to read out all the parts of this Report that I have underlined as being particularly interesting I should never finish) says:
"Though the renewal of social capital is urgent, we regard it as even more urgent that the industrial environment should be renewed. Unless industry flourishes, the wealth for social renewal will not be created".
Therefore it is to industrial environment that, I think rightly, the Report gives first priority. Within this, we are given another priority, which is transport. We are given that priority in some considerable detail. Some of us would perhaps have chosen different priorities, but this Council have transport as priorities No. 1. Therefore, I join with others who have spoken in hoping that the most important of the detailed actions on land transport will be accepted for very early action.
Linked in the Report with land transport is air transport, in paragraph 45, but it is dealt with with rather less emphasis, and I want to add emphasis. We in the North West are a business community. We need frequent and direct and rapid access to many places both here and abroad. We now have this access to London by train, and it is a splendid and improving service; no praise could be too high for it. Many other parts of the country either are or will soon be very well served either by train or by road, or both. There is in fact little need now for much direct air transport to and from London, and there will be little also for direct air transport between most centres in this country But there is great need for an infinitely better service than we now have from the North West—which means Manchester—to Paris, Brussels, Zurich, Amsterdam or to Copenhagen, to name just some of the places that we really need to reach direct at businessmen's times, each way, every weekday. The service via a crowded London Airport is no answer. Almost invariably changing at London involves a waste of at least two hours, and often much more; and, for contacts with Europe from industrial Regions of

1255
Britain, to be channelled through London shows a complete lack of understanding of regional development and of regional needs for industry. Certainly it is a handicap to speed and to productivity in marketing.
I do not want to weary your Lordships with figures, but I have extracted a few from the British European Airways winter time-table that I picked up when I was waiting at London Airport last week. These figures are for this year, at this time. I think they are right, but at any rate they are approximately right. There are at the moment eight destinations overseas served directly from Manchester. First among these foreign parts is Dublin, for which we have 26 services a week, compared with 62 from London Airport. This seems to me to be entirely reasonable and it is clear that even B.E.A. do not think that the natural way from Manchester to Dublin is via London. But that is the only place in Europe which is served even remotely satisfactorily.
For Paris we have 6 flights a week, compared with 119 from London. For Brussels there are 7, compared with 44 from London. For Holland there are 7, compared with 89. For Scandinavia there are 7, all to Copenhagen, compared with 66. For Germany there are only 3 a week, all to Düsseldorf, compared with a total of 161 from London Airport to Germany. To other destinations in Europe—Rome, Vienna, Madrid or any other—there is no single service direct from the North West. Surely, that is rather an indictment of the present position in relation to regional industry and its markets. Further afield, we have in addition daily services to New York and to Montreal and Toronto respectively, although even here passengers are usually expected to call, though not to change planes, at Prestwick. I am not suggesting that there is justification yet for more of these intercontinental services. It is Europe that matters, in respect of which opportunity is being lost and regional development stultified.
While on the subject of air transport, I must mention Liverpool, especially since I think I am the first person to speak from the South Western part of our county. Liverpool is the centre for a very large part of the Region. The closing of British Eagle was indeed a
1256
very great loss; I hear it on all sides. It has gone, but that gap must be filled, either by a regular and frequent direct service to Manchester by helicopter or, if necessary, by a direct air service to London for transfer to other destinations. There is one other possible alleviation of the hardship to the South West of this Region. Some of the present access roads both to Speke, the Liverpool airport, and to Ringway in Manchester, are just about the worst and the most winding I know of to any airport anywhere. One is called Hasty Lane, and it clearly means "More hasty, less speedy". Good access to both the airports, and between them, might be high on any road improvement objectives. Here might I add one other linking road to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester almost made reference; that is, the connection between Crewe, a centre of rail transport for so many in the southern part of the Region, and the M.6, the link with the rest of the Region. That road is one continuous succession of small villages with a winding road going through them. This clearly needs better access.
To return for a moment to air transport, I was delighted to see that B.E.A. are now basing their fleet of eight B.A.C. 1–-11s(which are splendid aircraft) on Manchester. I hope they will be encouraged, and if necessary assisted, to fly them direct to foreign parts and to show an interest in South West Lancashire, and the Wirral and Speke airport.
I turn now to the second of the priorities I have mentioned, housing, and, with it, urban development. I want to urge the need for really speedy redevelopment of the older towns, and particularly of their central areas. In my opinion this redevelopment of existing towns is as important as the building of new towns, necessary and urgent though the latter certainly is. It can almost certainly become much more rapidly productive, but I would join in everything that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, said about the attachment of people to a district and a neighbourhood. It is hard to convey to your Lordships just what it means when that is disrupted and people who have lived there for generations are moved away—no doubt temporarily—and lose contact.
These central areas of our towns must come down and must be rebuilt. I live

1257
in one and I know. But this is normally at least a four-phase process—compulsory purchase, demolition, rebuilding and reoccupation—and it must be a continuous four-stage process. The process should not start until the end can clearly be seen, because in that way we shall have this "social capital" left unused for the shortest possible time. In industry we know that if we want to rebuild we have to do it quickly; we cannot afford to have idle land, idle plant or idle buildings. We get the rebuilding done quickly and get back again into production. I am quite sure that the same thing is necessary in the social change in the towns. I do not believe that anybody disagrees with this, and I do not believe that any Ministry has ever tried to obstruct it. But I am sure that it is not happening at present, and that it needs to happen.
In the company in which I serve we could long ago have chosen to move to London when we knew we had outgrown our offices and had to build vast, expensive fresh ones. Thank goodness we decided to stay where we were! I have absolutely no regret about that at all. But how many other companies, faced with this difficulty, have moved South; moved their administrative headquarters, with all their vast wealth of talent that goes with it, away from the North West, and how much poorer are they? We do not want this to happen in our towns as a result of unnecessary delay in the rebuilding. We in industry know well that distant fields are green, and that a green field site beckons invitingly; but we really do know that it costs more to industry, and much more in personal and community terms, if we go elsewhere and start completely afresh without the existing environment, infrastructure and services.
We must not take the heart out of our towns and transplant it far away; but, equally, we must not take it out and let the patient die because the fresh life is not immediately instilled. Our towns have a real community sense, and the easiest way to lose this irreplaceable asset is to ignore the realities of sentiment and of traditional attachment to a neighbourhood. The way to retain it is to keep unbroken continuity and to make these four stages of redevelopment really continuous and really rapid.
1258
When industries die out, as with coal-mining (and in my own town, where there have been coalmines for many years, I think the last pit closed within the last six months, though I am glad to say we are still a prosperous and lively town), a mess is left. Dereliction grants are payable within these areas, but dereliction extends beyond these areas, and I associate myself completely with those who have spoken on this matter. The whole tone of a region can be affected for good if one loses sight of this fact, and I hope that the grants can be extended to cover this remedial action anywhere that it may be needed.
The Report refers to culture and to the arts, and rightly so. To attract men, as we always wish to do, from elsewhere to a particular region requires attractive amenities. Many people are not prepared to believe how many of these amenities already exist in the North (and this particularly refers to those who come from the South), but we need more. We do not do ourselves justice, and I believe that we could reverse the trend of movement to the South. In this question of the arts the North West certainly has it3 own characteristics, and one of them is the great commitment to widespread, high-class local amateur involvement in the arts, in the theatre, in drama, in the art societies and in music. In all of this there is real involvement, and with it goes the need and the desire to learn from the best professionals how to do things better.
Therefore, my Lords, I hope it will be recognised that these are growing points on which to build—healthy growing points—and that in anything the Arts Council may do in our Region they will spread a large part of whatever money they allocate to us—the seed corn, as it were—widely, if thinly, giving direct or indirect encouragement to this sprit of participation in our art societies, our operatic and dramatic societies, and our music. What people most need as a rule is somewhere to do all these things. think I am right in saying that more theatres have been built or put to use in the North West than in any other part of the country in recent years; but most of them are struggling, and most of them—and rightly so—are to some extent subsidised by local authorities or by private enterprise. However, the Arts Council I can do a great deal to foster this spirit

1259
and to improve the amenities that will attract others to the area.
My Lords, in my view, Strategy II is a wide-ranging Report. Its recommendations, as a whole and individually, are good, but the North West can play its full part in the affairs of our nation only if its internal strength and attractions and its external communications, in fact the whole of its external environment, match up to the character of its people.
5.39 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, I am particularly glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to whom the North West owes so much for the progressive employment that his firm is providing for so many people. I tremble to think what might be happening in St. Helens today if it were not for Pilkington Brothers.
My particular concern in this Report is with the proposed new town—or, as it has been referred to, new city—of Leyland-Chorley-Preston, which lies at the heart of the diocese of Blackburn. With certain safeguards, I believe that this new city can give new heart to the people of central Lancashire. With those safeguards I should like to deal later; but without them it must be confessed that some of those, particularly in the North East, will be in danger of losing heart.
Let me say that I thoroughly welcome this important Report of the North West Economic Planning Council, and the terms in which it was presented by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes. It is comprehensive, challenging and constructive. But I am sorry that it does not bear more witness, as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, did, to the sterling worth of the people of Lancashire. There is always a danger that planners become so preoccupied with their planning that they ignore or forget the kind of people for whom they are planning. Those in the North are a sturdy, hardworking people, many of whom have been brought up in the hard school of adversity. We are God-fearing people. I think it is true to say that a higher proportion attend their place of worship in the North than in the South, and it is in no small measure due to the preservation of our church schools and Sunday schools. We are conserva-
1260
tive, not in the Party political sense, for I think the majority vote Labour, but in the sense that we like to hold fast to what we believe is right and good and of lasting worth. We are proud of our heritage and we are proud to help ourselves. I have been in the North for only 22 years, and I hope that in three years' time I may be accepted as belonging to Lancashire. But I have gained an immense respect for those who live and work there.
Let it not be forgotten how much this nation owes to the people of Lancashire, where the Industrial Revolution was cradled, when people were herded together in squalid towns, victims of bad conditions in their homes as well as at work. In no small measure, as has already been referred to, the prosperity of our nation has been built upon the sweat, the toil and the devotion of these Lancashire lads and lassies. Later they were to suffer cruelly in the years of depression, particularly in the dreadful times of unemployment which are still not forgotten. Now as we face the future these people to whom we owe so much deserve to be treated fairly and decently and also handsomely. They are people with hearts of gold and they should be recognised as such.
The way forward is not easy. The recession in the cotton industry, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Ashton under Lyne, referred—and I should like to congratulate him on his maiden speech—the closure of pits, the migration of younger men and women to the South and indeed overseas, the failure to promote and secure a sufficient capital investment in industry, the orders for new construction as revealed in the Report being the lowest per head of all regions when they ought probably to be amongst the highest, are all matters which constitute a challenge that must be answered. What we need is a strategy for the whole area. This is the end to which we are moving and this is why we are so grateful for this Report, Strategy II. But I do not think we have yet achieved this end, because I am deeply concerned about the future of the area we call North East.
We are told that the cornerstone of the proposals outlined in the present Report is the proposed new central town of Leyland-Chorley-Preston, which by 1991

1261
will have a population of 500,000. Basically this new town offers a great opportunity for the North West and, with certain safeguards, it is to be welcomed. Whether a linear town stretching some 15 miles is good planning I do not know. Admittedly the communications dictate the form, and they are good—the M.6, the main Glasgow-Euston railway with easy access to the docks at Liverpool, and also the growing volume of trade in the docks at Preston. There is much that can be said in favour of this new town; but I want to insist with all the power that I can command that it should not and must not be planned in isolation.
Nor should the final area be designated until further and fuller consideration has been given to its effect upon North-East Lancashire, and we here think particularly of the towns of Blackburn, Burnley—to which reference has already been made— Nelson, Colne and indeed what is termed the Calder Valley. These towns are struggling with problems that arise from recession and migration; a high proportion of older people; a low wage structure with inferior housing, which is steadily being replaced with new housing; a poor environment which they are making a valiant effort to improve. These towns are putting up a good fight for the sake of their people, who have a great affection, as all Lancastrians have, for their own home town. My plea is that the area as a whole must continue to be reviewed from the coast to Colne, including the new town which lies roughly in the centre.
Your Lordships will probably know that a study of the impact of the new town has been ordered by the Minister, and now has been received, but after the publication of this Report. This impact has a threefold objective; first, to improve the social wellbeing of the region as a whole; secondly, to contribute to the renewal of the older towns; and, thirdly, to improve the economic wellbeing of the region as a whole. Those three aims are thoroughly good and some important recommendations come from them: first, and most important of all, to which reference has already been made, to improve communications, to provide in this area a new road giving fast and direct access from the towns of the Calder Valley to the M.6 and the new town. I
1262
am sure that top priority is required for this road if the new city of which we are thinking is to be of benefit to this area and not to detract from it. This is something which I hope may be set in hand at once. I believe that the whole problem linked with Strategy II revolves round the question of roads. We have had a number of references to this, and it seems to me absolutely essential that we should get these roads planned so as to provide for the future.
The second recommendation has regard to environmental improvement. This, thank God! is already taking place, but it will need additional financial assistance. The third recommendation is industrial development, which of course is essential, through the reservation of land capable of industrial use (there is still much to be found, and not only in the new town area) and a substantial widening of facilities for industrial trading.
The proposal to inject 750,000 extra people into the North West area, of whom 150,000 will come to the new town, of course demands more housing and more industry and involves a considerable expenditure of money. It is suggested that the new town calls for an expenditure of £.400 million. It is not clear from my studies from where this money will come. To get it started, is the new town to he declared a development area? If so, this would be a shocking blow to other towns which do not receive development area financial assistance. We await with interest the Report of the Hunt Committee upon how such towns can be assisted. There are many in Lancashire which lie in what is termed in this Rep ort the "intermediate area". There are many such towns which need assistance, but which are not classed as development areas. I hope that notice will be taken of this and of what other noble Lords have said. Let the Leyland-Chorley development proceed, but before the new town is finally designated further attention should be given and action taken as to how the North East Lancashire area can best be served, for under the existing proposals the bad could become worse if nothing is done to help these towns.
I know that the problem of town planning is vitiated by the fact that in the North East area there are no fewer than 22 local authorities. This is quite

1263
ridiculous, and it is the kind of situation with which it is hoped that the Royal Commission on Local Government will deal. But in this case these local authorities are already there. They are responsible; they are deeply and understandably troubled; they are not wreckers. They want to be openly and fully consulted. They want to share in the planning, and not be dictated to by others or passed by and ignored.
This new town, which can mean so much to the whole North West, must not be started in the face of hostility arising from what may be regarded as unfair competition by some of its immediate neighbours. North East Lancashire is an area which has suffered from mass under-investment in the immediate past. This must not happen again in our strategy for the future. It can play its part in the overall development of the whole area provided it is given its rightful opportunity to do so.
Before I conclude, may I ask your Lordships' indulgence, and particularly that of Lord Rhodes, that a long-standing engagement at an important conference which I am attending this week may, am afraid, prevent my being present at the end of this debate. I shall try to be here, but if that is not possible I offer my apologies. This new city is a good conception provided that it is planned in sympathetic relationship to the whole area which it is designed to serve and to stimulate.
5.55 p.m.
LORD SIMEY: My Lords, it is a responsible position that I have to fill this afternoon as I am bound now to follow two other Lancashire men. I think the best thing I can do is not to endeavour to go over the same ground as they have traversed, but perhaps to adopt the point of view of a typical Lancashire man; namely, to say that I feel most grateful to Lord Rhodes for initiating this debate and for having called our attention to this Report; but I think there are a number of things which must be added which have not yet been said, to put it in perspective. This I shall now endeavour to do.
First of all, we have heard, over and over again, about the woes of Lancashire. Indeed, Lancashire has had some ex-
1264
tremely troubled times to pass through in the last few years, particularly after the First World War. We have just had to face a situation in which the coal and cotton industries have been shaken to their foundations. "Woe, woe unto us!", say my colleagues. But is this really necessary? I recognise, of course, that colleagues of mine who represent the interests of miners have an extremely troubled story to tell; but in the long run, is it a cause for optimism or pessimism, even for the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, that the coal industry is passing out, as is cotton? From my point of view as a Lancashire citizen, I say that it is a cause for great optimism that these industries have been shaken to their foundations and have been successfully replaced by other industries. I think this is an achievement for Lancashire for which Lancashire does not get half enough credit. It is mainly the achievement of the small manufacturer and the Lancashire working man. It is, I think, a magnificent achievement, and I am glad indeed to see it.
We now have to turn our attention away from the past. We have to forget the past, which embodies the ruination of these two industries, and we have to turn our attention towards the future. This we have not done anything like enough. These two industries are, or were, low-productivity industries. Nobody is going to take employment in either of them willingly. So far as coal is concerned, with all its danger and hardship, which I recognise from the bottom of my heart, I am extremely glad that a much smaller proportion of my fellow citizens are going in future to be employed in the industry. We have to look forward to a future in which our power will not come from coal. Coal, with its shallow seams and its geological faults, is far too arduous and unsafe an industry to rely upon. We have to look towards atomic power; and, thank God! atomic power is now available to us. Let us now make use of it.
I do not find enough in this Report. with all its merits, which looks forward to the future with the imagination and courage which this task requires from us. I symbolise the shortcomings in this Report with one thing, and that is the Dee crossing. The Report tells us in various places that the Dee crossing is possible, and that it could be done. Well, why

1265
does it not recommend that it should be done as soon as possible? Why does it not produce a detailed scheme, supported by adequate estimates, of the cost of the crossing? Why does it suggest that large new towns should be built in the middle of congested Lancashire and allow the waste land of North Wales to go scot-free? North Wales is an excellent area for urban development; it does not involve laying waste good agricultural land. It is waiting for us now, as soon as we can do something imaginative to make it feasible, like a Dee crossing.
The present state of affairs amounts to strangulation. Developments in Lancashire are far too often forced to face strangulation where they now are. My own City of Liverpool is on the coast and on the river to such an extent that we cannot develop any more. All the land has gone. All we can do now is to re-use old land, and that is what we must now start to do. The reconstitution of the Liverpool dock system must be undertaken in areas where it is not advantageous to build modern docks, owing to the difficulties of access that are now on us. We now have the one imaginative scheme for the rebuilding of the Albert Dock. It is high time, therefore, that we embodied that scheme and others in an imaginative and comprehensive plan.
My next point concerns urban redevelopment. First of all, I approach it from the point of view of traffic and communications. I am a Liverpool citizen, possessing a car which I drive with greater and greater infrequency as the years go by, owing to the difficulties with which I am confronted. I am now, I discover on looking back on my life for the last year or two, much more apt to use the railway system which has been reconstructed, or internal air traffic or air traffic to Ireland, as a means of getting out of the place; but I am now made very much more immobile than I should be. Most of my life is now lived in the central area of [iverpool, and when I escape I escape to North Wales or I escape to a London appointment, as I have to-day to your Lordships' House. But this state of affairs must again be attended to, and attended to with considerable urgency. We cannot allow Liverpool to be "gummed up" as it is. We cannot allow people to conduct virtually all their
1266
affairs on the Liverpool/London axis, or in the central area of Liverpool, when the central area of Liverpool is satisfying their needs with greater and greater inefficiency as the years go by.
My family life is lived with my wife in the central area of Liverpool, and she is the city councillor representing the most congested, the most worn-out area of central Liverpool. The two of us together hear a great deal about this problem. I suggest that the next Strategy Report which is produced should be much more forward looking, and one of the things which needs to be dealt with in considerable detail is the precise way in which we are going to reconstruct the central areas. At the moment we have a scheme in Liverpool which has been put before the rational housing agency, Shelter, which appears to be about to use the Liverpool Housing Trust as its chosen instrument for carrying out its programme. It is a large and imaginative scheme, and I know a great deal about it as I happen to be President of the latter body. It will operate on the edge of Princes Avenue, which is a large highway leading away from the central area. The Liverpool Housing Trust will, I hope, establish a co-operative which will associate the common people in that region with re-housing, involving the reconstruction of the houses themselves.
Far too many schemes have been carried through in the name of housing in the last few years which, in my opinion, have been entrusted either to a housing authority—and often a large and remote one—or a London Ministry. It is quite time the responsibility for these things was concentrated locally. It seems to me to be the main advantage of the present scheme that we shall get that in this particular case. We shall be able, I hope, to administer it in such a manner that we can reconstruct in a way which people locally want and can see carried out week by week. That may mean that Lancashire may get more control over its own destiny than it has had before. Heaven knows!, it has had little enough. It now needs to develop a great deal more, and to develop it quickly.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would mind my

1267
interrupting. I am a little puzzled. Is he suggesting that control of house building in Liverpool is not controlled from Liverpool? I do not understand that.
LORD SIMEY: My Lords, I am not suggesting anything of the kind. A large amount of housing is now done in Liverpool by the Liverpool Housing Committee, and it is almost wholly in the shape of housing estates mainly in the suburbs. We have done very little so far in the central area, and the reconstruction of the central area is what we must now start doing. If we do that through the existing housing committee it will, I am afraid, choke the committee with work administratively, and, secondly, it will lead to a loss of contact between the ordinary person living in those areas and the scheme as a whole. That point was made earlier in this debate, and I think it was a wholly proper one. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, himself who made this point in regard to the kind of humane principles or policies which can be developed in a scheme or which can be wholly destroyed and frustrated, if they are not fostered and protected. I have seen schemes carried out in the central area by the housing department of the local authority—I am sorry to digress on this, but it is extremely important. I have seen it done out of context, and I have seen the result: the fouling, the bad housekeeping developed or allowed to continue in the blocks of flats that have been built, with the most deplorable consequences. I hope we shall never see that sort of thing again.
In conclusion, may I say that we also need to operate most energetically on the front of the arts, and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in his place. The story is told in Lancashire that there was once a competition held for local people in which the first prize was a week's holiday in a Lancashire town and the second prize was a month's holiday in a Lancashire town. I feel that that typifies a great deal of Lancashire life at the moment. Not only is transport and traffic extremely difficult but there is far too much squalor around us.
My wife and I live in the central area of Liverpool. We are virtually the only
1268
members of the university staff now living in the central area. There is one other member of the staff living in the centre and he lodges with us. I shall not rest content until we develop a lively social life in and around the university, which establishes an evening social life. This can form a very important part of the educational facilities which we provide: the social and the educational can be closely keyed together. We have achieved a certain amount at the moment, but we do not profess to be anything like as successful as we think we ought to be. If we could create more housing units of one kind or another to house our staff and our senior students on the university precinct or nearby, it would have a great influence on the development of the arts, because the people would be there to participate and I am sure they would participate.
Mere geographical separation into social life, carried on in little ghettoes all over Lancashire, seems to be the sort of thing we are allowing to develop. Round about four o'clock in the afternoon people pack up and go, and if one tries to provide cultural amenities one has an extremely tough job. Supposing we did something of the kind, we should revive much of the social life that used to be lived in those areas at the beginning of the century. So far as the social life centred on our existing amenities is concerned we have a good deal of success. Our Philharmonic Orchestra, and our theatres in Liverpool cater for large sections of the population.
I am most grateful for the amount of support given us by the Arts Council for these cultural amenities. With this support, both our musical life and in recent years our theatrical activities have developed. We have suffered badly on one front, and this is in relation to museums and art galleries. To a large extent our failure has been due and I say this knowing the struggles of the staffs of museums and art galleries in Liverpool—to the fact that we have been starved of funds for these purposes. The money for the museums and art world in England is pumped into London, and London ought to be able to look after itself much more fully than it does. London's own cultural institutions should play a much more active part in making provision of this kind.

1269
The figures are appalling. To take the figures for London, Scotland and Wales, we find that the amounts which are made available, largely from the Government, are £3 million, £2 million and £600,000. In Liverpool and Manchester all we can scrape together from local sources is £100,000, a trifling sum. I am sure that the museums and art galleries staffs with whom I am personally friendly would be able to make their services much more readily available and much more sought after by the ordinary person. I hope that in this Report next year schemes will have been produced and ways and means found to start developments of this kind which are so desperately needed.
6.16 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, may I begin by a declaration of interest, or rather an excuse, as a born Cockney, and now again a London resident, for intervening in this debate; but in fact the most active years of my life were lived in the North West between the wars, during the great depressions of the 1920s and 1930s. My activities as an adult education tutor ranged from Macclesfield, in the South, to Burnley, in the North. I got to know the people, their stresses and strains. As a driver I got to know their roads, through the various phases of North-Country winter weather. That is my excuse for taking part in this debate.
I grew to love the area so well that I now constantly go back to it. Indeed, I think I might have remained in it, because at one time before I left I was being considered for a job which would have kept me there. Fortunately for the North West, I did not get the job: but the noble Lord, Lord Simey, did. However, having left the area, I constantly return to it. The one area to which I have not returned is Northwich, in Cheshire. When last I knew it it was sinking into the ground, presumably owing to the burrowing underground by Brunner Mond, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester called attention. I can only suppose that by now the town has been either jacked up or re-established on its former foundations. But the rest of the area, as I knew it then and have seen it since, offers a very different life to its inhabitants.
I should like briefly to refer to three sections of the Report. The first appears on page 16, relating to offices. It is
1270
headed "Commercial, Professional and Office Work", and the Report says, very rightly:
"The prosperity of industry … is of vital importance … But so is commercial, professional and office work. There is growing evidence that relatively swifter growth in this sector … is a measure of the maturity and modernity of a civilisation."
My Lords, we know what civilisation has brought to London.
"The tendency in past years for undertakings of many kinds—not only commercial and industrial but also organisations such as trade unions …—to locate their hew' offices in London has led to many of the ablest and most energetic young people … moving to the capital."
We know that that is true, and it was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, who has set a very good example by not moving his central office to London.
Unfortunately, a less good example has been set by the Manchester Guardian, not, I suppose., out of a desire to live up to the Joneses, but perhaps because of a desire to live up to the Thomsons and the Beaverbrooks. To some extent I think this movement of offices to London is motivated by a sort of snobbism desire to live up to the Joneses—"Other people have central offices in London, so we must have a central office in London." I think there is a lot of that feeling, and there is nothing that Governments can do about it. I can only suggest that the tycoons of the area should get together and pass a sort of self-denying ordinance to ensure that none of them shall do it, and then the competition will cease. But that is perhaps a dream.
It has been mentioned by several speakers that more money could be spent on the amenities in this area that we are discussing. If your Lordships w 11 look at page 18 of the Report, you will see, I am afraid, that the Arts Council has been a little mean to the area, in proportion to the benefits it has conferred on the galleries in London, for instance other than the British Museum. That is indeed true; but I am very much afraid that the kind of amenities offered by picture galleries, or even by tae cultural activities described by the noble Lord, Lord Simey, may not be the sort of cultural activities that are desired by visiting executives after a hard day's work in their offices—activities which I

1271
believe could still be financed from tax-free expense allowances by their host organisations.
Another part of the Report to which I should like to refer deals with housing. This is dealt with on page 24, and several speakers have already referred to it. The noble Lords, Lord Rhodes and Lord Pilkington, have dealt with it, and both noble Lords backed up what is said in the Report about the importance of
"rehabilitating shabby areas while the basic structure of the houses remains reasonably sound"
and where the external environment is capable of improvement. I have observed some very odd housing developments of recent years in this area. In my youth I was modest, and I used to believe that if eminent persons or responsible organisations committed acts which appeared to me to savour of lunacy it must be that they knew more than I did, or that they had knowledge of facts to which I did not have access. But as the years roll by I find it more and more difficult to believe that, and particularly when I observe certain features of housing policy in the North West.
For example, if one drives to Rochdale from the South, one finds that there is a beautifully reconstituted, remodelled centre, worthy of the birthplace of the Co-operative pioneers or of Gracie Fields. But one also observes rising in the centre a group of tower blocks. I know that tower blocks are regarded as necessary in the congested area which surrounds the Surrey Docks, but certain social and psychological problems are presented in connection with women and children who live on the top floors. We also know now that in the event of an abnormally strong gale or a minor explosion there is a calculated probability that these tower blocks will fall down. We know that they are there for a reason, but why should they be there in the middle of Rochdale?
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? Is she seriously suggesting that in certain circumstances all flats are likely to fall down?
BARONESS STOCKS: No, my Lords; I am suggesting that it is a characteristic
1272
of tower blocks to which attention has recently been drawn. But I do not want to argue the case for or against London tower blocks. I want to argue the case against Rochdale tower blocks, because to the north of Rochdale there are illimitable miles of unbuilt on, uncultivable moor. So why, oh why, should there be tower blocks in Rochdale?
There is another feature of North country housing which I have observed in Manchester, and this really contravenes something that has been said about the importance of reconditioning. Of late years, I have observed a very large clearance area—acres of it—on the Hulme side of the Oxford Road; very reminiscent of what the centre of Rotterdam looked like after the Germans had left it, but larger. I wondered why part of it had not been rebuilt before the whole place was cleared, and I was told—and it seemed to me sensible—that it was desirable to develop the whole site as one, so to speak, section of neighbourhood, and that it was necessary to clear it all in order to get the various services of gas, water and so on, properly planned. So far so good.
I then observed on the other side of the Oxford Road another vast clearance area of similar acreage, or indeed mileage, so far as I know. Now I know that some of those areas, although by no means all of them, are cleared with a view to the future predatory prospects of the University, which is so ably represented by the noble Lord, Lord Bowden. If you drive to Rochdale, you will go past, I think, four large clearance areas, not to mention rows of derelict houses with boarded-up windows. Why, oh why, can you not build up as you pull down? And what is the result? The result is that in Cheshire, to the South of Hulme and Stockport, the Manchester housing authorities, I imagine, are building up—and indeed have built—an enormous town of very nicely-planned small houses and little streets, but with no shopping centre. I am trying to believe that there is a reason for these strange policies of which I know not, and that those who have compiled them have access to facts to which I do not have access. I shall think the best I can.
The third section of the Report on which I should like to offer one comment is at page 30, and is headed "Dirt

1273
and Dereliction". We all know, as the noble Lord, Lord Simey, has pointed out, that the area is full of rather derelict streets, drab and ill-planned, lacking in architectural amenity. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn has drawn attention to the quality of the people, but here I think that the Report has gone a little wrong. It says:
"This pollution decreases the efficiency of man,"—
it is speaking of air pollution and the resulting dirt—
"of most other products of nature, and of man's own creations."
Nothing could be more true, though as a matter of fact I observe that the air is less polluted than it was in the old days between the wars.
The Report goes on:
"People are less healthy than they should be …"
That is true. I used to observe if I went into a school—I do not know whether it is still the case—that the smaller children were well grown but the older children were stunted. They did not grow so tall as, for instance, school-children in Devonshire or Cornwall. I remember Ellen Wilkinson, who was herself stunted, saying to me, "Look at me—I am the product of the generations of the Manchester industrial revolution". So that is true. The Report goes on to say that this means that people
"need to spend more time, usually to less effect, on cleaning and maintenance …."
More time, doubtless; but anyone who knows what the doorstep and inside of a Lancashire house look like would not say "to less effect". You may come from a drab and dirty street, but you walk across a shining, hearth-stoned doorstep into a house which is far cleaner, I think, than you would expect to walk into in many parts of London.
The Report continues:
"The dirty, gloomy atmosphere also has a depressing and de-energising effect".
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, who asked the question: Why do people go there? Perhaps I may end by providing a partial answer to that question—and this bears out what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. My grandson has recently been appointed a schoolmaster in a very large co-educational county
1274
grammar school in the middle of the industrial area between Manchester and Bolton. He writes:
"I teach all age groups, but it is much less tiring than I expected because all the children are so well behaved and so eager to learn"
My granddaughter-in-law, who is a Southerner, writes:
"I have never known such nice people—so friendly".
That, I think, is part of the answer to the question why people go there and why people stay there, and I am delighted to think that my great-granddaughter is being brought up there.
6.32 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I have two apologies to make: one for intervening in a debate without having had the opportunity to hear the earlier speakers, and particularly the speech of my noble friend Lord Rhodes; and the other for intervening in a debate about an area where it may seem that I might properly be regarded as a total foreigner. My justification for both these faults is that I was commanded to speak in this debate by my noble friend Lord Rhodes, and anyone who knows Lord Rhodes will realise that no one would incur the risk of disobeying a command from him.
May I also say that I intervene in this debate with great pleasure. I do not regard myself as a foreigner in these northern parts; and I should like very much to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, said about the warmth and friendliness of the people, because I had an opportunity to learn this when I was in the Army. I was for a time a member of a mobile anti-aircraft battery which travelled all over the country. We were stationed in various parts of the country, and nowhere did we receive a reception which was so cordial, so friendly and so happy as that which we received in Lancashire; and nowhere did we find people who took us to their hearts as did the people of Lancashire. So if, in any way, I have an opportunity to repay that kindness now, it is a debt which I feel a very keen anxiety to discharge.
My Lords, I am here in my capacity as Chairman of the Arts Council. It would be quite wrong if at this late hour I delayed your Lordships with the lengthy observations that I might make on the

1275
theme of regional supports for the arts. Both the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, and the noble Lord, Lord Simey, have spoken on this subject during the short time I have been able to be present at this debate. Both of them have said words which I would echo and with which I have no quarrel at all. And as to the highly-imaginative plan that we are now discussing—the plan for considering the scientific and orderly development of a very large and important part of this country—it would be absolute folly not to incorporate into it notions and schemes for giving intellectual and spiritual content to the quality of life in the area. That is what the Arts Council exist to do. It may sound a high claim, but that is our purpose; and, if I may say so, we do it unashamedly.
The other day I had sent to me a cutting from a journal which made rather scornful and sneering complaint of some observations I had dropped in your Lordships' House about a year or two ago, when I said that one of the purposes of the Arts Council was, I hoped, to make it possible for young people to become acquainted with the higher products of the human mind, with the greater works of art and literature which had been created over the years, and thereby, perhaps, to have more certain standards of behaviour for later life. I was told by this supercilious journal that these were notions not appropriate to the Arts Council but appropriate to the Boy Scouts. My Lords, I have never had the opportunity of being a member of the Boy Scouts, but may I say that I would not speak scornfully of the Boy Scouts. I regard the Scouting movement as an organisation of the highest social value; and if the Arts Council and the Boy Scouts could join forces in achieving this result, then I should not in the slightest degree be ashamed at finding the Boy Scouts as partners. This is the answer, and the only answer that I should want to make, to this particular journal on this particular theme.
But this is rather a distance from the question of the arts in the North West. One side comment I should like to make is that we are not to be blamed for the allocation of monies for museums and galleries about which complaint is made, because that is not an Arts Council func-
1276
tion. I think there is some validity in the complaint that the North West and other regional areas do not get enough money for this purpose, but may I venture a quiet plea on this subject? I am not sure that a great deal of benefit is to be derived by arousing a competitive spirit between London and the regions in relation to artistic organisations and artistic institutions. I think the quality of the artistic life of our country requires an integration of artistic activity throughout the country. First and foremost, the establishment of a few great artistic institutions is, I believe, indispensable. It happens that most of them have been established in London. This is something we cannot undo, or seek to undo, to-day. This is something we must recognise.
But the fact that we have a National Theatre in London, that we have the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery in London, that we have great orchestras and the Opera House in London, means, I think, that if these are of the quality that we want them to be, and believe them to be, we are, through them, fertilising the whole of the country. There would be absolutely no benefit in spliting up the small sum of money we have—and at the moment, despite the Government's increasing generosity in this matter, and their very far-sighted and wise recognition of the needs of the arts since they came into power, it is still a totally inadequate sum of money. We should find, if we divided it up arithmetically between the various regions, and bestowed it in the regions on a completely egalitarian basis that they would have little or nothing.
What we must endeavour to do is to see that some of these great artistic institutions are not established in London—and, happily, not all of them are. The region of which we are now speaking has at least two great orchestras. It has the Hallé Orchestra and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Very substantial subsidies are made available from the Arts Council, which gives to each of these orchestras £75,000 per annum. The local authority, I think, gives a comparable sum. No one could regard these as derisory subsidies, even for very large orchestras.
Unhappily, at this moment of time the regional musicians do not get pay which

1277
is entirely comparable with the pay given to London musicians. This creates a situation where the best of the regional musicians are attracted to come to London. It is my belief, having spent a period of time in London, that very large sums of money would be needed to compensate for the discomforts and inconveniences of living in this great city; and I gather that a large number of these musicians would willingly go back to the places from which they came. But the fact remains that this is something that we must equal out. We must not leave this dis-equilibrium in payment of musicians so that the great provincial orchestras can be drained of their best talent. This is, if I may say so, a very important matter.
Also if I may say so, we must not, as an Arts Council and as a Government (if I may venture to speak on their behalf on this matter), seek to impose a cultural pattern on any region. Nothing can happen unless it happens by dint of a local demand. I have said this many times since I have been the Chairman of the Arts Council, and the more often I say it the more convinced I am that it is right. It is absolutely useless for the Arts Council to seek to survey an area and say, "There is a cultural lack there—we must create an orchestra; we must create some cultural institution that they need". Unless there are people in that area who want it, people who are prepared to run it, people who are prepared to do the necessary dedicated work to maintain it, it will never flourish. You can sow the seed; but the seed will die.
It is therefore a case of the Arts Council and the Government giving central support to regional needs and to local requirements. That is how the pattern has worked throughout the regions in this country. It produces a plan that is not consistent. Areas where there has been the greatest concentration of people, where there happens to have been people interested in the arts who have created a local demand, have been catered for. Large areas are arid. In the area of which we are now speaking, North West England, there is no live theatre between Oldham and the Scottish Border. That is wrong, but the reason is a simple one: no town in the area concerned has asked for one, and until they ask for it it is impossible to give it. You cannot meet
1278
a need which is not expressed. The Arts Council are no more able to meet it than anybody else. But when the need is expressed I will pledge the Arts Council's urgent support to provide the amenity if, in fact, it is established that Mere will he sufficient a public for it and that it can be sustained. But without the local demand nothing of any kind can be established.
This brings me to my concluding words. Although important as a subject, this is a very narrow point in relation to the whole scheme. The ideal arrangement is to marshal all the local resources. And this brings me—even to his embarrassmcnt—to the noble Lord who introduced the Motion to-day. I had the privilege about two years ago to be invited by him to attend the Saddleworth Arts Festival. Saddleworth is a very small town—I am sure the noble Lord will not take umbrage at that—if it is a town at alt. It is a very small township. I do not know who had organised the festival, but it seemed to me to be a model of what such things ought to be. There was mobilised and enlisted every conceivable amenity in the area for the purposes of the festival. Whether this was due to the personality, the dominance or the terror inculcated by the noble Lard I do not know, but the schools had been brought in, the factories had been brought in, there were cooks, there was a competition for making cakes. The largest cake I have ever seen was presented by or won by the Duke of Devonshire.
It was a model of what a local festival ought to be. There was nothing precious about it; nothing sought to purvey to people a quality of entertainment or a quality of culture they could not understand. But things were of good quality. Music was newly composed and commissioned. It was a model festival; but what to the Arts Council made it totally model was that it paid for itself and there was no call made on the guarantee that we had given them of some few hundred pounds for the purpose of the festival. The point is simply this: that if artistic amenities are to be supplied they must be at the behest of the people in the locality; they must conform to the requirements of the people of the locality and they must then enlist the aid and support of central Government, of the

1279
Arts Council and of every other organisation concerned, to the greatest extent to which it is made available.
I will end with a plea to the Government. They will have heard from several speakers what importance they attach to the arts. The Government cannot know the enormous local and regional demand existing for artistic amenities of all kinds which is growing daily throughout the country. I hope, however dire our economic situation, that we shall not put into reverse the progress that we have made in the last few years. I hope that this will be the very last economy that we shall contemplate, however much it may be necessary to economise in other directions.
6.44 p.m.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, the first thing I should like to do is to congratulate my noble friend Lord Wright of Ashton under Lyne on the speech he made. He and I have travelled round the world telling different countries how they should run their economies to be successful. We are brought together to-night to talk in this House, not of how the country should be made successful but of how the North West Region should be made successful. So does the truth come home to those who wander round advising other people! I am sorry that I missed the speech of my noble friend Lord Rhodes. I wanted to be present to hear it. I have watched his career, starting from humble beginnings to very successful endings—and now to Lord Lieutenant of the county. I am proud to be called his friend. Indeed, I am proud to be associated with him in an endeavour to get the North West back on to its industrial feet. Perhaps I should have said "on to better industrial feet" because it was never off its feet.
My experience in the North West was over a decade. I was an immigrant, and if I may make a comment on the people I met, it is that they put the kettle on when you go into the house and not when you go out. That shows the warmth and spirit there. And this is important, because it develops into team spirit, and without that team spirit nobody, no industry, no country, is going to succeed. I was impressed by the team spirit and the friendliness that I met in Lancashire. I was impressed, too, with the humility,
1280
about which I am a little sorry. I could wish that the people of the North West were not quite so humble. I remember when I first looked at that great waterway coming inland, the Manchester Ship Canal, and I do not think anything in the world compares with it. It was dug by men with spades a hundred years ago. There is vision in that part of the country that bodes well for its future. We have to find out just where that vision is going to lead.
I was impressed in Strategy II by one paragraph. It was paragraph 19. I shall read it: it is worth reading and re-reading. It says:
"Though the renewal of social capital is urgent, we regard it as even more urgent that the industrial environment should be renewed. Unless industry flourishes the wealth for social renewal will not be created."
That is a simple truth which many people lose sight of when they are dealing with cultural and social problems. If I may dismiss that rather briefly, I do not believe—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—that progress in the cultural world depends on wealth. It depends on interest. While I lived in that area I was a member of a choir, and because of that my interests took me into Manchester, where we had an opera house, the Free Trade Hall, the theatres; where one could listen to political speeches, to great orchestras and great operas, all those places lying within a very short distance—a quarter of a mile. So do not let us say, so far as Manchester is concerned, that it is short of cultural interest. Neither is Liverpool. Your Lordships who know Liverpool will know that the same amenities are there.
The problem is not to bring people into that part of the world; the problem is to cater for them while they are there. This document surprises me when it says that 750,000 more people will be there by the normal process of procreation in the next thirteen years—that is, over the fifteen years it covers. We are not asking people to go into that part of the world; we are saying that those people should have the necessary industries to create all the cultural things that they want. I believe that they can have them. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington—my old friend Harry; dare I say it here?—showed team spirit. He

1281
has been an employer over the years and I have been a trade union official. He dealt with the development of industry. One of the most interesting aspects was when he talked about adding to the industry which is there and whether a green field site is advisable. Five years ago I should have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that it is better to expand than to have a green field site, because all my knowledge of costs told me that it was more expensive to start on a green field site than to develop. But when I was in Russia I learned one thing among others. They had a short-term outlook and a long-term outlook. They decided what they would do in ten years, but they saw the effect of it in two years' time. I think we could do worse than look round the world for examples, so far as development is concerned.
Most of us have seen what has happened in Germany. Many of us have been there and watched it happening. I have been there a number of times. The first time was in 1945, when I saw the blitzed cities and the blitzed industries. Shortly after that I visited the country, and talked with industrialists about development; and I heard their bitter denunciations of dismantling. Remembering history I said that this was a matter for congratulation and not for condemnation. I can remember taking a dismantled steel mill away from Germany and into this country as part of reparations, as part of the punishment and the law. I saw it stand on the dockside in this country until it rusted; and we gave them a new plant. This is what was being condemned, and this is the thing I want to bring out when I am talking about green field sites.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Blyton spoke of the coal industry, and certainly my sympathy is with them when they have an industry like that to deal with. But we shall not bring prosperity anywhere in this country, and particularly in the North West, on a decaying fuel industry. One of the great economic weaknesses of this country has been the cost of its fuel compared with the cost of fuel in other parts of Europe. We have supported coal, so far as possible, out of sympathy. In the steel industry I had to deal with the closing down of obsolete tinplate mills. It was a very
1282
difficult job, The mills were all situated in Wales, and all in one geographical area such as we are now discussing. I had to go and meet the men who would be made redundant and to talk to them. I had to argue not only an economic case but a human problem.
My opinion was that unless the se mills were closed rapidly, the men would be left on the scrapheap. They would not be transferred and have the benefits of the redundancy agreements that we had. Welshmen, my Lords, are pretty quick on the uptake when it comes to dealing with Welsh problems. I got agreement with them, and we had the closing down of 300 tinplate mills inside a year with hardly a complaint. We had the transfer of these men to other parts of the steel industry and to new industries which we took into that part of the country. So I have not too much sympathy with those who want to hang on to the old. I want to see the new come in, the new created. And, God knows! that is what is needed in the part of the world we are talking about to-day.
As a member of "Neddy", over the years I have had something to do with getting out plans for dealing with redundancy. These plans were not only the plans of this Government; they were put into operation by this Government. We discussed these plans on the basis of employers; of Government and of Opposition; and of universities—all the people that you could think of who would know what was going to be needed. In those days, I was not so sure that we would have a continuing high bank rate as we have to-day, because nobody can invest money in this country with a bank rate of 71 per cent. and compete with Germany with a bank rate of 51 per cent. That is one of those economic realities which has nothing to do with politics. It is a sheer fact and not a matter of opinion. So the Government decided—it is all in the documents—that there would be grants for new buildings concerned with industry and that there would be grants towards the use of old buildings—something which I am not quite sure was right because we have too many old buildings and sites continuing to exist to-day. However, the grant was there for those who wanted to use it.

1283
If people wanted to rent a building they were allowed to do so cheaply; certainly not at an economic rent. Then when the plant came along—and some plant is very expensive—there were loans for this new plant at low interest rates. It is no good having plant unless you have capital, so capital assistance was there at low interest rates. It is no good having plant and capital unless you have the workers, and so we introduced our training schemes. We demanded that industry pay for some of the training, and I think that was quite right. But where industry would not pay, the training was absolutely free and paid for by the Government. The training was not only for workers, it was also for management and for supervision.
Here was a rock on which any community could build. I wish to pay tribute to this Government, because too much has been said about the evils of the Government to-day. It is not my job to defend them in other fields, but I think it should be said that at least they put down the rock on which this industry could build itself. I do not wish to offend the Opposition, because they were in with us when we discussed these plans and they agreed with them, so that it was not one-sided. I am pleased that speakers from the Cross-Benches have taken part in this debate, and that there have been speakers from the Government Benches. But there has been a singular lack of support from the Opposition Benches regarding this great economic problem. There has been a lot of criticism about what the Government are doing and have done, but there has not been very much support when the North West asks, "What can we do to deal with this particular difficulty?"
My Lords, Germany went ahead on the green field sites and was successful. Japan was rather different. She had nothing; no indigenous resources, no skills—she had to come here to learn the skills. She had no money, but she got that from America, and she built with regard to economies of scale. In the industry which I know well, iron ore came in at one end and ships came out at the other. This was very profitable, but it would not do for the North West where you want something more flexible than that.
1284
My Lords, I want to be brief. What has the North West got? I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said that the Lake District was within this Scheme. I was hoping that I should get some verification of that, because I had my doubts. If I were going to develop the North West, I should want water, water, water—gallons of it. No industry to-day can carry on successfully without adequate supplies of water. The power of the future is, I think, bound to be nuclear power; and nuclear power is one of the thirstiest industries I know.
Perhaps here I should declare an interest, although it is only a small one. I am a member of the Electricity Council. If I were in the North West now, I should be going for cheap power. I decided yesterday that I would say this. I bought the Financial Times this morning—I am getting wealthy now and I can afford a Financial Times instead of the Sun—and I saw the headline "Break-through towards cheaper nuclear power". So the Financial Times has helped me with my speech. I also have a good friend concerned with this in the noble Lord, Lord Carron, who is on the Atomic Energy Authority. I do not know what this means, but I shall ask Lord Carron to-morrow so that I shall understand it fully, and then I may be able to help the electricity industry to develop. If those two things happen, the North West will get all the benefit. Water will come in from the North and will give the power, and the Manchester Ship Canal will take out the goods that we make with that power. It is what happens in between that we are bothered about now.
I have no interest in the steel industry now, though I lived in the steel industry for fifty years and learned something. But I am declaring no interest here. There is a new process now for making steel. Hitherto we had imported ores, of which at least 20 per cent. was waste and went on to the slag tips. Yet this 80 per cent. yield was pretty good. But we have been transporting all this waste into the country, using coal and power to melt it down and then throwing it away. The new process of pelletising, gives a 95 per cent. yield of pure iron—no sulphur, no phosphorus. My information is that a 200-ton electric furnace will compete economically with the new oxygen process. So quickly do the techniques in steelmaking move, my Lords.

1285
When we think about this area, we think about textiles, and my noble friend Lord Wright of Ashton under Lyne talked about the textile industry. It was a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, did not talk about glass because he has been very successful. Every undeveloped country in the world that wants to develop first wants a steel industry. That is the first demand they make. Yet we have two big steel plants in Lancashire and they have not been mentioned this afternoon. We have the Lancashire Steel Corporation plant, on the Manchester Ship Canal, which produces steel wire and steel for the engineering and construction industries. These tall flats will not fall down, even if a bomb is dropped on them, if they are built with steel. Then there is the English Steel Plant, making all kinds of high-quality steels, from which big profits can be made. Not all of these concerns were nationalised. I do not know why, because there is more profit in them than in some of the concerns that were nationalised. We talk about the textile industry, which is failing; but I want to talk about the steel industry, which is already there—a base on which to build up something. Italy built a special steel works in Taranto to attract industries around it. This has been very successful. It has lifted that part of Southern Italy, which was a desolate area—a slave area, if you like—into one of prosperity to-day. And though we have these two plants in Lancashire, not one mention has been made of them in all our debate.
I should like to say a lot more about this subject, my Lords, but I will close. Do not let us forget that in Lancashire we have many industries, steel and chemicals, and all those which can be fostered by electric power. That electric power can be made cheaper and cheaper, if the Financial Times is right—though I do not always agree with it. What we need is not just this Committee, although it is a good one. Sir Donald Stokes, a great friend of mine and a man who can manage big issues, is on it; and he is not the only one. The Committee is full of good men. This Committee should "get cracking" straight away and get more industries round existing centres, because people would be willing to invest in this, for the simple reason that there is money in the North West. And
1286
I cannot finish on a better note than that.
7.4 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, your Lordships will appreciate that in the last analysis it is for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to reply to the North West Economic Planning Council on their Strategy II and to take up with them the extremely interesting recommendations they have made. I understand that together with the other Ministers concerned he will be meeting the Council soon. But he has a further problem—I am glad that it is not my personal problem—in that at the moment Her Majesty's Government are awaiting the results of the deliberations of the Hunt Committee, which are due early in 1969, the results of the Maud Commission on Local Government and the result of the Edwards Committee on Air Services. All these, to a lesser or greater extent, have some bearing on the subjects which have been aired in the debate this afternoon. I am making no apologies for this plethora of commissions and committees, because I believe that this is the form of participation which this country wants. It is right that people at various levels of life should express their views through these commissions to the Government, and though it may at times tend to delay matters at least we can act in the light of a much greater and deeper knowledge of what is required than would be the case if the Government acted alone.
In this sense, the work of the North West Economic Planning Council is something which is very welcome to the Government, and I am sure that its chairman Sir William Mather and his colleagues on that Council are to be most heartily congratulated. If I do not follow up all the suggestions, it is became a debate of this kind is an open invitation to discuss almost any subject. The fact that it is a debate about a part of the country leaves it open to saying almost as much as could be said about the nation as a whole. It is for that reason that I will not follow the lead given, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, when he raised the questions of further protection for agriculture and cheese, and of selective employment tax. Nor, with respect, am I going to get

1287
involved with my noble friend Lord Blyton in a discussion of the national fuel and energy policy, which would take me too far from the real focus of this debate. I would say that a great deal of what has been said sounds to me like a cry for more and better governmental and local planning, for more authority locally and for more Government expenditure. It is interesting to note that it is often the same people who deplore the loss of freedom for the individual and for local authorities. All Governments have to face this. They get different demands according to the subject under discussion.
I could reply to the whole of the debate by saying that I have noted all that has been said and that it will be duly reported to the respective Ministers who are concerned. But that would be too peremptory, and I will run briefly through some of the comments made. Before doing so, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Wright of Ashton under Lyne on a really excellent maiden speech, based on deep experience of industry and of the area which we are discussing. With other noble Lords, I join in hoping that we shall hear many more speeches from him. I shall take up some of the points he made as I come to them. I should also like to say that I do not have many notes against the speech of my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland, but I like an enthusiast and he is certainly an enthusiast on the subject of steel. I noted his comments with great interest.
Turning first to the question of employment, the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes (I suppose I am not allowed to call him "my noble friend" now that he is sitting on the Cross-Benches) called attention to the fact that the North West was exporting one-fifth of the country's exports. This may be the result of some of the euphoria created by the adoption of a Yorkshire-man by Lancashire, but my figures for exports are 15 to 16 per cent. I do not know who is right, but I have a shrewd suspicion that I am.
It has been argued that unemployment should not be the criterion for the designation of a development area. But I think that the most crucial suffering, apart from physical pain, which can be inflicted on people is loss of employment. I think this is the major criterion, though it may well be that at the moment it is
1288
not a very satisfactory one in the North West, which is not suffering substantially from unemployment. Indeed, the figures are below the national average—2·3 per cent. as against 2·4 per cent. for the United Kingdom. I do not think I could agree with that comment. In this connection of employment, it was a surprise to me, because I confess ignorance of the North West area, to find that in that area, which I have always thought of as a textile area, the percentage of those employed in textiles is under 7 per cent. and the percentage engaged in the coal industry is under 1 per cent. This struck me as a surprising thing, and I have learned a lot by studying preparatory for this debate. And the percentage of people employed in the metal-using industries in the area is now rising to 18 per cent. In this connection, I should like to challenge my noble friend Lord Wright on his suggestion that the industries coming into the area are the unsophisticated industries. I do not want to start a debate on this subject at this time of night, but there is a great divergence of opinion between my noble friend and myself on this issue, because I believe the industries coming in, to a large extent, have been highly sophisticated.
My noble friend Lord Blyton suggested that Government policy is keeping industry which could substitute for the coal and textile industries out of this area. Again, I do not understand the figures on which he has based his argument, because if one takes, for example, South Lancashire (and I exclude the St. Helens development area) one finds that between 1961 and 1966 coal lost 7,000 jobs and textiles lost 4,000 jobs; yet total employment in the area has risen by 1,500. In North East Lancashire there has been great loss of employment to the extent of 12,000 in textiles and 1,000 in coal, but the net loss has been only 1,200. So I think that Government's policy, allied with local initiatives and the self-help to which the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, referred, has been very successful in replacing the gradually diminishing textiles and coal by other industries. It is a matter for congratulation that for the first time in the history of this country in the era since the war one has been able to see the decline of certain industries and to plan for their substitution. We may be at an early stage of doing this, but at least we

1289
have started, and here is a successful area where unemployment, which would have been rife by now, has been prevented from becoming a serious issue.
There has not been much mention of training this afternoon, and I was a little surprised. I had prepared some massive details to show how much has been done on this front, but I will not put them before the House at this late stage of the debate. However, I want to mention one matter that has not come up in the debate, and I turn to my noble friends on the Benches behind me, the noble Lords, Lord Blyton, Lord Douglass and Lord Carron, and make an appeal to them to do something about the opposition that persists to the granting of proper status in industry to Government trainees in the Manchester area. This is a terrible need. It is something that puzzles me exceedingly. I have in my day been in charge of a firm which employed a number of people in Manchester, and I found them most level-headed and sensible people. It has always struck me as most extraordinary that the manifestation of this sort of selfishness should appear in Manchester in the ranks of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers. I mention it here as being something that is extremely distressing. It will hold up training which could increase the supply of trained men in the North West area, which is badly needed. If this attitude were to spread, it would be a disaster.
I come now to the question of roads, railways, ports, transport and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, if I understood him aright, appealed for the electrification of the line not only from London to Manchester, which exists already, but from Manchester North to Glasgow. As a Scot, I welcome this suggestion, but he knows as well as I do that the Government have a pretty tight hand on the purse strings at the moment, and I do not think that British Rail will be able to go ahead with this sort of scheme in the near future.
Then we come to the South Lancashire Motorway. I had considerable difficulty in getting to grips with these motorways in the North West area, because they are so complex. But I am asked a straight question: when is a starting date going to be given for the South Lancashire Motorway? I am afraid I cannot give as definite an answer as I am sure the noble
1290
Lord is hoping for. The portion of road from Eccles to Tarbuck, which represents three-quarters of the length of the South Lancashire Motorway, is now being considered on the basis of a report from the Road Unit. No decision has yet been made, but it might start in 1970–71. It is very doubtful whether it will start before then. On the other hand, the Eccles By-Pass, which continues East from Eccles round Manchester and links up with the M62, which is now being built, will start next year. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of this, but if he is not, it will perhaps cheer him up a little.
I do not want to go into further detail on the roads, but I would comment to this extent: that in 1967 the amount of money spent on roads in the area—main trunk roads and the like—was £14 million; and in 1968 the estimate for the total year is £32 million. I do not think that this amount will necessarily be kept up but it is a very high expenditure on roads, and although the demands are great, this should make a substantial contribution.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the question of transport, can he tell us anything about the East/West Cheshire Road and the outer ring road to the City of Chester?
LORD BROWN: I am sorry, but the preparation of this debate involved me in more detail than any debate which I have attended to in this House, but it did not go so far as that road. However, I will gladly give the right reverend Pi elate the answer in a letter.
I move to the subject of air transport. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has made an examination of this matter with great care. There is a problem here. There is no doubt that British European Airways, being a very commercially oriented Corporation, are as anxious as the noble Lord to develop as frequent a service from Manchester, and even from Liverpool, as is required by the traffic, but I am informed that at the moment the services to Amsterdam, Dusseldorf, Paris and, in the summer, to Malta, Brussels, Copenhagen, Zurich, Barcelona and Palma are, largely speaking, being subsidised by B.E.A. because there are not

1291
sufficient passengers to make them a paying proposition.
What is one to do about this? Is one to say that the needs of the North West are sufficient to warrant further subsidies being paid to B.E.A. in order to stimulate a growth of traffic to enable them to become viable on their own ground, and increase Government expenditure, or is one to accept what I think is the view of the country at the moment, that Government expenditure must be curtailed, and leave it to B.E.A. to do the best they can until this traffic builds up?—because there is no doubt that it is not building up at the rate that B.E.A. themselves expected. It has to be remembered that, whatever the emotions about this matter, it is a fact that four-fifths of all the air traffic in this country originates in London. I am not saying that it originates from people who fly from Manchester to London, but from people who dwell in London. This is also true for the traffic assigned to this country; I think the same proportion lands and stays in London. I, myself, as somebody from North of the Border, have always felt that the basing of so much in London is bad; but when it comes to air transport it is at present, so far as I can see, a matter of subsidising it out of London. We shall merely have to hope that greater use is made of existing services and that the resulting pressure will not only give B.E.A. profits but will also lead to an extension of these services.
To turn now to the matter of housing (not much mention has been made of schools and hospitals), the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, claims that the North West in general has received 20 per cent. less resources than other regions have. I should like to look at those figures one day. Going through the detailed figures which I have collected in the course of preparing for this debate, I notice that under Local Employment Act grants the North West gets about 18·1 per cent. They are going to get £33 million spent on the Seaforth Dock alone at Liverpool. Investment grants in the North \Vest, generating by industrial investment there, amount to 18·4 per cent. of the national total, at £54 million. I have already quoted a figure for roads
1292
for this year—£32 million. And so on. I wondered whether the figure of being a fifth down is correct. However, I am not going to argue it out to-night. But the noble Lord has referred to the fact that in regard to certain conditions the North West is undoubtedly worse off than others, and a visit to the towns of the North West leads one to that conviction. One is very often faced with a smoky, grimy, dirty series of towns, with a quarter of the slums in the country.
Here we come to the question of the allowances which are provided by the Government for the reconditioning of old housing and for the provision of new houses. I have noted the plea that the grant for the restitution of houses should be increased. I can only put this to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing. I, myself, should be inclined to feel that this is one of the most serious problems of all, together with the provision of new houses in the North West area. When one comes to the question of new housing, I have again noted the figures. In the period 1958–60, 96,000 houses were built in the North West area; in the period 1961–63, the figure was 106,000, and in the period 1964–67, 180,000. This is a very impressive rate of growth. I am not suggesting that it is adequate for the needs of that area, which seem to me to be enormous, but at least there are signs of things getting better in that respect. If that rate of growth were to go on it would really begin to make an impression on the problem itself.
I did not altogether understand my noble friend Lord Simey in the discussion of the amenities and housing. I am with him entirely, and with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, in agreeing that when new housing estates are put up it is a foolish authority that does not regard them as a place of living, rather than as places where one gets shelter at night and food during the day. But surely this is a matter for the wisdom of the local authority and those associated with it, rather than something which should be put at the door of the Government themselves. When the noble Lord, Lord Simey, made some reference to control of these matters from London, frankly I did not understand him. That is why I rather rudely broke in. I did not like to pursue the subject.

1293
When we come to the question of cultural problems, I often think that what is missed out of the equation is the effect of the motor car to-day. This is really the enemy of the old-fashioned type of amenitiy, of a time when people lived together and shared their griefs and their pleasures, their artistic amusements and all the rest of it. I think we shall never go back, as we do nostalgically, to the sort of social life of our forefathers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Simey, referred. We are going on to something different, and I do not think we know enough about it yet.
Reference has been made in the debate to new towns. I think a record of what is happening in that connection should be made during this debate. It is not a bad record. The Minister of Housing has agreed with the North West Economic Planning Council and the local authorities regarding a five-year programme for town centre development. This involves Birkenhead, Blackburn, Bootle, Burnley, Liverpool, Rawtenstall and Salford. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is aware that St. Helens, his own home town, is at the moment the subject of a very serious study by the Ministry of Housing in connection with the proposal made to them for the redevelopment of the centre of St. Helens. I hope that a decision will he made over the next few months. As to new towns, in Skelmersdale building is now proceeding to house 50,000 people; in Runcorn there is building now to house 40,000; Warrington has been designated this year to start building, we hope soon.
As to the central Lancashire new town, this debate has disclosed opposite opinions on this matter. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn has, I think, spoken in approving terms of this new town, but others in the North West are of the opinion, "There is going to be all this money spent on a new large city. Why not spend the money, alternatively, upon making happy and prosperous places of some of the towns that are now becoming derelict?". Well, it is problems like this that are causing the Government to consider the whole matter very seriously.
There has been an Impact Study on the whole question of the impact of new towns on the surrounding towns and
1294
countryside, and the matter is now under very serious consideration. But I do not think that the Government can possibly win over this. Whichever way they move on this matter there is bound to be plenty of criticism from the other side. I think it is a question of Solomon's judgment. Then, town expansions are going on, or planned, in Winsford, Ellesmere Port and Widnes, to house people from Merseyside. So things are waking up and a great deal is being done in this area of which the area itself can be proud, and I think the Government can be proud of the part they are taking in the movement in the area.
There are just one or two final matters to which I would refer. The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, and the noble Lord. Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, both made reference to the Morecambe Bay Barrage. I think there is a little misunderstanding about this matter Lord Bowden has called attention to the need for a co-ordinating committee. But there is in existence an Economic Study Group, under the chairmanship of the Chairman of the North West Economic Planning Board, which is now looking at the benefits that could accrue, particularly to Furness, from a barrage scheme incorporating a road which would reduce the present distance from Barrow to the M.6 from 38 miles down to 20. This would bring benefits to Furness industry and also increase the leisure possibilities of the area. So I do not think the belief that insufficient study is being made of the impact of such a scheme on the amenity of the neighbourhood is justified. This Group is now sitting.
However, on the general question of co-ordinating, to which Lord Bowden drew attention, in one sense I could not agree more. I do not, however, think that setting up a co-ordinating committee of people without authority would help, but I agree that there is a basic difficulty in having four, five or six Government Departments getting together to work out a solution to a problem. I think- we are here faced, not with a pissing fault of a particular Government, but with the dereliction of a subject—the subject of organisation—by our society up till now, and its dereliction by the universities. Tell me a university to-day which is studying organisation, setting up decent definitions so that it can even be

1295
discussed, studying the form of social institutions, even taking the work of Bagehot and his study of Parliament a little further. I do not know any university, except one with which I am associated, that is making any attempt to investigate this matter.
The trouble is that Government, in a changing society, have a lot to learn, along with every other form of organisation; and until we know far more about organisation we shall be troubled with the problems of co-ordination and getting speedy and right decisions in our society in every institution. I agree with him in that sense, but I do not think that a committee to bring together six Ministries in Manchester would do much good. They would be little more than postmen. So I think he must grin and bear it until we can bring as much expertise to this as we can to other matters. We shall then be able to solve some of these problems of government and co-ordination.
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was able to speak on the subject of the arts. I shall not refer too much to the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Simey, the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chester and others, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, really dealt with this subject on my behalf. I am thankful for this, since I should have found it difficult to deal with it. I admire the noble Lord's always cogent contributions.
My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting debate. There is no question that this particular area of the country has appalling problems, which are a heritage from the Industrial Revolution, and that the work of the Planning Council is exposing them, and no doubt helping greatly in drawing the attention of the Government to them. As a result of this debate they will benefit, in one way or another, because they will get more sympathy from the Government and, perhaps, marginally more support as time goes on. I think the situation in the North West is an indictment of overemphasis on freedom from controls and on private enterprise—and God forbid that private enterprise
1296
should ever again be allowed to run riot in an area such as the North West! This means that we must give public enterprise a showing; and that is what this debate has called for—more public enterprise. I should like to congratulate the North West Economic Planning Council and their Chairman on the document they have produced.
Finally, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, not only on his appointment as Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire but on giving us the opportunity to have this interesting and valuable debate on one of the most productive and serious parts of our country.
7.34 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, this has been not only an interesting debate, but a serious debate, because those who have taken part in it are living what they have been talking about in their ordinary everyday lives. And when a serious subject such as this is spoken to by people who are articulate and knowledgeable, it means that we must think seriously about the kind of reply that it deserves.
It has been a far-ranging debate, and it would be a total impossibility for any one Minister to get "on his pins" and answer thoroughly all these aspects of North Western life that have been touched on. We thank the Minister for what he has been able to do, but we would suggest that on another occasion, on serious matters such as this—which, although they may not look so important from Whitehall, are important to us two Ministers would perhaps be able to give a more adequate answer. However, we are thankful for small mercies, and I should like to thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. It has been a serious debate, which has enabled the Report to come to life. Now, to protect myself from what could be a lurid load of paper, after moving for Papers at the beginning of the debate, I would ask permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before eight o'clock.